Boucot, A, J., Xu, C, and Scotese, C. R., (2004). Phanerozoic climate zones and paleogeography with consideration of atmospheric CO2 levels. Paleotologicheskly Zhurnal, v2, pp 3 - 11.
Bashkirtsev, V, S. and Mashnich, G, P., (2003). Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124 - 127.
Soon, W., Baliunas, S, L, Robinson, A, B, Robinson, Z, W. (1999). Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Climate research. Vol 13, 149-164.
Hermann, A, D., Haupt, B, J., Patzkowsky, M, E Seldov, D, and Slingerland, R, L. (2004). Response of late ordovician paleooceannography to changes in sea level, continental drift and atmospheric pCO2: potential causes for long term cooling and glaciation. Paleogeog. Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol. 210: pp 385-481
Kaser , G., Hardy, D, R.,, Molg, T., Bradley, R, S., Hyera, T, M., (2004). Modern glacier retreat on kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: observations and facts. international journal of climatology, v 24, pp 329 -339.
Lyman, J., Willis, J., and Johnson, G. (2006). Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research letters 33.
Thats enough, I cant be bothered typing any more. What do you make of these, there are quite a few more on the list.
Mark
Thanks Mark,
Some of the links didn't work so let me concentrate on one of your references "Bashkirtsev, V, S. and Mashnich, G, P., (2003). Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124 - 127." http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N37/EDIT.php
It encapulates the spirit of your previous post hence it provides a good example.
What I find particularly disturbing about publications like this is that they are easily refuted.
Are students taught to recognize the weaknesses of these alternative views or are they exposed to it simply because it flies against the mainstream view?
If it's the latter then it is a sad state of affairs as it doesn't promote critical thinking and leads to the inevitable illogical conclusions and conspiracy theories that abound in debates like this.
If on the other hand the former is true it allows one to also critically analyse mainstream theory without blindly accepting or rejecting it.
Some of the links didn't work so let me concentrate on one of your references "Bashkirtsev, V, S. and Mashnich, G, P., (2003). Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124 - 127." http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N37/EDIT.php
It encapulates the spirit of your previous post hence it provides a good example.
What I find particularly disturbing about publications like this is that they are easily refuted.
Are students taught to recognize the weaknesses of these alternative views or are they exposed to it simply because it flies against the mainstream view?
If it's the latter then it is a sad state of affairs as it doesn't promote critical thinking and leads to the inevitable illogical conclusions and conspiracy theories that abound in debates like this.
If on the other hand the former is true it allows one to also critically analyse mainstream theory without blindly accepting or rejecting it.
Steven
Problem here, like you said Steven, is that you can take any dataset and make it say whatever you want. It all depends on the assumptions you have made in your models that you apply the data to. Like statistics, data can be made to say anything you like. What you have to do is to weed out any bias in your assumptions/models, apply the data and then see what the outcome is. Any conclusion can be refuted, whether it's for or against a particular proposal. That's why it is so important in science (or anything else) to teach students how to go about what you mentioned in your last sentence.
There is weakness in all views...both mainstream and alternative, and the students should both realise and understand this. Because an idea or theory is mainstream doesn't make it correct or the truth. Same applies for alternative views...they may sound great but it doesn't mean they're right.
Some of the links didn't work so let me concentrate on one of your references "Bashkirtsev, V, S. and Mashnich, G, P., (2003). Will we face global warming in the nearest future? Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 43: 124 - 127." http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N37/EDIT.php
It encapulates the spirit of your previous post hence it provides a good example.
What I find particularly disturbing about publications like this is that they are easily refuted.
Are students taught to recognize the weaknesses of these alternative views or are they exposed to it simply because it flies against the mainstream view?
If it's the latter then it is a sad state of affairs as it doesn't promote critical thinking and leads to the inevitable illogical conclusions and conspiracy theories that abound in debates like this.
If on the other hand the former is true it allows one to also critically analyse mainstream theory without blindly accepting or rejecting it.
Steven
There is no real debate on climate change as each expert (real or so-called) have an area of interest and unable to crossover to another area of science. Each seemed to have formulated opinions and blinded by those opinions that they cannot make an agreement.
