The library just purchased "The Case for Nukes", How we can beat Global Warming and create a free, open and magnificent future", by Robert Zubrin, and I'd highly recommend your reading it.
In response to Ms. Kay’s March 17th critique of my letter in the March 10th “Letters to the Editor”, she trots out the tired trope of climate denial. But I’ve never denied climate change, but just that there isn’t any existential crisis; warming has been fluctuating around a very gradual upward trend since the end of the last “Little Ice Age”. The effects have been mainly caused by a multiplicity of natural forces, with minor contributions from man-made CO2, the urban heat island effect and changes in the albedo. Her statement that “CO2 levels are dangerously high” is straight up nonsense, with not an iota of validity. In fact, the optimum atmospheric CO2 level for the plant kingdom would be about three times the 420 ppm level that it is now. More plants mean more intake of CO2 from the atmosphere and more food for herbivorous animals; more herbivorous animals mean more food for carnivorous and omnivorous animals. A win-win-win.
Let’s do some math: the CO2 level of the atmosphere has increased by 2.5ppm over many decades, and to double it to 840 (to make the plants lots happier) would take 420ppm/2.5 ppm/year = 168 years, or 16.8 decades (until the year 2192). Now, the earth’s atmosphere has been gently warming at the average rate of about 0.15C/decade as measured by satellite since the end of 1978. If we multiply the 16.8 decades times 0.15C/decade that = 2.52C rise. The contribution to the warming of CO2 (manmade CO2 and natural CO2) for the doubling is about 1.0C, per van Wijngaarden and Happer Mar 2023, in Cornell University asXiv:2302.00808, which as far as I know is the latest and best science. That means the human contribution to warming is 1.0/2.52 = 40%. But the rise will start to decrease as we nuclearize and will down to zero long before 2200.
As far as nuclear power is concerned, this harkens back to an exchange between Ms. Kay and me in the Free-Lance Star in April 2019, after a commentary I wrote entitled “To reduce carbon dioxide, you have to go nuclear”. I’m heartened that she seems to agree with me were it not for the issue of disposal of nuclear waste. The good news is that the French, the runaway leader in nuclearization of their electricity supply with 80 percent of its output nuclear, have successfully recycled 95% of their waste into new fuel, with the remainder easily handled by vitrification and deep burial. And development is ongoing to burn the waste directly for fuel in molten salt reactors by an Anglo-Canadian company, Moltex, in Canada. The two obstacles to recycling our nuclear waste are regulatory, and the fact that virgin fuel is cheaper than recycled. That will change as increasing demand around the world from Sweden, Finland, UK, Russia, China and (we hope) the United States, will drive up the price of virgin fuel and make recycling profitable.
The second paragraph is simply incoherent. 100% of scientists believe that climate change is real, but only a minority believe that it is an existential crisis that must be dealt with immediately at the expense of throwing us into economic chaos, destroying the livelihoods and lives of just about everybody. Flat earthers and implanted microchips? Huh? Science-based consequences of climate change? Fewer homeowner policies? Citations please.
As far as attacking children, I most definitely did not and do not. I didn’t attend this particular event, but I had attended one a few years ago at Ms. Kay’s recommendation, and that was enough. I am disgusted by the indoctrination of children with climate nonsense giving them fear for the future—a big part of mental illness in children these days. The teenagers doing the indoctrination don’t know what they are talking about, and no doubt are acting in good faith, but the adults who have indoctrinated the teenagers are nothing but government propagandists (paid liars), of whom we now have a surfeit in the country. We also have appalling censorship of anyone doubting the prevailing narrative, whether in climate, COVID, health, endless overseas wars, runaway inflation, an out-of-control budget; the list goes on and on. Whatever it is, we have government censors and paid liars for all of them.
Thank you for pushing back on this topic, Julie. I was discussing the changes in Virginia’s climate with my hair dresser today. Just based on what we know from our experiences - climate change is real. It absolutely needs to be addressed, and people are trying. They’re being ignored by big business and our lawmakers both.
I’ve been hearing the warnings since 6th grade. I’m aware we are now experiencing what I was warned about. It’s downright depressing more isn’t being done to save and protect us in the next 10+ years.
Migration…Food shortages… homelessness… you think those issues were bad during the start of the pandemic or even now? You haven’t seen anything yet.
