[ RadSafe ] extremism

Ruth Sponsler jk5554 at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 21 22:43:06 CDT 2007

Anne Lauvergeon is a person whom I respect.  I tried
to communicate my respect for her but obviously did
not do that very well.  I agree with Anne Lauvergeon
that carbon sequestration is an unproven technology.  

John Deutch is a former director of the U.S. CIA.  

The level of rhetoric on this list has become so
intolerable that I have about *had it.*

People are tied to a belief that the climate
scientists who are doing work relating to AGW have a
hidden anti-industrial agenda.

I repeatedly emphasized Dr. Kerry Emanuel's
endorsement of nuclear energfy in "Phaeton's Reins" in
an _attempt to disprove this notion_, at least among
the more considerate and intelligent climatologists.  

In fact, it is the Amory Lovins's and Greenpeaces of
the world who have hijacked the work of climate
scientists to promote their windmill/solar pabnel
agenda.  Al Gore is not helping because he is tying
himself to Amory Lovins' agenda.

Yet, instead of acknowledging ANY of my criticisms of
Al Gore and the "environmental movement," there is
nothing but criticism.  

It's obvious that my "ideological purity" isn't good
enough for this list because I have not endorsed
"global warming skeptic" articles that appear at sites
like http://www.junkscience.com and
http://www.larouchepub.com rather than at mainstream
science sites like http://www.noaa.gov/ . 

As a result, I'm unsubscribing from Radsafe.  

Sincerely, Ruth Sponsler


Once again, here are Dr. Kerry Emanuel's words on the
politics of climate change (mentioning nuclear

"Especially in the United States, the political debate
about global climate change became polarized along the
conservative–liberal axis some decades ago. Although
we take this for granted now, it is not entirely
obvious why the chips fell the way they did. One can
easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of
climate change in support of actions they might like
to see anyway. Conservatives have usually been strong
supporters of nuclear power, and few can be happy
about our current dependence on foreign oil. The
United States is renowned for its technological
innovation and should be at an advantage in making
money from any global sea change in energy-producing
technology: consider the prospect of selling new means
of powering vehicles and electrical generation to
China’s rapidly expanding economy. But none of this
has happened. 

Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A
meaningful reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions will
require a shift in the means of producing energy, as
well as conservation measures. But such alternatives
as nuclear and wind power are viewed with deep
ambivalence by the left. Senator Kennedy, by most
measures our most liberal senator, is strongly opposed
to a project to develop wind energy near his home in
Hyannis, and environmentalists have only just begun to
rethink their visceral opposition to nuclear power.
Had it not been for green opposition, the United
States today might derive most of its electricity from
nuclear power, as does France; thus the
environmentalists must accept a large measure of
responsibility for today’s most critical environmental

There are other obstacles to taking a sensible
approach to the climate problem. We have preciously
few representatives in Congress with a background or
interest in science, and some of them display an
active contempt for the subject. As long as we
continue to elect scientific illiterates like James
Inhofe, who believes global warming to be a hoax, we
will lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate.
Scientists are most effective when they provide sound,
impartial advice, but their reputation for
impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking
lack of political diversity among American academics,
who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops
in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well
documented intellectual homogeneity changes,
scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist
think tank. "
--- Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:

> March 21
> Ruth Sponsler wrote:
> "In addition, in a completely separate story, Anne
> Lauvergeon of 
> Electricite de France and former CIA director John
> Deutch have said that 
> the United States should act to cap emissions of
> greenhouse gases or risk 
> losing global 
> leadership. 
> ...."
>          She also appeared to scoff at Jaworowski
> for not being a 
> climatologist ("Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is not a
> climatologist.").
>          What are Deutch's credentials as a
> climatologist?
>          The above linked article (from the
> International Herald Tribune) 
> calls Deutch an "energy specialist" who is now a
> professor at MIT.  WHAT is 
> an "energy specialist" and why did the IHT
> conveniently forget to tell us 
> what Deutch is professing?
>          The article also says, "Deutch advocated an
> additional tax of 
> about $1 a gallon, or 26 cents a liter, on gasoline,
> diesel fuel and other 
> petroleum products in the United States, coupled
> with a tightening of fuel 
> economy standards for U.S. car manufacturers, to
> encourage fuel efficiency 
> and damp demand, while recognizing that such a move
> would be politically 
> difficult."
>          Note that he only wants to beat up on US
> taxpayers and US car 
> manufacturers.  What's with that?  No one else in
> the world drives cars or 
> manufactures them?
>          Furthermore, Anne Lauvergeon of Electricite
> de France did not 
> endorse capping emissions, nor did she peddle that
> nonsense about the US 
> "losing global leadership."  That was all from the
> "energy specialist."
>          Tacked on at the end of the article we read
> this:
>          "While Deutch placed great expectations on
> carbon capture and 
> sequestration technology to reduce emissions from
> coal-fired power 
> stations, notably in China, a parallel report to the
> Trilateral Commission 
> by a French energy executive, Anne Lauvergeon, cast
> doubt on that solution.
> "Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, which builds
> nuclear power stations, 
> said the capture and storage of carbon emitted
> through the burning of 
> fossil fuels was too often presented as a miracle
> solution.
> "This technology would 'not play a significant role
> in the limitation of 
> carbon emissions for half a century,' she wrote."
>          If anything, Lauvergeon is opposing
> Deutch's proposals.  (Is she 
> an extremist too, or is Deutch the extremist for
> only wanting to tax US 
> citizens and only wanting to push around US auto
> manufacturers?)
> Steven Dapra
> sjd at swcp.com

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list