I personally think politics is the main cause of this and especially when governments around the world are cutting funding to different areas of science along with other things, these group or individuals become more aggressive in their stances to retain funding by fear. Without fear there is not much chance of funding to get more research.
This does not formulate my opinion though because I do not know whether global warming is natural or man-made, but there seems to be arguments on both sides. I really DO like the idea of pursuing some of the resolution advocated by the doom and gloom campaigners where-ever possible as if the man-made condition is true then I have done my part.
There is also the part of me called the realist that says if the condition is not man-made but a part of the earth cycle then I wish to realise this to possibly brace myself and my children to the potential of what may happen and possible ways of dealing with it if really needed.
To determin the real affect it need a collaborated effort with different people from different sides can get together and provide data together to form what is really happening and choose the correct course of action. I have seen this type of organisation work well mainly in the industry I am in with a single organisation can provide real benefit to all the different opinions about the disabilty.
The other distinct advanage is more oney can be provided to this organisation to hone on results quicker and more accurately.
Is this going to happen or is fear going to drive a one sided result (which may be accurate)
Problem here, like you said Steven, is that you can take any dataset and make it say whatever you want. It all depends on the assumptions you have made in your models that you apply the data to. Like statistics, data can be made to say anything you like. What you have to do is to weed out any bias in your assumptions/models, apply the data and then see what the outcome is. Any conclusion can be refuted, whether it's for or against a particular proposal. That's why it is so important in science (or anything else) to teach students how to go about what you mentioned in your last sentence.
Carl,
My criticism is that the atmospheric physics doesn't support the idea of global warming/cooling through variations in solar output as the publication suggests.
On the question of data where does one draw the line (sorry for pun).
If statistics becomes the central point for argument, then any climate model can be summarily dismissed on those grounds.
My bias against climate deniers (blasted pun again) is the often blatant misinterpretation of data (eg. 1998 cherry picking) to support their views.
Climate scientists use 5 and 10 year moving point averages. There is nothing sinister in the statistics. It is designed to smooth out the noise caused by natural temperature variations.
I have not weighed into this debate before, but after hearing Greens Senator Christine Milne this morning on 3AW (Melbourne), People wonder why I am cynical towards some of the arguments.
She was commenting on Kevin Rudd's latest presentation at Copenhagen, and some of the statements she made were reference to Australia, and how climate change will/is affecting our country.
Three point she clearly stated:
1. The Great Barrier Reef is dying - no argument there.
2. "There are bushfires raging all over this country right now, caused by climate change" - where are all these bushfires???
3. "The World is running out of water" - my understanding is that the same amoune of water has existed on this planet for millions of years. Now all of a sudden we are "running out of water"??? What absolute bloody dribble. If this woman represents your beliefs, I would be embarrassed for you. If all these political experts who support the evidence that climate change is occuring, cannot agree on a world stage, what hope to we have?
I will now put my opinion out in the forum.
1. I believe that there is a large element of climate change occuring, but there is a portion of it which is natural and cyclic.
2. I do not believe that any form of Government ETS will be of any benefit to the population, only to make governments and businesses wealthier.
3. Wind and solar power are viable options as replacements to fossil fuels and should be given full 100 % support by all levels of government.
4. Residential home environmental and energy efficiency standards in this country are a scam. I repeat, SCAM. The standards in place pander to the Home industry groups, the Housing Industry Association and other interested parties, who have no interest in energy efficiency, only keeping all their "professional" tradepeople's pockets lined.
- Every home built in every new area should be designed with correct block orientation, overhaning EAVES calculated at the correct angle for Summer and Winter Sun, double glazing, recyclable water and minimum water tanks. NO HOUSE GETS AN OCCUPENCY OF CERTIFICATE UNLESS THESE BASIC CONDITIONS ARE MET.
My criticism is that the atmospheric physics doesn't support the idea of global warming/cooling through variations in solar output as the publication suggests.
On the question of data where does one draw the line (sorry for pun).
If statistics becomes the central point for argument, then any climate model can be summarily dismissed on those grounds.
My bias against climate deniers (blasted pun again) is the often blatant misinterpretation of data (eg. 1998 cherry picking) to support their views.
