posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 04:10 PM
a reply to: Phage
No. I am not in favor of AGW.
you know what I meant...
If you expect me to say that that nukes are horrible and should not be considered you're mistaken. You're also mistaken in your premise that
anti-nuclear politics are the cause of warming.
The anti-nuclear movement has killed off a lot of production and possible evolution in nuclear energy around the world. They have picketed,
petitioned, rallied, vandalized, and used propaganda for over 50 years due to the lack of knowledge on the subject. That increased the amount of
fossil fuels that were needed to be burned, which if I am not mistaken is the main cause of AGW correct?
So you again have failed to answer my question. You tip toe around it, and I appreciate the response overall, but just answer it okay?
Given that CO2 is the MAIN cause of AGW due to the burning of fossil fuels, would a large increase in nuclear energy production over the last 50 years
vs burning fossil fuels have lowered the CO2 PPM?
Say increasing overall worldwide nuclear energy production over the last 50 years to 60-75% of total energy output?
Adding in solar, wind, hydro into the mix making burning fossil fuels almost non existent. That wouldn't make a difference?
edit on 25-6-2014 by Euphem because: (no reason given)