The global warming faithful are always quick with the talking points about a “scientific consensus” that doesn’t exist, and the tale that 97% of scientists say man is causing the planet to overheat. But we’ll never hear them discuss publicly how researchers who don’t agree with the narrative have been blacklisted.
What are they afraid of?
Of course the climate alarmists will never admit such a list even exists. But Roger Pielke Jr., who teaches science, environment, and technology policy at the University of Colorado, says it does.
“A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,’” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.”
Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming.
Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented … are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist.
The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to” the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said.
Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate.”
But there’s no blacklist – nothing to see here, so let’s move on … to Pielke’s father, Roger Pielke Sr. The atmospheric scientist “is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.” The younger Pielke says some statements from the Skeptical Science site that had been obtained through hacking included: “We are HUNTING Pielke,” “We are trying to bring him down,” and “My vote is to take the bastard down!”
What has happened to Curry and Pielke Sr. are not isolated incidents:
- “Authors of a study published recently in the journal Nature Communications want editors and journalists to blacklist “climate change contrarians,” says Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“The contrarian list includes politicians (Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), former Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas)), hosts of popular blogs (Mark Marano, Anthony Watts), journalists (Mark Steyn, James Delingpole), and best-selling authors (Matt Ridley, Chris Horner).”
- Hungarian atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi left his position at NASA in 2005 when the space agency “refused to publish work contradicting” the narrative that human carbon dioxide emissions are warming Earth, according to Accuracy in Media.
- “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd said a little more than a year ago that his show was no longer going to “give time to climate deniers.”
- In 2015, the Capital Research Center published an article exposing how leftist politicians and the media were trying “to blacklist scientists who are skeptical about global warming.”
- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation host Rex Murphy discussed “attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the global warming cause” in 2009.
- Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation wrote in 2010 about researcher Michael Mann’s attempts “to subvert the scientific peer-review process and blacklist critics from key academic journals.”
There must be something to these claims. Researchers who aren’t fully committed to the man-caused-warming claim have complained that research grants for their work is drying up. This is because, as Henry Payne wrote in National Review, “the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations,” and it is directed “only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda.”
Missing out on research grants is one thing. Being tossed in prison takes everything to a higher level, which is what Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has proposed for those who don’t think like him. He suggested a few years ago that members of “the climate denial network” should be prosecuted under the mafia-busting law enacted by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Meanwhile, says economist Steve Moore, “a lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” A Government Accountability Office report backs him up.
“Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009,” says the GAO.
The system is clearly rigged. But the public is not supposed to know this. Only by keeping voters in the dark can the charade continue.
— Written by J. Frank Bullitt
Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide.
Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right.
Tony Heller documents this on his YouTube videos.
“Climate realists are blacklisted” you may as well ask “is the pope a Catholic”
Oh sorry that does not appear sensible now with this present leader of the global warming religion. I can say that as a practising Catholic and global warming realist
Btw the name mentioned above is Marc Morano.
Thank you for good article.
“97% of Climate Scientists” do Not Agree… at all
Where did this 97 percent figure come from?
Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles:
Here is What Was Actually Stated:
May 15, 2013
“the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11, 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.
We find that
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,
32.6% endorsed AGW,
0.7% rejected AGW
and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW,
97.1% (of the 32.6%) endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Of the 32.6% of abstracts which DID express some opinion on AGW, 97.1% (of the 32.6%) endorsed the “consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.
In other words, 97% of the 32.6% of abstracts which mentioned AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
That is NOT 97% in total, it is 97% of one-third of the total.
BTW Isn’t “Consensus Science” special?
Although “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific term Climate Changing Global Whatever’s validation by a “Scientific Consensus” means that a cure for cancer is only a vote of 51 to 49 away from happening.
None of that babble can deny what is happening to the Climate.
That reply is not about what is happening to the climate.
The reply is about a statistical study, and the the honesty and validity of the way it’s results have been portrayed by alarmists and the corporate and government media.
Indeed most of the objections to the alarmist position are not about what is happening with the climate, but are objections to a conjecture, a theory, which postulates that CO2 is the driver of global warming and that CO2 will cause a future catastrophe.
What is happening with the climate does not need CO2 as an explanation, Occam’s Razor therefore applies.
There is no direct real-world evidence to support the alarmists theory, but there are many solid refutations.
Please read the IPCC summary and see the simple graphs of conditions, and make up your own mind.
If you do not, you are speaking without knowledge.
George, the IPCC also states that in order to make any of the carbon reduction targets nuclear power generation has got to increase. What does the average environmentalist feel about that ? (not that you are one)
Chris, thank you for the reply and question. I oppose nuclear power, but not for the reasons you think, perhaps. It is a Faustian Bargain. It is a beautiful dream turned bad.
