I am a member of the Colorado Nuclear Alliance. We advocate for nuclear power as firm, reliable clean energy. Currently, the policy of the State is to close all of our coal and natural gas generators and use 100% "renewable" energy (i.e. wind, solar, and batteries) to achieve our clean energy goals. We constantly run into opposition from the Sierra Club when we testify before the legislature advocating bills to include nuclear energy as a clean energy resource for the State. The Sierra Club has also captured the Public Utilities Commission to the extent that our three PUC Commissioners, who are appointed by our Democratic governor, are all anti-nuclear, "renewable" energy advocates. We have to work with Republican legislators to advance any legislation, although we have succeeded in changing the minds of enough Democratic legislators to get a pro-nuclear bill passed and signed by the governor in the 2025 legislative session. The anti-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel stance of Front Range Democrats has alienated mostly rural "energy communities" who will be negatively impacted economically by the closure of fossil fuel plants and oil and gas exploration and production in the State. I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a geologist who worked in the oil and gas business for decades. I am very disappointed with the stance of many of my fellow Democrats on energy and climate issues. I understand that CO2 emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Age have caused the planet to warm, but the warming that we are experiencing is not an apocalypse. Combating it will require a rational, science-based transition to clean energy that will take decades to accomplish.
As a geologist (as am I) you should know that, as the planet warms by any and all means, so too does the ocean. The warming oceans, which occupy >70% of the earth's surface, loose the ability to hold CO2 in suspension, and begin to degas, thus increasing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that the planet has been warming for quite some time because the last time the Thames river got even close to freezing was in 1895 where previously, it froze solid about every 3 of 5 years for the preceding 250 years.
What's your point? Are you attributing the apparent warming in the late 19th century to human activity? Maybe the cause of the Thames freezing periodically for 250 years prior to the late 19th century was a natural cold period called the Little Ice Age and the warming that happened in the latter half of the 19th century was natural and not anthropogenic. As a geologist you should know that there have been warm periods and cold periods throughout Earth's history.
The Thames froze a lot less frequently than that, perhaps 25 times in the 200 years up to 1814, with the mini ice age explaining most. New bridges which allowed more water flow probably affected the ability to ice up. More impact is from industrial activity leading to warmer water entering the river.
Yes, well described. I've been a liberal, I most often use the term center left, and for 20 years have watched the liberal media and my fellow liberals confuse global warming with climate crisis. Much worse, they have elevated it to a required orthodoxy and tried to demonize and shame anyone not on board. The orthodoxy and its elites, in addition to promoting catastrophism that has little scientific support, has antagonized not just the poor and middle class, as you describe, but also hundreds of thousands who are science literate and do not take kindly to being demonized and called science deniers. I watched Trump get elected in 2016 and 2024, partly because "my" misguided liberals have ignored so many "working class" issues and insulted so many who are well informed about climate science and realistic energy policy. Sad. Far more than sad, because Trump is so corrosive to our constitution, traditions, and experiment in democracy.
I am a member of the Colorado Nuclear Alliance. We advocate for nuclear power as firm, reliable clean energy. Currently, the policy of the State is to close all of our coal and natural gas generators and use 100% "renewable" energy (i.e. wind, solar, and batteries) to achieve our clean energy goals. We constantly run into opposition from the Sierra Club when we testify before the legislature advocating bills to include nuclear energy as a clean energy resource for the State. The Sierra Club has also captured the Public Utilities Commission to the extent that our three PUC Commissioners, who are appointed by our Democratic governor, are all anti-nuclear, "renewable" energy advocates. We have to work with Republican legislators to advance any legislation, although we have succeeded in changing the minds of enough Democratic legislators to get a pro-nuclear bill passed and signed by the governor in the 2025 legislative session. The anti-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel stance of Front Range Democrats has alienated mostly rural "energy communities" who will be negatively impacted economically by the closure of fossil fuel plants and oil and gas exploration and production in the State. I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a geologist who worked in the oil and gas business for decades. I am very disappointed with the stance of many of my fellow Democrats on energy and climate issues. I understand that CO2 emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Age have caused the planet to warm, but the warming that we are experiencing is not an apocalypse. Combating it will require a rational, science-based transition to clean energy that will take decades to accomplish.
As a geologist (as am I) you should know that, as the planet warms by any and all means, so too does the ocean. The warming oceans, which occupy >70% of the earth's surface, loose the ability to hold CO2 in suspension, and begin to degas, thus increasing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that the planet has been warming for quite some time because the last time the Thames river got even close to freezing was in 1895 where previously, it froze solid about every 3 of 5 years for the preceding 250 years.
What's your point? Are you attributing the apparent warming in the late 19th century to human activity? Maybe the cause of the Thames freezing periodically for 250 years prior to the late 19th century was a natural cold period called the Little Ice Age and the warming that happened in the latter half of the 19th century was natural and not anthropogenic. As a geologist you should know that there have been warm periods and cold periods throughout Earth's history.
The Thames froze a lot less frequently than that, perhaps 25 times in the 200 years up to 1814, with the mini ice age explaining most. New bridges which allowed more water flow probably affected the ability to ice up. More impact is from industrial activity leading to warmer water entering the river.
Yes, well described. I've been a liberal, I most often use the term center left, and for 20 years have watched the liberal media and my fellow liberals confuse global warming with climate crisis. Much worse, they have elevated it to a required orthodoxy and tried to demonize and shame anyone not on board. The orthodoxy and its elites, in addition to promoting catastrophism that has little scientific support, has antagonized not just the poor and middle class, as you describe, but also hundreds of thousands who are science literate and do not take kindly to being demonized and called science deniers. I watched Trump get elected in 2016 and 2024, partly because "my" misguided liberals have ignored so many "working class" issues and insulted so many who are well informed about climate science and realistic energy policy. Sad. Far more than sad, because Trump is so corrosive to our constitution, traditions, and experiment in democracy.