Climate scientists use 5 and 10 year moving point averages. There is nothing sinister in the statistics. It is designed to smooth out the noise caused by natural temperature variations.
Steven
I never suggested that the physics, as we understand them presently, supported solar driven change via insolation variations. What I was saying is that you have to be careful of how you interpret your data, that your modeling be rigorous and as inclusive of all the variables and data as possible. That's what students need to be taught. To be rigorous in their modeling and interpretations, and to cast critical, but unbiased, eyes over all the science (for or against).
And, when you draw the line, make sure it's not so steep you fall off
When I find myself agreeing with Peter Ward I think that I may have lost the plot.
Getting back to the 'facts' that have been stated recently on this thread.
CO2 increases could never have preceeded the end of ice ages as we were not around to burn fossil fuels. Sustained volcanoes or other sources have not been a factor for many millions of years.
To claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is ignorance most sublime!
Marki's post was the most ridiculous set of statements I have ever seen.
Here it is again
" It is not widely understood that we are living in a relatively mild stage of an iceage"
"Proxy data for temperature over geological time have been provided with clear indications that the planet has experienced temperatures of 12 degrees C above todays level for most of the last 500 million years"
" Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest they have been in 500 million years"
"Carbon dioxide makes up a mere 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere and is a minor greenhouse gas."
" Carbon dioxide has never been a driver of global temperature over 500 million years"
"When the carbon dioxide levels were 10 times higher than today the Earth was in the depths of an iceage"
"Glaciers are not in retreat around the globe and the Antartic sheet is accumulating at around 2cm per year"
"Artic ice shows no sign of any "dramatic melting" so often potrayed in the media. Satellite telemetry records a seasonal melting and refreezing with no nett loss of ice since 2002"
"The Artic ocean has been iced over several times in the last 1000 years and will continue to flucuate"
" There is firm evidence for global cooling from 2 satellite data sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) as well as the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies. These data correspond with those from radiosondes which show that warming stopped in the 1970's with ongoing cooling since 2002, despite the levels of rising carbon dioxide"
" A desisive number of scientists now reject the notion of anthropogenic global warming and paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter explains why so many people still retain misconceptions about climate change. " Most of the public statements that promote the the dangerous human warming are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering"
I could go on . This is what we teachers are being told by "real practising climate scientists" to be the case. What do you think, who should we trust for our source of truth and fact?
Mark
This is all just a load of inconsequential barely quarter truths and/or distortions I have ever seen. I give it a total fail.
If this is what any teacher thinks they are completely misinformed.
It looks like it comes straight out of the denialist cult bible.
I have googled the heading and it appears nowhere apart from here.
If anyone can point me to where this came from. Or will you fess up marki.
Or is it a joke as it is labelled " Secondary Students, Misconceptions about Climate Change"
2. "There are bushfires raging all over this country right now, caused by climate change" - where are all these bushfires???
In regards to the bush fires. Theres about 80 just around the state of NSW at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenluceskies
3. "The World is running out of water" - my understanding is that the same amoune of water has existed on this planet for millions of years. Now all of a sudden we are "running out of water"??? What absolute bloody dribble. If this woman represents your beliefs, I would be embarrassed for you. If all these political experts who support the evidence that climate change is occuring, cannot agree on a world stage, what hope to we have?
While I think the generalisation is a bit outlandish of "The World is running out of water", perhapes if she worded it, "The World is running out of clean drinking water" I can understand that. No rain = No Water running into catchments. Australia is in its worst drought in... well ever! 9 years and running. Some country towns are now buying water which is delivered in tankers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenluceskies
1. I believe that there is a large element of climate change occuring, but there is a portion of it which is natural and cyclic.
As an Agronomist I have a good understanding of climatology, hydrology and weather cycles. And I agree with some of this statment that an element of climate change is natural. However, its the accelerating rate it is changing at that is unnatural.