Nukes have the lowest thermal efficiency of any thermal powerplant. Perhaps that seems inconsequential but it means that for every unit of power going on the line, three are put into the local environment as heat. That changes the local environment, but not permanently, because during re-fueling they shutdown for long periods, killing the new life which grew in the warm water.
I oppose it because it is the most expensive source we can use. The new Vogtle units in Georgia about to come online will have power costs at about 15 cents/kWh from construction costs. Their twin units in the V.C,. Summer plant were cancelled after squandering $8,000,000,000 on them!!
Los Angeles now buys power by the hundreds of megawatt-hours from PV plus battery storage at under 2 cents/kWh daytime and 3.3 cents/kWh at night. Whose power do you want to buy?
I have been in PWR plants while loaded, and have done studies for the NRC on BWR Safety Relief Valves. I know about our experiences with all kinds: PWR -TMI II. BWR – Fukushima. HTGC – Fort St. Vrain. Breeder – Fermi I. Look up Prompt Critical on U-Tube or read the book or We Almost Lost Detroit for others. RBMK is another winner.
Now we are stuck with intensely -radioactive waste we cannot store safely for the tens of thousands of years it has to be kept from life. Look up the disaster at WIPP,which I followed for several years.
I would have loved for that dream to have succeeded, but it turned bad on us.
Thanks again for the question.
George, an inefficiency is not an condition of use of nuclear, it merely means that all possible waste heat has not been recovered. If the wasted heat went through heat exchangers and was then offered to local people as free heating as happens in some Scandinavian countries the efficiency is improved. Waste thermal recovery is an area of much interest
Let’s talk reality. We do not do that. We have no facilities or infrastructure to do that. Does it make them safer? Does it get rid of intensely-radioactive nuclear waste?
The only reason we do not do that is because we don’t need to do it, yet. But there are examples of it being done all over the world should it be necessary.
Yes district heating was used long before nuclear power was imposed on us by a guilty government trying to rationalize their invention of the Faustian Bargain of things nuclear.
Science is never a consensus and is never settled. Current theories are continually changing or demonstrated to be false and simply discarded.
If 97% are politically motivated so what? (And, yes, I understand the dubious claim origin.) it means nothing. Until they get the scientific method back into the experiment it isn’t even science.
This isn’t news. The Establishment has been ruining so-called “Climate Skeptics” and “Climate Deniers” since the 70s…or earlier. The problem is that we allow these shenanigans to continue. We allow the fakers to peddle lies and destroy the scientists who actually practice science! LOL! You can’t make it up…
Climate change deniers merit no more of a platform for their views than anti-vaccinationists. Cranks who deny evolution, or claim that the Earth is flat, are equally wrong, but basically harmless (although I wouldn’t ride in a homemade rocket built and piloted by a Flat Earther); the nonsense peddled by anti-vaccinationists and climate change deniers is actively harmful.
Nothing says confidence in our science like hiding the data, penciling over lack of data, smearing critics, and censoring what other people can see. Pretty sure you’ve crossed over into church territory there, Reverend Cogan.
Shall we hold hands and sing a hymn?
Too funny… I’m reading a bunch of BBC history magazine and according to them climate change has affected human history every single century since Alexander the Great… In other words it’s like somebody pointing out the Sun is bright over and over and over again… it’s all background chatter from people who don’t believe in anything so they create a religion where they are heralding the end of the world… And all those readings about increase temperature are mostly because they’ve added so many more sampling points
The harm, Joe, is the systematic stripping of wealth from a people group to another people group who didn’t earn it. Global warming was always about wealth redistribution. Europeans will admit this sometimes. American’s try to hide this motivation.
Hear hear – let’s add in those who deny the humanity of the human embryo, and the safety of GMO crops and we’ll have a complete list. Yet it feels like our scientific certainty about the unborn, vaccinations, GMOs and evolution is much greater than what we actually know about an immensely-complex climate system.
None of the skeptics “deny” that the climate is changing. They disagree about the extent of human contribution to the change and the severity of the consequences for humans and the environment. For that, the alarmists treat them like heretics.
