brent wrote:
> On Nov 20, 10:54 pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>> On Nov 20, 9:35 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>>> have backfired.
>>> I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
>>> believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
>>> screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. It is the
>>> only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
>>> And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
>>> convert to nuclear - NOW.
>>> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
>>> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
>>> warming thing is a fraud.
>> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
>> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>>
>> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>> worry about energy again.
>> --
>> Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
>> Digital Signal Labs % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
>> mailto://ya...@ieee.org % http://www.digitalsignallabs.com% 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
>
> Nuclear may not be a long term viable solution. However, Solar,
> ethanol, and wind are no solution - either short term or long term.
> So, if the planet is going to self destruct

It's not the planet that's at stake! _We_ are "the lords of the last days".


>if something drastic is
> not done - use the best stop gap method - nuclear.
> (I am not really advocating this myself - but it is the most logical
> conclusion for a person who thinks we are truly on the brink to come
> to)
>
> And yet, not a peep about nuclear from any of the global warming
> folks. .. Not a peep.