If you talk to any farmer or anyone who works on the land, they will tell you that the seasons are changing. Not the natural Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. But the month of which they occur. Some say, that from as recent as 15 years ago, they are now a month out to when they are ment to be. Also, certain seasons are lasting longer as well. Crop cycles are out of sync, fruit trees are confused flowering earlier, and then a freak occurance of frost will destroy their delicate flowers, thus ruining the yield because fruit wont develop from the damaged flowers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenluceskies
2. I do not believe that any form of Government ETS will be of any benefit to the population, only to make governments and businesses wealthier.
I agree. Considering our contribution of C02 to the total released into the atmosphere by the entire world is 1.4%, why are we punishing ourselves trying to reduce it in such a way? Whats sad about this is a big bushfire can single-handedly ruin our efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenluceskies
3. Wind and solar power are viable options as replacements to fossil fuels and should be given full 100 % support by all levels of government.
While this looks great on paper. The concept of totally clean energy. if you take a closer look, you'll see there are some serious issues to applying renewable energy of the such at a large scale.
The problem is the world is ran by money. An renewable energy will only be embraced fully if it can make money, and fast. At the moment. A solar panel takes 15-20 years to pay itself off in power generation. Now, western governments arnt going to spend enormous amounts of money on infrastructure that wont pay itself off for a decade and a half. All though we know its to be the right thing to do.
That being said, goverment tend not to be in power long enough to really get major construction/infrastructure projects going/completed before another political party comes into power and cancels it(in Australia at least). A good example of this is the construction of the Sydney harbour bridge and the Sydney opera house. Look into their histroy and the struggle it took to build them, and how the changes in government from labor to Lib nearly robbed us from our greatest national icons.
Especially now that a climate change sceptic is in charge of the libs.
The possible solution? At least in the short to medium term while, the renewable technology develops. Is that we should move to nuclear power . I know this is unpopular because most Australians are ignorant and dont take the time to understand the subject. The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe. France is rocking over 50 of them. Don't see them going up in a cloud of nuclear fallout aye? While expensive to setup they can provide the energy needs of the modern western lifestyle without the Co2 emissions, none at all actually. Solar panels and wind just can't generate the energy required as of yet. I mean if its a cloudy day, energy production is greatly reduced. If theres no wind, no power is produced.
What about nuclear waste I hear you say? Did you know the daily waste from a medium sized nuclear power plant is about the size of a panadol table? You could fit an entire years worth into a lunch box. The storage systems of the waste is safe. Damn near unbreakable infact.
Oh but where will we put it?? NOT IN MY BACKYARD! Am I right?
Well Australia is lucky to have lots of deserts and empty space. Surely we can find some place to build a facility.
Not to forget to mention that Australia has one of if not the richest source of yellow cake in the world. If you think about it. It really not a bad option.
Mind you, Instead of spending enormous amounts of money on renewable energy and I suppose if its to unpopular -nuclear power. I think we should invest in Hydrogen fuel cell technology. Now thats exciting.
A) Because Hydrogen as all astronomers here probably already know, is the most abundant element in the universe. Awesome we have a energy source. The only waste from the hydrogen fuel cell process is water.
B) Inregards to cars we can substitute petrol with H.To use it we wont even have to change our lifestyles(of course we have to buy new cars). Think about it, our lives and cities are build around the car. We can go from destination A to B. A car is freedom. With hundreds of millions of cars around the world, life can stay releatively the same. Imagine the green house gas reduction if they no longer burned hydro carbons. All green house targets met. Everyone wins. Unless your an oil company.
I hope its the way we go. I dont want to have to build a wind turbine on the roof on my house because we dont have enough room to generate enough electricity, obstructing my view of the night sky.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells...waste from the cell = water vapour.
Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and far more efficient at trapping IR energy than CO2. Start releasing vast amounts of it into the atmosphere and your problems will magnify beyond all proportion.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells. But within a closed cycle system.
Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Lester R. Brown
This book is available as a free download.
It talks about food shortages due to climate change and ways to reduce the effects of climate change. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4 “In this impressively researched manifesto for change, Brown bluntly sets out the challenges and offers an achievable road map for solving the climate change crisis.” —The Guardian
The possible solution? At least in the short to medium term while, the renewable technology develops. Is that we should move to nuclear power . I know this is unpopular because most Australians are ignorant and dont take the time to understand the subject. The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe.