I thought that most people had learned that to make something warmer you needed a HOTTER source, but obviously the people at Skeptical Science don’t know this elemetary scientific fact. So how was it possible for the world to be fooled by the CO2 in the upper atmosphere “Global Warming” hoax? They were told that the upper atmospheric CO2 radiates heat back to its source, the Sun warmed Earth surface, to make the surface even warmer (known as the Greenhouse Effect). But was there no-one who realised that the upper atmospheric CO2 is COLDER than theSun warmed Earth surface? It is impossible for a COLDER source to heat up something WARMER. To warm the Earth surface the atmospheric CO2 would have to be HOTTER than the Sun warmed Earth surface, and since there is only 1 part CO2 in 2500 parts atmosphere it would have to be very much HOTTER than the Sun warmed surface to have an effect. If there actually is “Global Warming” (which is doubtful) then it is not CO2 which is causing it. Stop believing the scam and admit you were duped by the hysteria.
As a former Thermodynamics Researcher I have identified a further 17 thermodynamic errors in Climate Science explanations of “Global Warming”. One very important one is that the “Greenhouse Effect”, their basis for “Global warming”, is actually a description of “Perpetual Motion”. Those with a real science qualification (not Skeptical Science) will understand that “Perpetual Motion” is impossible (1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics!). The “Greenhouse Effect” basically describes the Sun warmed Earth surface increasing its own temperature via atmospheric CO2 returning heat energy back to the same surface which supplied it (Ie. Global Warming in a closed system loop – Surface-Atmosphere-Surface). When supposedly scientific qualified people cannot see that then that says there is a “Science Education Emergency” and not a “Climate Emergency”. Anyone worthy of calling themselves a “Scientist” should have identified the “Perpetual Motion” scam a long time ago.
Thanks for the reply. No, the CO2 does NOT get so hot it radiates heat back to us. It blocks IR, keeping the heat in. Ever notice how cloudy nights can be warmer than clear skies?
Is THAT what you based your “analysis” on??
Do you not understand how a greenhouse works, passing high energy UV and blocking the IR which the warmed objects radiate back?
I took Thermo too. But I understand how it all works in the Real World..
Go and read the explanation of the “Greenhouse Effect” which is what I based my analysis on, and that is what Climate Science uses. It refers to the actual Earth surface, not the atmosphere above the surface, which your comment refers to,being made/kept warmer. On University sites there are examples of radiation fluxes being added together (which is nonsense) to create a larger flux value to apparently make the Earth surface warmer than the Sun does. A real greenhouse doesn’t just rely on blocking IR leaving but blocks warmed air molecules from escaping out to the colder atmosphere, which is no different to a room in a house. That is not how the Climate Science “Greenhouse Effect” is supposed to work.
Parroting Wikipedia does not mean you understand what you copied.
The UV part of the spectrum goes through greenhouse gases, and warms the air and objects. Warmed, they radiate IR which does not get through greenhouse gases which act as a thermal blanket.
I hate to venture this, but I think you may not have any degree in science.
Just to correct your perspective, the IR blobking effect only blocks only some small amount of heat from escaping. Your choice of words suggests all heat could be trapped within, almost as if acting as an insulator. it is a very poor general description of the principle you are describing. If CO2 acted as you seem to suggest, we would fill our home cavity walls and roof spaces with CO2 and enjoy drastically reduced heating bills. we don’t do that because it doesn’t work as a practical principle.
No insulation is perfect. And putting CO2 in our porous walls is not a practical idea.
Except that if the wall’s porosity is the only stumbling block it isn’t beyond the wit of man to soon fix that, if such an amazing effecyt were to be harvested
Sorry, but a greenhouse doesn’t work like that. It meerly stops heat loss by convection. Also, if the CO2 block heat excaping into space from the earth, it also stops a lot more heat entering in the same way.
When the underlying science is sound, there is no reason to resort to authoritarian actions. There is momentum for more governmental actions and the $take$ are very high, so anyone who represents a threat to the payoff draws out the climate alarmists’ darker impulses.
Stop taking snots and try to defend your position based on science. You cannot.
It doesn’t surprise me to read these revealing figures or contemplate the existence of a blacklist of skeptics/deniers whom the so-called 97% want to banish from the conversation. The more interesting question is why such a blacklist would exist in the first place, what the underlying agenda may be. Dominance of funding sources, to be sure, but it must be something else as well. The urge to seek power and prestige? Other possible explanations? And why has the federal government focused so much research funding to support only one viewpoint? Until we reveal the backstory, we will not have dealt with the deliberate effort to silence diverse viewpoints.
It is not funding one viewpoint. This is not opinion, it is rational science!!
How Orwellian is it that a site called Skeptical Science should be supporting the status quo and blacklisting anyone who doesn’t?
Maybe they go by facts.
I have never seen a blacklist of deniers. Show it to me.
