Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

They've been geoenginerring for years, causing our crazy weather, and now they want to "solve it". Problem, Reaction, Solution

Harvard Professor with Geoengineering startup, pushes spraying our skies & blocking out sun

"Geoengineering: Opportunity or folly?
Professors  Keith & Hamilton differ sharply on climate change proposal

The technology to shield Earth from sunrays and cut the ‘Harmful warming” expected in the coming decades is so cheap and readily available that the hurdles to doing it are social, not technical, says Harvard’s David Keith, a supporter of geoengineering.

Opponents say the idea would not only drain energy from efforts to address climate change’s causes, but also is loaded with unknown risks and the potential for abuse.

The early debate over geoengineering as a solution to our accelerating climate problem was aired Monday at the Science Center..."

[1714858711]

1714858711

[1714858711]

1714858711

[1714858711]

1714858711

[Spendulus]

They've been geoenginerring for years...

No "they" have not.

...causing our crazy weather...

There is and has been no crazy weather any more than in the past.

....and now they want to "solve it".

No "they" don't.  They want to take money for "solving it," then do basically nothing. 

[notbatman]

They've been geoenginerring for years...

No "they" have not.

You're a conspiracy denier, take some time to look up at the sky.

[flagpara]

...causing our crazy weather...

There is and has been no crazy weather any more than in the past.

No crazy weather any more than in the past? Where do you live dude? Rise of the temperature, of the strength and number of natural disasters, that doesn't ring a bell?

[Spendulus]

...causing our crazy weather...

There is and has been no crazy weather any more than in the past.

No crazy weather any more than in the past? Where do you live dude? Rise of the temperature, of the strength and number of natural disasters, that doesn't ring a bell?

Although anecdotal evidence isn't scientific proof, the answer is southern US, and no, no temp rise, no more severe or number of natural disasters...

[flagpara]

...causing our crazy weather...

There is and has been no crazy weather any more than in the past.

No crazy weather any more than in the past? Where do you live dude? Rise of the temperature, of the strength and number of natural disasters, that doesn't ring a bell?

Although anecdotal evidence isn't scientific proof, the answer is southern US, and no, no temp rise, no more severe or number of natural disasters...

Oh, you're a climate change denier?
Well we're not going to go really far.

Here are two graphs showing rise of sea level and air temperature. I don't know how you can deny global warming so I'll let you go first with arguments.
Never saw an image of the arctic ice melting? And please don't go showing me the ONE study that "prove" the amount of snow is growing higher on the arctic cap. The "scientist" was proven to use unreliable method and was linked to several lobbies of the oil industry.

[Spendulus]

...causing our crazy weather...

There is and has been no crazy weather any more than in the past.

No crazy weather any more than in the past? Where do you live dude? Rise of the temperature, of the strength and number of natural disasters, that doesn't ring a bell?

Although anecdotal evidence isn't scientific proof, the answer is southern US, and no, no temp rise, no more severe or number of natural disasters...

Oh, you're a climate change denier?
Well we're not going to go really far.

Here are two graphs showing rise of sea level and air temperature. I don't know how you can deny global warming so I'll let you go first with arguments.
Never saw an image of the arctic ice melting? And please don't go showing me the ONE study that "prove" the amount of snow is growing higher on the arctic cap. The "scientist" was proven to use unreliable method and was linked to several lobbies of the oil industry.

One thing that is commonly a job of scientists is to deduce the "secular trend" in a dataset by stripping out known periodic and cyclic variations.  This is extremely difficult to do with data sets that come from differing measurement methodologies and measurement intervals.  Both these sets you have presented are such.

This is a recognized problem, thus we now have the satellite measurements of regional temperatures, which can be aggregated into an overall data set.  At least for the last 30 some years.  Similarly, we have new means of measuring ocean height, and "sea level rise."

Over several decades, say by 2050-2080, I believe we truly will know a lot about the Earth's climate.  Today we do not understand it very well.

Is there a "right" global temperature?  Is there a "right" sea level?

