Stu...you said...I think there's nothing more than an unreferenced claim. I fail to see how (he figures) 1000 nuclear plants would cut carbon emissions by only 10%
Stu...you're right...the slide show I gave you was part of a power point show/speech to a scientific group in Huntsville and as such did not contain references but since he is :
...best known, jointly with
Roy Spencer, for his version of the satellite temperature record. He is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He was appointed Alabama's State Climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature
data set from satellites he was awarded
NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the
American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."
[1] In 2002, Christy was elected
Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society.
[citation needed]
Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[2
.....
...my guess is his data in the graph is accurate....and 1000 nuke plants in 20 years doesn't have a prayer in hell of happening. Hell...the green thumbs will probably successfully stall even ONE being built in that time...but I digress. Point is...if you believe in global warming...and the nuke data is right, then there ain't much hope of "solving the problem" no matter what we do...so lets cure malaria and save the whales or something instead.