I'm with you on that! I used to believe the myths: too expensive, dangerous, slow, limited (peak uranium?) and leaves waste forever. Now I realise nukes are EXACTLY the opposite, and that breeder reactors BURN nuclear waste, uranium from seawater could run us for a billion years... I'm happy!

Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the problem of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*.
He says:
1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
(*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste).

@Max Green, first on the other page with JFaus, it was I who posted the Oceans algae doc not him. I was throwing you a bit 'humour' but neglected the smilie warnings. Sorry about that.

@Shadow Minister, it's off-topic but re "the libs wanting to privatize medicare? It was a complete fabrication", I'll say this. The ads were only partly fabricated and poorly done amounting to some spin/sophistry. However, a more holistic understanding and considering an accurate history of the LNP/Medicare up to the 2016 election there is much truth in what Labor the Unions and others were 'claiming'. The LNP would dump Medicare and the PBS in a heartbeat if they could get away with it.

@Shadow Minister, now I don't understand why your saying what I said was not related to you and the subject. You'll need to 'please explain'. My #1 point is that Marohasy is not credible, for multiple reasons, the main being she is simply a shrill shill - her 'evidence' does not support her claims. It's that simple to me, but one needs to recognise the whole of it and what she is up to here.
My comments here tell that story in detail. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459

An absence of evidence does equate to evidence of absence. That Marohasy both ignores and does not have sufficient 'evidence' is the core issue. 5C at Rutherglen is hand-waving and is meaningless to the truth of homogenisation practices and it's valid and worlds best practice. Marohasy lives inside an echo-chamber. That John Nicol is an 'adviser' for her ClimateLab is sufficient to cast a blackshadow over everything they believe and do there, then there are all the other 'facts' - the devil is in the details.

My credentials are found in the validity of my arguments, my supporting evidence, logic and valid insights into human behaviour & Psychology. There's nothing new under the Sun. Everyone has a piece of 'paper' somewhere stamped 'credentials.' So what? An error is an error is an error. A lie is never the truth. The Truth Is.

Hi Thomas,
I hear you! I just went back to quote him and had that "ARrrghggggh" moment and it's not even Sept 19th yet! (International Talk Like a Pirate Day). I'll apologise to him in my next post tomorrow.

Thomas,

I gave the example of Labor's mediscare campaign which given Turnbull's commitments was a complete fabrication, especially sending fraudulent texts purporting to be from medicare etc, and based on half truths such as the desire to privatise the inefficient payments system, that convinced the uneducated.

Secondly, Jennifer is not simply a shrill, having personally been involved in research, the single greatest crime is to have manipulated data to provide the desired results. To modify the raw data, there needs to be a bloody good reason especially when the results of the modification significantly alter the results. The reason that Rutherglen has been targeted is because its data has been particularly badly handled. The measuring station appears to have been moved, but maps etc from the time give little indication of from where, or any indication of what, if any differences the move would have on the temperatures measured, or any scientific basis for altering the data. If I had presented a paper with such poorly handled data to my professor, it would have found its way swiftly to the bin.

The result is that this is a serious blow to the credibility of the results and a public relations disaster for the climate cause.