These are important questions.  I do lean on the side of denying that any disaster is coming from man's injection of CO2, but this is a scientific opinion, and certainly is subject to change as more and better data is acquired.

[flagpara]

One thing that is commonly a job of scientists is to deduce the "secular trend" in a dataset by stripping out known periodic and cyclic variations.  This is extremely difficult to do with data sets that come from differing measurement methodologies and measurement intervals.  Both these sets you have presented are such.

This is a recognized problem, thus we now have the satellite measurements of regional temperatures, which can be aggregated into an overall data set.  At least for the last 30 some years.  Similarly, we have new means of measuring ocean height, and "sea level rise."

Over several decades, say by 2050-2080, I believe we truly will know a lot about the Earth's climate.  Today we do not understand it very well.

Is there a "right" global temperature?  Is there a "right" sea level?

These are important questions.  I do lean on the side of denying that any disaster is coming from man's injection of CO2, but this is a scientific opinion, and certainly is subject to change as more and better data is acquired.

Sir you're really hard to understand totally. Maybe it's because I'm not perfectly fluent but from one post to another you really seem to have a different tone 

Ok I get your point, hard to have a definitive answer on everything.
But there are some aspects on which everyone agree. For example, the vicious circle of CO2 injection: the more the density of CO2, the less trees are able to absorb. The fact that our current rise of temperature has never been seen on such a tiny amount of time, same for sea level and destruction of biodiversity.

I totally agree with you: nature has its own cycles, it's not because biodiversity is destroyed or sea level rises that it's a bad thing, it already happened. But what can't be denied is that all those things happen in an incredible close gap of time, one that has never been seen before. One that has never been measured.



When you look at such data, I find it difficult to think otherwise than man activity and CO2 emission is linked to the rise of temperature.

[Spendulus]

One thing that is commonly a job of scientists is to deduce the "secular trend" in a dataset by stripping out known periodic and cyclic variations.  This is extremely difficult to do with data sets that come from differing measurement methodologies and measurement intervals.  Both these sets you have presented are such.

This is a recognized problem, thus we now have the satellite measurements of regional temperatures, which can be aggregated into an overall data set.  At least for the last 30 some years.  Similarly, we have new means of measuring ocean height, and "sea level rise."

Over several decades, say by 2050-2080, I believe we truly will know a lot about the Earth's climate.  Today we do not understand it very well.

Is there a "right" global temperature?  Is there a "right" sea level?

These are important questions.  I do lean on the side of denying that any disaster is coming from man's injection of CO2, but this is a scientific opinion, and certainly is subject to change as more and better data is acquired.

Sir you're really hard to understand totally. Maybe it's because I'm not perfectly fluent but from one post to another you really seem to have a different tone 

Ok I get your point, hard to have a definitive answer on everything.
But there are some aspects on which everyone agree. For example, the vicious circle of CO2 injection: the more the density of CO2, the less trees are able to absorb. The fact that our current rise of temperature has never been seen on such a tiny amount of time, same for sea level and destruction of biodiversity.

I totally agree with you: nature has its own cycles, it's not because biodiversity is destroyed or sea level rises that it's a bad thing, it already happened. But what can't be denied is that all those things happen in an incredible close gap of time, one that has never been seen before. One that has never been measured.



When you look at such data, I find it difficult to think otherwise than man activity and CO2 emission is linked to the rise of temperature.

To look at the question of whether CO2 correlates with temperature, one must do it over various time scales and different millenia historically.  This has been studied quite a lot.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

The short answer is no it does not seem to correlate hardly at all.

I don't view this as disproving the theory of "AGW" more like an exhaustive examination of a particular statistical relationship, which is sort of interesting.  We know exactly what effects CO2 molecules have in the laboratory, but put them in the air, and it gets much more difficult to establish cause and effect.

Generally, this is all summed up as the "sensitivity" of a climate system to CO2.  By way of explaining "Am I a denier or not" I hold a point of view that climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than climate alarmists have claimd over the last several decades.  The climate itself seems to have agreed with me on this, and scientists have been and continue to revise their estimates of sensitivity.

