Why is nuclear energy being rejected for our power generation?

On and on it goes. It's a total waste of time discussing the huge con of CO2-caused climate change anymore. People have proved, generation after generation, that they are suckers for any old scare mongering dreamed up by really bad people. The criminals who started the climate change/electricity rip-off/wealth transer racket should have been in jail long ago, along with the politicians who let them get away with it. It hasn't happened. It will not happen; and the crooks are probably already working on the next stunt for idiots to fall for.

We had a laptop break down at the beginning of the Century.
Acid rain destroying forests was a major problemin the past , dealt with.
CFCs causing the hole in the ozone layer was identified and almost all countries dealt with it; except, China is still using CFCs in some factories.

CO2 does not know boundaries, so emissions from Australian coal in Asia will come back and bite.
Think about wet micro bursts .. rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago, and did not have the longevity of the ones being experienced on weekly basis around Earth now. Nothing ideological about that.
Think about dry lightning.

We require greenhouse gases to survive, otherwise the Earth would be virtually uninhabital due to the extreme cold.

It is science that informs people about climate change, not the Green lobby. If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, then you do not believe in Physics or Chemistry.

If taking into account natural forces, we would now be well on the way to an ice age.
A short film about ice cores, it shows how science is misrepresented by deniers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ...

Dan Britt, a Geologist, discuses Milankovitch cycles, and very clearly states we should be going into an ice age. Professor Britt very clearly states that anthropogenic climate change has turned around the ice age to a warming of Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

Sophistry does not make any dent in science. Many science disciplines uphold the science of climate change. The science of climate change has been in existence since Fourier back in the 1820s. Denial of the climate has been about for about three decades when it was realised the profits of major corporations would be damaged.

An analogy, might be to completely fill a bath, then turn the tap right down to a drip and leave it.

What we are meant to believe is that the carbon created over millions of years has no impact on Earth when released in a couple of centuries. Burning the carbon creates CO2, the mining produces methane. There is nothing ideological about that.

ttbn, you say"

"The criminals who started the climate change/electricity rip- ........"

So criminal action began in the 1820s with Fourier. Or, in the 1850s onward through Foote and Tyndall experimenting with CO2. They must have been very pleased to have used the electricity you speak of!!

Extraordinarily asinine, risible rubbish of the first water! And an incredibly long bow!

Moreover, far less substantial or coherent than YK2! And a continual habitual predilection for this addled brain Author!? Who seems to own his own facts!?

As you were flying to London Brendon, did you perchance happen to note, the world, seen from altitude, is visibly round!?

You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

@ant, Friday, 22 February 2019 9:54:21.

"...wet micro bursts .. rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago, and did not have the longevity of the ones being experienced on weekly basis around Earth now."

Look ant, you seem like a reasonable person, so why is it that you come out with the most silly statements like the one I've just quoted from you above?

Ant, every thunderstorm cell creates a microburst as they start dumping rain. Are you suggesting that thunderstorms were very rare events 50 years ago? Surely you can't be that naive. Or gullible. What have you been reading? It seems that you don't understand much about meteorology.

All aviators, pilots, have been well versed and trained about the dangers of flying close to thunderstorms because of microbursts for well over 50 years. They're part of basic aviation knowledge taught to all student pilots. They're very scary things if you are caught out trying to land an aircraft near one - usually about a radius of 5 miles, lasting for about 15 minutes, but can be greater. I know because I got caught out myself once. It was a very exciting few seconds but the story had a happy landing.

Microbursts are very serious and dangerous things for aircraft, especially for large heavy aircraft. Over those 50 years you're talking about there have been numerous large airliner crashes including fatalities. The physics are very interesting to talk about, but I'm going into it here.

Ant the point is this, microbursts are nothing new, their frequency is not increasing nor their intensity. This modern climate warrior jargon of "rain bomb" is very scary but something created for that purpose. In the olden days where I come from, the colloquial expression back then was "cloudburst" and they were just as common then as they are now. Ant I would respectfully suggest that you should be a bit more discretionary about evaluating alarmist claims of meteorological phenomenon. Don't believe everything you read. Objectively evaluate carefully.