For Julie Kay and Leo Watkins
The library just purchased "The Case for Nukes", How we can beat Global Warming and create a free, open and magnificent future", by Robert Zubrin, and I'd highly recommend your reading it.
In response to Ms. Kay’s March 17th critique of my letter in the March 10th “Letters to the Editor”, she trots out the tired trope of climate denial. But I’ve never denied climate change, but just that there isn’t any existential crisis; warming has been fluctuating around a very gradual upward trend since the end of the last “Little Ice Age”. The effects have been mainly caused by a multiplicity of natural forces, with minor contributions from man-made CO2, the urban heat island effect and changes in the albedo. Her statement that “CO2 levels are dangerously high” is straight up nonsense, with not an iota of validity. In fact, the optimum atmospheric CO2 level for the plant kingdom would be about three times the 420 ppm level that it is now. More plants mean more intake of CO2 from the atmosphere and more food for herbivorous animals; more herbivorous animals mean more food for carnivorous and omnivorous animals. A win-win-win.
Let’s do some math: the CO2 level of the atmosphere has increased by 2.5ppm over many decades, and to double it to 840 (to make the plants lots happier) would take 420ppm/2.5 ppm/year = 168 years, or 16.8 decades (until the year 2192). Now, the earth’s atmosphere has been gently warming at the average rate of about 0.15C/decade as measured by satellite since the end of 1978. If we multiply the 16.8 decades times 0.15C/decade that = 2.52C rise. The contribution to the warming of CO2 (manmade CO2 and natural CO2) for the doubling is about 1.0C, per van Wijngaarden and Happer Mar 2023, in Cornell University asXiv:2302.00808, which as far as I know is the latest and best science. That means the human contribution to warming is 1.0/2.52 = 40%. But the rise will start to decrease as we nuclearize and will down to zero long before 2200.
As far as nuclear power is concerned, this harkens back to an exchange between Ms. Kay and me in the Free-Lance Star in April 2019, after a commentary I wrote entitled “To reduce carbon dioxide, you have to go nuclear”. I’m heartened that she seems to agree with me were it not for the issue of disposal of nuclear waste. The good news is that the French, the runaway leader in nuclearization of their electricity supply with 80 percent of its output nuclear, have successfully recycled 95% of their waste into new fuel, with the remainder easily handled by vitrification and deep burial. And development is ongoing to burn the waste directly for fuel in molten salt reactors by an Anglo-Canadian company, Moltex, in Canada. The two obstacles to recycling our nuclear waste are regulatory, and the fact that virgin fuel is cheaper than recycled. That will change as increasing demand around the world from Sweden, Finland, UK, Russia, China and (we hope) the United States, will drive up the price of virgin fuel and make recycling profitable.
The second paragraph is simply incoherent. 100% of scientists believe that climate change is real, but only a minority believe that it is an existential crisis that must be dealt with immediately at the expense of throwing us into economic chaos, destroying the livelihoods and lives of just about everybody. Flat earthers and implanted microchips? Huh? Science-based consequences of climate change? Fewer homeowner policies? Citations please.
As far as attacking children, I most definitely did not and do not. I didn’t attend this particular event, but I had attended one a few years ago at Ms. Kay’s recommendation, and that was enough. I am disgusted by the indoctrination of children with climate nonsense giving them fear for the future—a big part of mental illness in children these days. The teenagers doing the indoctrination don’t know what they are talking about, and no doubt are acting in good faith, but the adults who have indoctrinated the teenagers are nothing but government propagandists (paid liars), of whom we now have a surfeit in the country. We also have appalling censorship of anyone doubting the prevailing narrative, whether in climate, COVID, health, endless overseas wars, runaway inflation, an out-of-control budget; the list goes on and on. Whatever it is, we have government censors and paid liars for all of them.
Bill Stewart
Thank you for pushing back on this topic, Julie. I was discussing the changes in Virginia’s climate with my hair dresser today. Just based on what we know from our experiences - climate change is real. It absolutely needs to be addressed, and people are trying. They’re being ignored by big business and our lawmakers both.
I’ve been hearing the warnings since 6th grade. I’m aware we are now experiencing what I was warned about. It’s downright depressing more isn’t being done to save and protect us in the next 10+ years.
Migration…Food shortages… homelessness… you think those issues were bad during the start of the pandemic or even now? You haven’t seen anything yet.
Thank you for wtiting, best wishes.