Those that do not may find themselves the "deniers," lol.

[flagpara]

To look at the question of whether CO2 correlates with temperature, one must do it over various time scales and different millenia historically.  This has been studied quite a lot.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

The short answer is no it does not seem to correlate hardly at all.

I don't view this as disproving the theory of "AGW" more like an exhaustive examination of a particular statistical relationship, which is sort of interesting.  We know exactly what effects CO2 molecules have in the laboratory, but put them in the air, and it gets much more difficult to establish cause and effect.

Generally, this is all summed up as the "sensitivity" of a climate system to CO2.  By way of explaining "Am I a denier or not" I hold a point of view that climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than climate alarmists have claimd over the last several decades.  The climate itself seems to have agreed with me on this, and scientists have been and continue to revise their estimates of sensitivity.

Those that do not may find themselves the "deniers," lol.

Interesting article. And interesting point of view, much more constructed than the usual denyal bullshit 

Truly I hope you're right concerning climate sensitivity. It would be much better if we were the one in a complete "denial" lol
But it doesn't change the fact that we should take the worst possibility (this means the high CO2 sensitivity) and act upon this base, until the contrary is proven. Cause there will be no stepback if it's the case.

Anyway thanks for sharing your mind!

[Wilikon]

"But it doesn't change the fact that we should take the worst possibility (this means the high CO2 sensitivity) and act upon this base, until the contrary is proven".

Why?
Is the "base" solid when lots and lots of scientists have been shut out trying to do just their job? That is the main point of this thread: every single advance in science has been met with a very strong dose of skepticism, until they were proving right. Why should global warming be treated any differently?

[...]
There are actually a couple of different, jaw dropping items in this story which seem mystifying even in comparison to the normal comings and goings in the morass of the federal government. From the strictly good government side of the equation, NOAA is a public entity which is primarily funded by the taxpayers. (And they’ve been caught playing fast and loose with your cash on more than one occasion.) The idea that Congress doesn’t have complete authority to engage in oversight of their work should be offensive to everyone in the country.

But on a far more basic level, we’re talking about the scientific process here. Since when is the process for critically examining data and arriving at substantive conclusions some sort of clandestine, secret process? We’re not talking about an agency that’s guarding sensitive national security secrets. This is allegedly science. The entire concept of solid research involves extensive peer reviews where other experts can put your theories and conclusions to the test and see if they can either replicate or repudiate your results. What do these scientists have to hide from the public even if they weren’t being funded on the taxpayer’s dime?

This refusal is a breach of trust with the public. Personally, I think that Congress needs to do a lot more than drag Sullivan out on the floor to demand answers… she needs to be fired. This is an abuse of her office and further diminishes any sense of trust the public should have in her work.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/11/scientists-cheering-for-noaa-chief-to-not-be-bullied-into-showing-their-work-on-climate-data/


Is this science?

 

[Spendulus]

To look at the question of whether CO2 correlates with temperature, one must do it over various time scales and different millenia historically.  This has been studied quite a lot.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

The short answer is no it does not seem to correlate hardly at all.

I don't view this as disproving the theory of "AGW" more like an exhaustive examination of a particular statistical relationship, which is sort of interesting.  We know exactly what effects CO2 molecules have in the laboratory, but put them in the air, and it gets much more difficult to establish cause and effect.

Generally, this is all summed up as the "sensitivity" of a climate system to CO2.  By way of explaining "Am I a denier or not" I hold a point of view that climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than climate alarmists have claimd over the last several decades.  The climate itself seems to have agreed with me on this, and scientists have been and continue to revise their estimates of sensitivity.

Those that do not may find themselves the "deniers," lol.

Interesting article. And interesting point of view, much more constructed than the usual denyal bullshit 

Truly I hope you're right concerning climate sensitivity. It would be much better if we were the one in a complete "denial" lol
But it doesn't change the fact that we should take the worst possibility (this means the high CO2 sensitivity) and act upon this base, until the contrary is proven. Cause there will be no stepback if it's the case.

Anyway thanks for sharing your mind!

