...We live in a world driven by ideology …is that alas?

What a silly and pointless article.

Thorium is more abundant and less expensive?
I mean, we have enough to power the world for 700 years.
Even less expensive again and endlessly sustainable, is biogas, made from currently wasted waste.
We pump ours out to sea, as millions of annual tons, were it does nothing but harm to the marine environment!
I mean, every nuclear family produces enough waste, to permanently power their homes 24/7.
Including food scraps in the smell free digester process, will create a salable energy surplus. A bonus, is endless free hot water.
And changing the methane powered combustion engine, [20-40% energy coefficient,] for super silent ceramic fuel cells, with an energy coefficient of 80%, will at the very least double the energy output.
And still provide endless free hot water!
There'd be far fewer problems for the Ukraine, if we could just get it and Europe, operating on poo power!
As for coal, well we can still use as much we want, for power and steel making, if only we would grow enough companion algae, to more than offset any emission.
Luckily, some algae are up to 60% oil and the most usable, produce naturally occurring diesel and jet fuel. And, under optimized conditions, they'll double their growth and oil production capacity, every 24 hours
So, it's not a cost burden, but an additional source of revenue!
The waste from this oil extraction, may be useful as animal fodder, or material eminently suitable for food free ethanol production.
A third source of revenue! The sludge from this third process, fine fertilizer.
A forth source of additional revenue!
Traditional nuclear power stations cost 2.5 times more to build, than coal fired ones!
And nuclear doesn't produce any usable Co2 emission, that can with a modest additional outlay, force feed oil producing algae farms as well!
There is always an element of advantage in every seeming disadvantage, but you will never ever see it, with tunnel vision, or with the ideological blinkers on.
So where's the war!?
What is wrong with you people!? Don't you like money!?
Rhrosty.

Mr Harris presents us with the view that concern over carbon emissions are confusing and unfounded. They may be – to him and others. When used in the context of atmospheric emissions, carbon refers to greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 both of which result from the production and combustion of coal. Coal production and combustion are increasing with the result that average global temperature is rising and producing a more extreme climate.

The science on how these gases absorb and re-radiate infra-red light causing a rise in temperature has been well understood for over a century - though clearly not to Mr Harris.

Agnostic would you please point to somewhere, other than in a computer, that the temperature has increased. Some nice uncorrected data will do, rather than the model projections that saw the ship of fools locked in the ice that didn't exist.

If you look at the satellite data, the only data not corrupted by "corrections" we see the average temperature has in fact reduced in the last 17 years. That is getting pretty close to the length of time the scam of global warming is based on.

How long will it take for academia to get off the gravy train, & repair the rails.

Thank you Tom, for a timely article.
There has been no global warming for 19 years. The assertion that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases global temperature is proven by observation to be false, and targeting human emissions baseless.

Obama is backing a fraudulent assertion, made without any scientific basis, so he has no alternative but to lie. Referring to carbon as “pollution” is particularly disgraceful, but a fraud-promoter cannot be expected to trouble himself with niceties.

It will be interesting to see how long the remnants of the AGW fraud will be promoted by the fraud backers before it expires completely