{"id":14965,"date":"2015-12-17T17:48:49","date_gmt":"2015-12-17T17:48:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/?p=14965"},"modified":"2015-12-21T10:52:33","modified_gmt":"2015-12-21T10:52:33","slug":"the-denier-boomerang","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/?p=14965","title":{"rendered":"The Denier Boomerang"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, many cheered a landmark global agreement<\/a>\u00a0that promises to tackle global warming. Some prominent greens dissented<\/a>,\u00a0but experts are cautiously optimistic<\/a>\u00a0and clear-eyed<\/a> about the difficult challenges ahead.<\/p>\n

Now that much of the world is officially united on the need to reduce greenhouse gases, one of the biggest fights going forward will be about what source of energy to use in place of\u00a0fossil fuels. The battle lines are already being drawn. Earlier this month, four highly respected climate scientists declared<\/a> in the Guardian<\/em> that nuclear power had to play an important role. They wrote:<\/p>\n

The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions \u2013 not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This week an influential science scholar, Naomi Oreskes, unleashed a\u00a0rhetorical\u00a0missile aimed straight at the four climate scientists, calling<\/a> their pro-nuclear argument\u00a0“a new form of climate denialism.”<\/p>\n

Buy Valium Online Without Prescription Reaction in the climate\/energy\/environment sphere was swift and palpable.<\/p>\n

https://disneycruisinggroup.com/releases/