No!! Nuclear power is unpopular with most Australians because its a stupid idea. Becuase they know we would be trying to fix one great big mess with another great big mess. This statment is always made "The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe" (there were people such as yourself saying the same about Chernobal) and its absurd because you cant guarantee the safty of them no more then you could guarantee that a aroplane will never go down. There are always accidents only the scale of this accident is herendus. And what about when they're not accidents. When someone with a poltical agenda decides on sabotage. Thank God most australians are not as smart as you
No!! Nuclear power is unpopular with most Australians because its a stupid idea. Becuase they know we would be trying to fix one great big mess with another great big mess. This statment is always made "The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe" (there were people such as yourself saying the same about Chernobal) and its absurd because you cant guarantee the safty of them no more then you could guarantee that a aroplane will never go down. There are always accidents only the scale of this accident is herendus. And what about when they're not accidents. When someone with a poltical agenda decides on sabotage. Thank God most australians are not as smart as you
Pointing out chernobyl. What a surprise. You would think from such a comment that humans dont learn from their mistakes and improve on themselves.
Its this approach and some what backward thinking thats going to disadvantage Australia. Especially in reducing CO2 and reaching targets. Suppose if you had it your way their would be no nuclear reactors at all, ever? Like Lucas Heights perhapes?
I dont mind opposition to it. I expected it. Its a touchy subject. Judging by your hostilities I have touched a nerve too?
All I'm saying, the people of Australia should go and do the research. Everyone has the internet now, they can all go and find out for themselves, instead of eating what politicians of different agenda feed them.
(there were people such as yourself saying the same about Chernobal)
Actually, Claude, everyone in the know, knew that the design for the Chernobyl power plant's reactors was faulty right from the start. Even the designers of the plant knew it...it was purely a political decision which saw them built in the first place, despite what the engineers advised.
Those 4th generation powerplants are safe...a lot safer than the older style of plants and far safer than coal fired plants. They can't melt down because they're designed not to...the reactor vessels can't get hot enough to melt the uranium in the fuel rods, plus the fuel rods are designed not overheat (due to the design of the fuel pellets). If no one could guarantee the safety of anything just because of its design or what it used, you'd never be driving around in cars. You wouldn't even get out of bed in the morning.
Bet you didn't know that a lot of coal mines are actually loaded with radon gas...yes, radioactive gas. It seeps into the coal seams from the granites which invariably intrude into many of the coal basins. It gets trapped less porous layers of the sedimentary rocks and stays there until it's disturbed. Then you have the effects of all the other gases that seep from coal mines. And the effects of coal dust and silicate particles being breathed into people's lungs. Plus the results of burning the stuff.
Personally, I'd rather see a viable form of power generation via fusion come online as soon as possible, but until then, I'd rather take a chance on nuclear (fission) energy. Being backed up by your usual suspects (wind, solar etc).
In regards to the bush fires. Theres about 80 just around the state of NSW at the moment.
While I think the generalisation is a bit outlandish of "The World is running out of water", perhapes if she worded it, "The World is running out of clean drinking water" I can understand that. No rain = No Water running into catchments. Australia is in its worst drought in... well ever! 9 years and running. Some country towns are now buying water which is delivered in tankers.
As an Agronomist I have a good understanding of climatology, hydrology and weather cycles. And I agree with some of this statment that an element of climate change is natural. However, its the accelerating rate it is changing at that is unnatural.
If you talk to any farmer or anyone who works on the land, they will tell you that the seasons are changing. Not the natural Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. But the month of which they occur. Some say, that from as recent as 15 years ago, they are now a month out to when they are ment to be. Also, certain seasons are lasting longer as well. Crop cycles are out of sync, fruit trees are confused flowering earlier, and then a freak occurance of frost will destroy their delicate flowers, thus ruining the yield because fruit wont develop from the damaged flowers.
I agree. Considering our contribution of C02 to the total released into the atmosphere by the entire world is 1.4%, why are we punishing ourselves trying to reduce it in such a way? Whats sad about this is a big bushfire can single-handedly ruin our efforts.