You know who else gets “blacklisted” by scientists? Young earth creationists, flat earthers, people like our VP who denies that smoking causes cancer. I could, with a bit of research, find others. But, well, I was going to say that “you get the idea”, but I doubt that you do.
Just out of curiosity, has any member of the editorial staff, taken, let alone passed an upper division course in physics or chemistry?
I looked at just one of the “scientists” that you mentioned:
This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by Ferenc Miskolczi that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.
There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Ferenc Miskolczi that meet this definition.
I looked for his education — did not find one. I am sure that he has a Phd. The question is, is that PhD in a subject matter related to atmosphere physics?
Finally, the test of a theory is how well does it make predictions. Here is just one link on that subject: https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=586. So based on this physics of CO2, predictions were made about global warming over 150 years ago. And they are, within error bars, validated.
Given your probably limited reading comprehension skills, the article even has a picture
One of the bedrock principles I learned on becoming a researcher some 40+ years ago was the idea of skepticism. As scientists, we all must welcome contrary arguments and discussions for that is how we discover our own errors in thinking.
Indeed, in my first job I was tasked with investigating a phenomenon that had been studied for nearly a decade in laboratories all over Europe, North America, Australia, and Asia. Despite many dozens of peer reviewed papers, patents, world wide symposia on the subject and so much more, I discovered that it was based on an artifact and did not exist as thought. Because of skepticism, this error was discovered and science was righted back onto its proper course.
Given the absolute requirement for skepticism for research to proceed without falling into a modern day version of Lysenkoism, why is it that no one is pointing this fundamental error in thinking and policy in climate change research? How have we come from the need for skepticism to the current demand in climate change research that those who remain skeptical, who question the results, and such, are labeled deniers who are to be shunned and eliminated from science?
In fact, the demand for a cessation of skepticism and an adherence to climate change dogma argues forcefully that this is bad science being performed not to further our knowledge, but instead to pursue an ulterior motive such as greed. What is being missed is the obvious. The world is going to continue as it will and no amount of claiming a certain outcome based on flawed science will make it occur differently. At some point, assuming the current sacred climate change arguments are indeed flawed, their arguments will be shown to be the nonsense they are and at that point the ruse will be obvious. The damage to science and the public’s perception of science and its value to humanity will be forever damaged.
Please stop this misinformation. No scientists are being hurt because of their views.
They will be challenged, but not attacked like you folk do here.
And none of you seem to be able to debate the science here.
If you are a scientist let’s discuss Ocean Acidification. Can you do it?
If the science is settled, why are the climate models from over the past 30 years so wrong?
See this recent paper for example, “The amplified Arctic warming in the recent decades may have been overestimated by CMIP5 models” Jianbin Huang, Tinghai Ou, Deliang Chen, Yong Luo, Zongci Zhao.
The temperature increase predicted was significantly wrong, not just in the case of the arctic, but in all the models. The temperature fluctuations earth has undergone in recent times is well within earth’s natural climate variability. You want to destroy western civilization for that??
You are incorrect. Do you assume the models of 30 years ago are still used?
Want to see an analysis of how well they really work?
Hearing something and wanting to believe it does not make it true.
Some 30 yr old models are actually being used, but perhaps more relevantly, they are still quoted with ridiculously high frequency by the media, because modern models don’t seem quite as hyperbolic and therefore make less of an impact, in due course meaning not as many clicks on their websites (it is just about business after all). This differential is extensible quite easily when looking at climate change predictions, my national newspaper ‘The Scotsman’ reckons that the world famous Forth Bridge could be under water by 2050. This would seem to imply a sea rise of 46metres in 30 years, when the last 46m took 10,000 years. Not even the worst IPCC prediction multiplied by 1000 predicts that sort of sea level rise, in fact the IPCC recently reported that they doubted that flooding isn’t likely to increase dramatically in the next century.
Does The Scotsman have any Climate Scientists on its staff?
Do they need a scientist ? Do they even need to tell the truth ……or are they allowed literary licence to speculate about things no scientist would ever say. Same thing for all media channels. in fact even science institutions have their internal arguments…..for example the IPCC state that to meet climate targets nuclear power must be increased quite dramatically….no environmentalist wants to hear about it and nobody talks about it….literary licence is great, that’s why some of the content of the IPCC reports are written not by scientists, but by authours. The IPCC also have good confidence that end of the century warming will be only 0.5C….but everyone wants to yell about their fear it might be 2 degrees. So I have to conclude, scientist or not, constructed stories can say anything at all as long as they’re written in such a general way that extreme alarmists can get excited about the doom they spin on the back of it
Where in the IPCC Report is that notice? I have much of it, and cannot find it.