Lower climate sensitivity is the mainstream perspective today.  It has to be, because the projections of the 1980s and 1990s did not come to be, and they were based on a higher sensitivity.  Pretty much difficult to get around that.

Bolded above, this we dub as one version of the "Precautionary principle."   It is indeed an interesting viewpoint and has merit.  For example one might say "But what if, even though you are a good driver, you got into a wreck today?"  And that's why you and I wear seatbelts - as a precaution.

The question as to how, when and to what extent this applies to local, regional and world climate is totally unsettled.  For example, not the exceptions in the "New Climate Agreement" that allow China to pollute all they want.  That's disgusting (lol, ever been to China?  It's really totally disgusting, the air quality...)

[Wilikon]

After COP21 Failure The Terror Begins: Crazed Greenies Eat Their Own

The Paris COP21 climate summit has gone better than any of us could have hoped. Which is to say so incredibly badly that the disappointed greenies have begun to turn on one another in bitterness and recrimination and Hunger-Games-like kill-or-be-killed savagery.

Consider this offering from Harvard History of Science Professor Naomi Oreskes in the Guardian in which, bizarrely, she calls out of some of the green movement’s most fanatically green activists for not being green enough.

Better still, she actually uses the worst insult of all in the greenie lexicon: “deniers.”

    After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

    But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

    Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power….

Who are these terrible New Denialists?

    New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club:  James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.

And what is the terrible error of judgement which has provoked the righteous wrath of Oreskes?

Basically they have rejected one of the green movement’s most sacred shibboleths: they have come out in favour of nuclear power.

Nuclear, these green heretics believe, is the only way that the planet can reduce its CO2 emissions quickly enough to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Oreskes disagrees. She thinks it can be done with wind and solar and geothermal. Just like energy expert Mark Ruffalo.

To put Oreskes and Ruffalo’s expert opinion in perspective, let’s just remind ourselves of the current share of wind, solar and geothermal in the global energy market.

Hmm. Don’t give up the day job, Mark; do give up the day job, Naomi.

In case you need reminding who Naomi Oreskes is, she’s the embarrassingly overpromoted academic who says that a handful of contrarian, “denier” scientists in the pay of Big Oil are skewing the debate on global warming by deliberately misrepresenting the science, just like they did with tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

This is what’s so glorious about Oreskes’ Guardian assault on people like James “Death Trains” Hansen (the activist at NASA who invented the global warming scare), Kerry Emanuel (a leading alarmist) and Tom Wigley (featured heavily in the Climategate emails).

It’s like Rosa Klebb calling out Oddjob, Jaws and Blofeld for being just too lightweight in their pursuit of evil and world domination.

In other words, popcorn time.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/17/cop21-failure-terror-begins-crazed-greenies-eat/

[Spendulus]

After COP21 Failure The Terror Begins: Crazed Greenies Eat Their Own

The Paris COP21 climate summit has gone better than any of us could have hoped. Which is to say so incredibly badly that the disappointed greenies have begun to turn on one another in bitterness and recrimination and Hunger-Games-like kill-or-be-killed savagery.

Consider this offering from Harvard History of Science Professor Naomi Oreskes in the Guardian in which, bizarrely, she calls out of some of the green movement’s most fanatically green activists for not being green enough.

Better still, she actually uses the worst insult of all in the greenie lexicon: “deniers.”

    After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

    But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

    Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power….

Who are these terrible New Denialists?

    New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club:  James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.

And what is the terrible error of judgement which has provoked the righteous wrath of Oreskes?

Basically they have rejected one of the green movement’s most sacred shibboleths: they have come out in favour of nuclear power.

Nuclear, these green heretics believe, is the only way that the planet can reduce its CO2 emissions quickly enough to avoid catastrophic global warming.....

The problem with this, would be IF IT WERE TRUE that catastrophic global warming were nigh, then this is an admission of guilt by the greenies that it is their fault alone - for stalling or killing every single nuclear plant proposal.

But there is evidence that it is not true, which means they are fools instead of criminals.