While this looks great on paper. The concept of totally clean energy. if you take a closer look, you'll see there are some serious issues to applying renewable energy of the such at a large scale.
The problem is the world is ran by money. An renewable energy will only be embraced fully if it can make money, and fast. At the moment. A solar panel takes 15-20 years to pay itself off in power generation. Now, western governments arnt going to spend enormous amounts of money on infrastructure that wont pay itself off for a decade and a half. All though we know its to be the right thing to do.
That being said, goverment tend not to be in power long enough to really get major construction/infrastructure projects going/completed before another political party comes into power and cancels it(in Australia at least). A good example of this is the construction of the Sydney harbour bridge and the Sydney opera house. Look into their histroy and the struggle it took to build them, and how the changes in government from labor to Lib nearly robbed us from our greatest national icons.
Especially now that a climate change sceptic is in charge of the libs.
The possible solution? At least in the short to medium term while, the renewable technology develops. Is that we should move to nuclear power . I know this is unpopular because most Australians are ignorant and dont take the time to understand the subject. The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe. France is rocking over 50 of them. Don't see them going up in a cloud of nuclear fallout aye? While expensive to setup they can provide the energy needs of the modern western lifestyle without the Co2 emissions, none at all actually. Solar panels and wind just can't generate the energy required as of yet. I mean if its a cloudy day, energy production is greatly reduced. If theres no wind, no power is produced.
What about nuclear waste I hear you say? Did you know the daily waste from a medium sized nuclear power plant is about the size of a panadol table? You could fit an entire years worth into a lunch box. The storage systems of the waste is safe. Damn near unbreakable infact.
Oh but where will we put it?? NOT IN MY BACKYARD! Am I right?
Well Australia is lucky to have lots of deserts and empty space. Surely we can find some place to build a facility.
Not to forget to mention that Australia has one of if not the richest source of yellow cake in the world. If you think about it. It really not a bad option.
Mind you, Instead of spending enormous amounts of money on renewable energy and I suppose if its to unpopular -nuclear power. I think we should invest in Hydrogen fuel cell technology. Now thats exciting.
A) Because Hydrogen as all astronomers here probably already know, is the most abundant element in the universe. Awesome we have a energy source. The only waste from the hydrogen fuel cell process is water.
B) Inregards to cars we can substitute petrol with H.To use it we wont even have to change our lifestyles(of course we have to buy new cars). Think about it, our lives and cities are build around the car. We can go from destination A to B. A car is freedom. With hundreds of millions of cars around the world, life can stay releatively the same. Imagine the green house gas reduction if they no longer burned hydro carbons. All green house targets met. Everyone wins. Unless your an oil company.
I hope its the way we go. I dont want to have to build a wind turbine on the roof on my house because we dont have enough room to generate enough electricity, obstructing my view of the night sky.
Adrian, I appreciate your replies on my post.
1. Bushfires. It's bloody Summer, isn't it??? We've been having bushfires in.. Summer as long as I can remember, and I hazard a guess that bushfires generally hvae been occurring in Summer for millions of years. All of a sudden they are caused by climate change!
2. Regarding her comment "The world is running out of water" - perhaps a generalisation yes, but more a result of a politician reading from a party line, and not thinking for herself as to actually what she was saying. And I'll guess that most listeners to her interview weren't even absorbing the content of her statements.
There are obviously better experts on this forum than humble people like myself who do not proclaim to be either a climatologist, agronomist, or any expert in this field who can cite dozens of books and reference publications, so I'll leave this topic to the IIS climat experts.
. I know this is unpopular because most Australians are ignorant and dont take the time to understand the subject. The generation IV Nuclear powerplants are very safe. France is rocking over 50 of them. Don't see them going up in a cloud of nuclear fallout aye? While expensive to setup they can provide the energy needs of the modern western lifestyle without the Co2 emissions, none at all actually. Solar panels and wind just can't generate the energy required as of yet. I mean if its a cloudy day, energy production is greatly reduced. If theres no wind, no power is produced. 
We've been having bushfires in.. Summer as long as I can remember, and I hazard a guess that bushfires generally hvae been occurring in Summer for millions of years. All of a sudden they are caused by climate change!
