[Marxism] Nuclear Energy Causes Global Warming

Les Schaffer schaffer at optonline.net
Fri Jul 23 13:17:00 MDT 2010

  On 7/23/10 2:16 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Btw, David, are you still gung-ho over nuclear power being so safe
> after the BP spill? Maybe BP's next foray will be into nuclear
> power. Can you imagine living 5 miles from a BP power plant?
> Horrors! We should be grateful that it is GE instead of the nasty BP.

Lou is a tougher guy than myself. i was graciously allowing David to 
remain as quiet as he's been during the BP leak.

But DW IS quite right to insist that nuclear power heat releases are 
local in nature and do not contribute anything like what an itsy bitsy 
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can add in terms of solar forcing.

Skorodin bases his arguments on a paper of Nordell:


in case someone actually wants to debate the science here on marxmail. 
this site debunks Nordell's primary hypothesis:


realclimate.org also has a brief discussion, but its not any more 
illuminating than previous:

(comment #5)

and a critical comment by, among others, Stephen Schneider, about whom 
Lou posted an obituary a few days ago:


which pretty much nails it if you are willing to grapple with a little 
bit of theory on radiative heat transfer through the atmosphere. it's 

To sum up, if 0.02 W / m^2 from thermal pollution
will eventually warm Earth’s surface by 1.8 K, then
anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing to date (2.4
W/m^2) will eventually warm Earth’s surface by ~200
K. Despite the thermal inertia of the oceans, etc.,
which as Nordell points out slows the warming, it
seems obvious that the small (~0.6 K) warming
observed to date rules out the author’s theory. There
are many good reasons for society to invest in
renewable energy sources–including reducing the
greenhouse effect of fossil fuel generated energy–
but worry about global mean thermal pollution is not
one of them. We hasten to add that local effects of
thermal pollution can be significant and warrant
further study.

i wonder if its time for a marxist analysis of scientific publishing 
houses, how they make their money and how they decide what to publish. 
i'd be curious to see Elsevier's peer review of the Nordell paper. 
However, i see the indy media seems to have ran with Nordell. caveat 


More information about the Marxism mailing list