It is difficult to believe that, given stories like this, there can still be people like this on the fringes refusing to accept global warming.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Author: hankkalet
Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.
View all posts by hankkalet
Hank Kalet 
Well, as one of the \”nuts\” who thinks that \”the jury is still out\” on \”global warning\”, I would point out that there is at least one citation (i.e., warming in the Middle Ages that breaks the assertion) as well as many questions about the identities and motivations of all the predictors. FMPOV it\’s interesting that \”everyone\” is urging more gooferment and more socialism. The agendas are clear. Gooferment and \”Experts\” know best. Right! Out on the inet, there is an initialism that applies — FEMA. Hint: the E is for experts.It\’s interesting that those who want to eliminate carbon are the same ones who would not allow nuclear. France gets a huge percentage of its energy that way, but we can\’t consider it. In the 70\’s, the same cadre of socialists were using \”global cooling\” as the reason for their programs. IMHO \”global climate change\” is probable more due to the wobble and naturally explained trends than man\’s use of fossil fuels. But that is just an \”opinion\”.It just seems that there is ALWAYS some crisis that takes away human freedom for some \”greater good\”.Unfortunately, it seems much easier to lose liberty than regain it. We\’re all slaves to the gooferment. If you don\’t think so, just look at your tax bills. If you can even figure it out.
This over use of \”gooferment\” is really getting old, stale and jejune, not to mention juvenile. Get a new script Mr. Goofertarian.Nuclear power is corporate socialism at its best. No private insurer will touch nuclear plants; we the tax payers foot the bill for the insurance of nuclear plants. Not to mention the nuclear waste; maybe we can stash the nuclear waste in all the libertarians back yards? Want more nuclear plants? Then be prepared to shell out our tax dollars to build them and to insure them. It\’s much like the corporate socialism for sports stadiums; taxpayer dollars are used to build them on property confiscated by eminent domain. Where is the libertarian utopia on earth, today? Not India which has socialistic imbedded in its constitution, not Hong Kong, which is not even a free democratic independent country. There is no major industrial libertarian country today.
Why would a libertarian be for nuclear power which is kept afloat by our tax dollars?Nuclear Looks Worse than Ever by Meir Carasso \”The nuclear industry, unlike, say, the automobile industry, is not a self-sufficient, commercial industry. From its inception in the late 1950s, the commercial nuclear-power enterprise in this country developed a dual personality, as it were. It is schizophrenic. It had to be, and is entirely, dependent on agencies of the federal government. The reason is that what makes a nuclear power plant \”nuclear\” is its fissionable fuel, and nuclear fuel is radioactive. Because radioactive materials are toxic, and concerns of national security, the government today has to be a party to every phase of nuclear power generation, from beginning to end. [snip]Here you meet two fatal shortcomings of the nuclear industry: No insurance company has ever agreed to insure a nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant is too risky to insure. Congress had to step in and pass a law that limits the owner\’s liability (called The Price Anderson Act of 1957. You and I, dear taxpayer, are the industry\’s insurance). And regarding competitiveness, Nuclear News, the American Nuclear Society\’s magazine of March 2005, had this to say: \”Nuclear advocates have made it clear in recent months that even if all regulatory matters were settled … the actual ordering and building of new power reactors would depend heavily at first on financial incentives to reduce the cost burden to those organizations that build the first plants.\” So much for competitiveness. [snip]The government has to certify and license the detailed design of each power plant, approve each site, supervise and certify each construction detail, certify fuel loading and initial operation, certify and monitor the power plant\’s operating procedures and personnel, and finally, the government has to reclaim the irradiated fuel when it is no longer useful for electric power production — that is, when it is considered spent.\”