lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (04/08/88)
In article <799@spdcc.COM} eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: }In article <4365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU} lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: } not as idiotic as the arguments that nuclear or solar are either } great or terrible with regards to thermal and CO2 issues. Huh? Do you seriously suggest that either nuclear or solar power have significant effects upon the atmospheric CO2 concentration? As for thermal, you know my attitude on that. }}Out future power needs for the foreseeable future will never be enough }}that the waste heast caused by power production will have significant }}global effects. }}As one of the people posting on this issue has stated, the greenhouse }}effect is only a theory. Well, so are special relativity and }}evolution. The greenhouse effect is not as well established as either }}of these theories, but it is very well established. The only real }}question is magnitude - will an x% increase in the CO2 content of the }}atmospher cause a 5 or 10 degree increase in average global }}temperature? } your tone seems to indicate that } you believe you are the last word on subjects which are in dispute } within the scientific community. To the best of my knowlege there is no significant dispute over this subject within the scientific community. }}Seems to me that nuclear is the best choice. } what is the point in trying to contort the thermal & greenhouse } effect arguments into an argument for or against nuclear energy? Unless my posting was totally garbled by net-news, it included a table showing the effects of various forms of power on the earth. If you want to argue with my conclusion you will have to repost the parts of the table that you disagree with and explain why you disagree. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!