If you want a nuclear powerplant, V.C. Summer has lots of parts waiting for you. Look it up.
George are you asking about the IPCC level of confidence on 0.5C warming, or their insistence that nuclear generation must increase ? please specify
Nukes. Show me the “insistence”.
Want to discuss nuclear power? I do.
George, page 16 shows a table, the table shows which energy sources need to be increased (non-negative values) and decreased (negatice values) to achieve the final net zero deadlines described in the table. That is the IPCC, the people who give the warnings about climate change, promoting nuclear power, correct me if I’m wrong ? Also see subsection A.2.1 stating that 0.5c warming is unlikely in the near term, and rated as ‘medium confidence on the century scale. Am I correct in thinking this is the first time you have reviewed this IPCC report ? https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
I have several documents, and went through the one you referenced and found no references which say we need nuclear power.
It is included as an option, but has turned out to be a bad choice for other reasons.
Go back and use CNTL F to find references to nuclear anything.
I have extracted the table and posted it here for you George ( https://flic.kr/p/2iBioX1 ) – very clearly, nuclear is increased in all solution pathways. The IPCC therefore clearly recommends an increase in nuclear power as a solution to an assumed global warming crisis.
George, again (I don’t know how you missed it) Page 16. There is a table showing the energy mix required to meet various assumed net zero targets. Please review and you will see it there.
Four scenarios P1,P2,P3 and P4 are documented, relating to how much ‘overshoot’ of reduction is desired.
In the ‘softest’ solution, P1, there needs to be a 59% increase in nuclear by 2030, and a 150% by 2050
In the ‘hardest’ solution, P4, nuclear needs to increase by 106% by year 2030, and by 2050 that needs to be 468% increase
(Increase percentages relative to 2010 figures, as stated)
Now, I don’t know how you’re not reading that, everyone else reads it that way.
Of course, there could be other solutions, but as it is the IPCC who wrote it, there will be underlying expertise relating to each of the other potential energy sources, which might be the reason why some currently assumed ‘good’ renewable sources are acvually being reduced (perhaps for reasons of cost effectiveness, availability of materials, difficulty finding suitable locations etc)
What is very clear is that the table on page 16 titled “Breakdown of contributions to global net CO emissions in four illustrative model pathways” Shows increases in nuclear derived electricity relative to 2010 levels, in every possible future scenario. any issue you have about that should be addressed towards the IPCC.
You posted they said it outright
They did not say it.
How about arresting the “climate warmers”for the fraud they’ve been perpetrating in order to advance the cause of global socialism?
With another POTUS term for the GOP, the political (read, manipulative) impact of the whole climate “change” (an innocuous, less slanting, contritely substituted, term for “warming”) siren will subside, along with the global legacy Mr. Obama so fervently sought. These blacklistees will one day have their day in the sunshine. enshallah.
Inasmuch as an intractable partisanship has seemingly become intrinsic in the people who make up the highest legislative ranks of our Nation, why would we expect others, in all advanced fields, to be any different? Such vitriolic partisanship would naturally spill down or across, to even big minded scientists and like the flaming examples in both houses of congress they’d too want to be persuasive in any way they can, fairly or unfairly. After all, who exactly sets the standards for argument and debate? (I’ll not ask the MSM this question.) Blacklisting is alive and well and always will be. Painted birds will be pecked to death by their own. A yet unsettled science of man and his reach for power readily explains the existence of both deniers of climate change etiology and those who’d contrive a restricted exposure.
Blacklists? How ’bout labeling lists : https://marsinthemidheaven.com/2019/05/14/the-shoah-of-carbon-dioxide/
George I can understand your reluctance to believe the evidence, but come out of denial and face the facts. The IPCC have published that the only way to meet the climate targets, according to them, is to increase nuclear. It is clear for all to see, all except you.
The only way to get fossil fuels out of the energy supply chain has to be to increase nuclear. Yes we can have more wind and solar, but where is the electricity supposed to come from on a dark still night, when there is no wind and no solar ?
We can use battery storage (or gravity storage) but still, battery storage units frequently catch fire, so nobody is convinced of their safety yet….and why spend millions on batteries, watch them burn, and then spend millions more to replace them….and think of all that pollution in the process.
We have become so used to having a base load demand being met by nuclear that it is hard to get rid of it and replace it with a very intermittent source (renewables)
We have learned much from the nuclear evolution over the decades, and here in the UK the policy is to support many small nuclear units provided by Rolls Royce. It seems a logical we to go, given that wind and solar are so intermittent and nobody will allow us to burn any fossil fuel.
But, if you know of an alternative please share the details