[tvbcof]

After COP21 Failure The Terror Begins: Crazed Greenies Eat Their Own
...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/17/cop21-failure-terror-begins-crazed-greenies-eat/

Not long ago I came up with a 'vision' (or something) of 'Greens' being disposed of once they had achieved the purpose for which they are being propped up.  Call it a postulate or something I guess.  The same principle applies to, say, the radical Islamists who are an unknown fraction of the structured population migration into Europe (in particular.)  Good old-school Christians as well I might add.

Yesterday by chance (while catching up after an extended period of internet down-time) I ran across an interesting interview with this dude from the mid 80's.  I've got no idea of the guy is credible or not, but it is compelling when an organic postulate of mine matches with other information I pick up later.  Or at least it does not weaken it:

  Useful Idiots

This dude was interviewed in conjunction with a guy who was at the time associated with the John Birch society.  Since I was historically a 'Liberal' and more-or-less adhered to the standards of that side until fairly recently, I would ordinarily have not even spend the time to listen to him.  More recently I've 'ported out the intake manifold' so to speak...but I still try to take everything with a grain of salt.

Anyway, this guy was saying among other things that it was nearly to late for the U.S. 30 years ago.  If he is close to on target, that means that a massive change is, by this time, baked into the cake.  Beyond that I would say that the basic structure of what he was warning of is as nefarious as he was warning of (basic Soviet-style totalitarianism) but replaced by entities who are even more vile and will happily learn from and employ the techniques developed by the Soviets.

tl;dr:  Word of warning to you 'real' greenies with or without further social interest:  Watch your asses.  Be prepared to integrate with some pretty dark forces (if the opportunity is even presented) or to run for your lives.  Keep your ears open when you hear the term 'eco-terrorism'.

[flagpara]

The problem with this, would be IF IT WERE TRUE that catastrophic global warming were nigh, then this is an admission of guilt by the greenies that it is their fault alone - for stalling or killing every single nuclear plant proposal.

But there is evidence that it is not true, which means they are fools instead of criminals.

There are also lots of evidence that it is true 

But let's not get back into this debate as we more or less concluded just before that we were still unable to be sure if it's true or not... We'll maybe settle this in a few years! Though as a French I'm strongly in favor of the "precaution principle". This principle is even written in our constitution!

Concerning the nuclear, again as a French I can't say anything against it :3
It's one of our main skill domain, it produces around 75% of our electricity, with the hydro producing 20%.
Nuclear is currently a good thing, wether you believe in high CO2 sensitivity or not, CO2 has some proven and undeniable negative effects especially on some species highly sensitive. And again it can't be a bad thing to reduce our emission, just in case because we have no freaking precise and undoubtful idea about their consequences.

The problem being that Nuclear is even less renewable than oil. If tomorrow we wanted to produce the electricity of the world with nuclear we would have barely enough uranium for a few decades. Nuclear research is going trough the roof though and we hope to finish the NuclearPlant v2.0 in not long, it will allow us to use the current nuclear waste to produce electricity... Granting the world a few decades of electricity.
Security and safety is also a big problem with Nuclear. I believe Nuclear plants should belong to the state only, as private nuclear plants tend to be optimized for profit, most of the time impacting the safety. That was the case in Japan (around 20 incidents that "disappeared" in the years before Fukushima) and that's the case in France: since complete privatisation less and less maintenance time are allowed to rise the productivity of the plants... Creating safety breach.

The main problem being that Nuclear is not renewable. It can and should only be considered as a transition state. A necessity but not a solution.
Currently the only true renewable energy is hydrolic electricity production. But research concerning solar electricity are on their good way! Recently a scientist managed to reproduce the exact photosynthesis cycle of trees. It produces electricity AND oxygen while consuming CO2, at an even better rate than current solar systems.

