Citation please? Just you because you believe it does not make it true.

But Barnham does not really scrutinize the issue at all. For all his discussion of "rigor" and error bars in the collection of estimates, it does not consider the various components of the CO2 estimates except for one, which is apparently where most of the high CO2 release estimate comes: the assumption that uranium will be extracted from rock with a uranium content of 0.005% or less. This is the "yellow coal" scenario - at this concentration, using once-through U-235 burning only (boosted by in situ produced actinide burning) as in current reactors, the uranium ore contains no more energy than does coal.

But this is not a likely source of uranium in the future. Seawater is. It contains 1000 times as much uranium as the "yellow coal" ore, and can be extracted at a much lower energy cost, and a lower dollar cost as well.

We can estimate the energy cost of uranium from seawater by considering how it is collected, by immersing special polymer fabrics in seawater, to which the uranium ions attach. Polymers exist that have shown the ability to collect over 10% of their mass in uranium, and may be substantially reusable. The energy cost (and dollar cost) of manufacturing the polymers, deploying them, and stripping the uranium from them is considerably lower than mining and refining "yellow coal" uranium ore. Estimates of current seawater extraction technology are actually lower than the peak spot price of uranium already seen.

Nuclear power opponents dismiss seawater uranium with the argument that it is speculative, since no one produces uranium from this source yet. There is a good reason for that. We haven't exhausted supplies of richer ore yet, and thus don't need it. The fact that no one yet mines uranium ore with a uranium content of 0.005% either somehow does not trouble them in making their projections (the lowest grade ore currently mined is about ten times more concentrated than that).

Nuclear plants definitely have a larger carbon cost to build. This is easily seen from the necessity of concrete containment structures - which produce a lot of carbon dioxide from the manufacture of cement (~6% of global CO2 emissions are from cement plants). Their high capital cost must reflect to some degree a high energy cost (and thus higher CO2 production cost) as well.

I'm sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Infectivity from smallpox contaminated fabrics has been documented after more than a year. Not mythology at all.

Here is the key paragraph:

In the mid-twentieth century, there was concern for inadvertent importation of variola virus into Great Britain in raw cotton shipped in from tropical areas (22). Suspicion was raised for this vehicle of importation after outbreaks occurred in British workers who handled raw cotton. An experiment was conducted to test the viability of variola virus derived from smallpox lesion crusts found in imported raw cotton (19). Viable virus was obtained 530 days from crusts stored in indirect light at room temperature. Crusts stored at higher humidity (73% and 84%) were viable until 70 and 60 days, respectively. Similar results were obtained from a study in Bangladesh, which found viable virus could be isolated from crusts stored at lower temperatures.

A corporation does not need to "get" your money to stomp on you, they merely need to deprive you of it. They can easily do that with lawsuits to bury you in legal costs. Such lawsuits are often meritless, but see if you can foot the bill to show this in a court of law.

And, no, the government cannot decide to levy an arbitrary tax on you as an individual. This sort of punitive private bill is covered under the constitutional ban on Bills of Attainder (which is interpreted more broadly in the U.S. than the meaning just of declaring someone guilty of a crime).

The government must pay you fair market value, not simply seize it.

He could also file a SLAPP lawsuit against you to make you life hell and bury you in litigation costs, ruining you financially, with his pocket change. And he could pay any number of anonymous individuals to harass you in many ways: anonymous death threats, have strangers follow you and your family around taking pictures (see how Brown & Williamson harassed Jeffrey Wigand), exhaustively research your background and publicize any "dirt" they can find. It doesn't even have to be real dirt - lots of things can be made to look bad, and they have a super-loud megaphone (that money=speech thing) that will drown you out as you try to clear your name.

Unscrupulous people with vast wealth at their disposal can destroy you if they choose.

Oh I see, government itself is the enemy of freedom! If there were no government and no taxes we would all be perfectly free! Just look at, where is it now that has no functioning government? Someplace in Africa maybe? Boy are those people ever free!

Wish I had mod points. This comparison vaporizes the feeble excuse offered by the poster to defend the corrupt practices in the U.S.

We have gotten used to "slashvertisements", transparently thin submissions that hype some product or service.

Are now going to have to live with "slashvertorials", transparently thin submissions that hype some political viewpoint?

New York City was forecast to get 1-2 feet of snow, and got just under 10", while on the adjacent Long Island snow falls exceeding two feet have occurred. This is "scare mongering" based on "questionable models"? Really?

If by "terrible track record" you mean "extremely good" and "the best in the business" then yes, otherwise no.

Though humorously put this is a nice summary of his very good prognostication record.

I perused a number of sites claiming to show his "errors", but mostly they either (like you) have no specifics about these "errors", or else if consists entirely of made up stuff. Krugman is not always right about everything in economics, but when he is wrong he admits it and analyzes why he erred, and thus he learns from his mistakes (unlike so many others).

But he is an unabashed liberal, and you hate that - I get it. You've made an emotional commitment to hating him, and thus have no use for actual facts.

Odd - you forgot to include that other Federal tax schedule that collects as much money as does the "income tax", the "payroll tax" (just as much an income tax as the "income tax"). This tax is a flat 12.4% up to about $120,000 in income. I'm sure you just forgot.

Factoring that in you discover that every one in the Middle Class pays a higher tax rate than the capital gains tycoons.

Luckyo should have explained that he is from the Bizarro Planet where the rich don't the legislation they desire, and the entire legal system is not designed around protecting their property.

And Bill Gates comes up as number 4 on the list of modern super-rich.

Looking a tiny handful of individuals hardly presents a full picture. If you look at the wealth that the top 1% possesses you see that we are back up to the same level of inequality as the Gilded Age peak, which was in 1910 (note that the IMF charts are 4 years old and fail to capture the most recent wealth surge at the top). If we have not yet passed into a level of inequality greater than the 1910 peak, well, we are no more than months away.

Cite one country in Africa where this actually happened.

Now you've done! Up until this moment not one person has referenced the infernal pestilence that issues forth from George Lucas's pen when he tackles a fantasy theme.

Now, by mentioning Strange Magic you have awakened my nightmares of Willow also written by George Lucas. The horror! The horror!