Misrepresentation Of Scientific Consensus By The Leadership Of Professional Organizations « Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

The reason that these professional organizations claim there is a consensus is that the very limited individuals who make these policy statements do not permit their membership to vote, or to present alternative viewpoints. The Senators to whom this letter were addressed should reach out for a broader range of inputs with respect to the role of humans in the climate system.

The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? by William Hartston, Daily Express | Climate Realists

Please click to download PDF file to read this very good article by William Hartson.

Duke’s Rogers: Why Nuclear Power Will Probably Trump Coal - Environmental Capital - WSJ

Now, Mr. Rogers has been amping up his support for nuclear power since the summer, including a big op-ed in the WSJ. He’s often mentioned the jobs angle before, but rarely with such detail:

In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business–is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business–and we’re installing solar panels–it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.

Why would we want to maximize the number of jobs per megawatt?  If that's the goal, why not power our cities with massive farms of hand-cranked generators?