I think we should develop nuclear to buy us some time, and use this time to develop real renewable energies, not trying to implement unfinished or unrealistic solution such as our current wind and solar energy solution. Let's continue the research, France will sell nuclear to the world while you find something else 

[markj113]

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html

[flagpara]

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html

Lol yeah, as an engineering student I'll warn you: don't listen to any estimation. People saying that we'll discover fusion in 10 years are not scientists working on it. they're the same that said the exact same thing 10 years ago 
Fusion is beyond our comprehension, it will need another Einstein to grant us the understandment of something mortals are not meant to understand. We can discover it tomorrow or in 1000 years. It's something above us, too far. We'll need another complete genius, another Tesla to, again, steal the fire to the god 

But I hope we'll manage to, every energy problem will disappear in the year we discover the secret of fusion! We'll be able to produce enough electricity for a city for a year with a glass of water!

Amen xD

[markj113]

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html

Lol yeah, as an engineering student I'll warn you: don't listen to any estimation. People saying that we'll discover fusion in 10 years are not scientists working on it. they're the same that said the exact same thing 10 years ago  
Fusion is beyond our comprehension, it will need another Einstein to grant us the understandment of something mortals are not meant to understand. We can discover it tomorrow or in 1000 years. It's something above us, too far. We'll need another complete genius, another Tesla to, again, steal the fire to the god  

But I hope we'll manage to, every energy problem will disappear in the year we discover the secret of fusion! We'll be able to produce enough electricity for a city for a year with a glass of water!

Amen xD

It may not be a person that figures out fusion it may be an "AI"nstein.

Like what I did there  

[Spendulus]

The problem with this, would be IF IT WERE TRUE that catastrophic global warming were nigh, then this is an admission of guilt by the greenies that it is their fault alone - for stalling or killing every single nuclear plant proposal.

But there is evidence that it is not true, which means they are fools instead of criminals.

There are also lots of evidence that it is true 

But let's not get back into this debate as we more or less concluded just before that we were still unable to be sure if it's true or not... We'll maybe settle this in a few years! Though as a French I'm strongly in favor of the "precaution principle". This principle is even written in our constitution!

Concerning the nuclear, again as a French I can't say anything against it :3
It's one of our main skill domain, it produces around 75% of our electricity, with the hydro producing 20%.
Nuclear is currently a good thing, wether you believe in high CO2 sensitivity or not, CO2 has some proven and undeniable negative effects especially on some species highly sensitive. And again it can't be a bad thing to reduce our emission, just in case because we have no freaking precise and undoubtful idea about their consequences.

The problem being that Nuclear is even less renewable than oil. If tomorrow we wanted to produce the electricity of the world with nuclear we would have barely enough uranium for a few decades. Nuclear research is going trough the roof though and we hope to finish the NuclearPlant v2.0 in not long, it will allow us to use the current nuclear waste to produce electricity... Granting the world a few decades of electricity.
Security and safety is also a big problem with Nuclear. I believe Nuclear plants should belong to the state only, as private nuclear plants tend to be optimized for profit, most of the time impacting the safety. That was the case in Japan (around 20 incidents that "disappeared" in the years before Fukushima) and that's the case in France: since complete privatisation less and less maintenance time are allowed to rise the productivity of the plants... Creating safety breach.

The main problem being that Nuclear is not renewable. It can and should only be considered as a transition state. A necessity but not a solution.
Currently the only true renewable energy is hydrolic electricity production. But research concerning solar electricity are on their good way! Recently a scientist managed to reproduce the exact photosynthesis cycle of trees. It produces electricity AND oxygen while consuming CO2, at an even better rate than current solar systems.

I think we should develop nuclear to buy us some time, and use this time to develop real renewable energies, not trying to implement unfinished or unrealistic solution such as our current wind and solar energy solution. Let's continue the research, France will sell nuclear to the world while you find something else 

This I all more or less agree with, IIRC carbon emissions per person in France was about 4T/year, in the USA it is more like 20T/year.  However, Uranium reserves are adequate for thousands of years.  And (apparently) better than that, Thorium reactors appear cheap and appear to have inherent safety far in excess of U.  Thorium, it's all over the place...I have some in my garage, tungsten TIG welding rods are 2% thorium.

You are correct about distrusting estimates for fusion power.  Particularly when anybody starts showing pictures of Tokamuk style nonsense.