UP to now we’ve only discussed ClimateGate in connection with the bizarre claims made by creationists, to the effect that all of science has been proven corrupt, therefore creationism is true. But creationists are too predictable. It’s time to see how a mainstream science publication is dealing with the email imbroglio.
We’re mostly interested in the politics of global warming, and therefore we’ve never expressed any firm opinion on the science. We’ll continue with that approach, and let you reach your own conclusions about an article in Scientific American titled Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense.
Rennie starts his list of seven points by saying: “What follows is only a partial list of the contrarians’ bad arguments and some brief rebuttals of them.”
We’ll skip over Rennie’s first six points. They’re all interesting, and well worth reading, but you can judge them for yourself. Let’s get right to his last point, headlined: Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don’t produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint.
Note, dear reader, how Rennie frames the issue. It’s written in terms of “inventing energy sources that don’t produce CO2.” Not surprisingly, he concludes that this is unrealistic. Fair enough, however …
Perhaps you noticed, as we did, that Rennie ignores the option of deploying currently known and well-understood energy sources that don’t produce CO2. Is there such a technology? Hint: nuclear energy.
France uses it to produce almost all their electric power needs. See: Nuclear power in France. Were we to do the same, not only would there be an immediate reduction of CO2 emissions (we understand that over 70% of US electric power generation uses oil, natural gas, or coal), but there would also be a reduction in the money we send each year to oil-producing countries overseas.
But surely, you object, Rennie must be aware of this option.
Is he? Perhaps so. But he doesn’t mention it in his article.
We don’t know why Rennie left out nuclear power generation. To us it seems an obvious topic for discussion in an article such as his. We have some thoughts about the omission, but we don’t want to leap to any conclusions. There’s been more than enough of that already.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.