...or less.

If the Earth is in eco crisis, it has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. Man is scouring, slathering, entombing, bulldozing and chain sawing the real Earth, the living, physical body of the planet and all the reasons man breathes! Therein is the problem; man is still clueless as to how Earth functions and cycles to create and sustain all life, and it has everything to do with natural and wild ecosystems, the first of the Earth, the beginning of all life.

Indeed, the National Academy of sciences compares the extinctions of biological diversity or the plant and animal biological, in the eco-nomy of ecosystems and all life, as a danger to man's existence, right up there with thermonuclear war. After all, both plant and animal biological diversity create the Earth's natural ecosystems, in the eco-nomy of all life, including man's!

yeah...that would be the idiot clock...

Standard practice for NBC..."journalistic privilege" you know.

The 80's slogan "kill your TV" is more valid than ever...except now these nuts have expanded to pMSNBC on the internet as well.

Best defense I think is read about history often and have a brain of your own.

the climate change clock would need to be set to about 01:30.

I know this may come as a surprise to those who have low comprehension. The article is about Doomsday. The clock is used to represent how close we are to DOOMsDAY. Do you need two clocks to tell you when it is time for lunch? Perhaps one for when you eat cornflakes for breakfast and one when you eat Bacon and eggs instead. Sheeeesh!

From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the fellows who created and maintain this "clock")

The Doomsday Clock conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction--the figurative midnight--and monitors the means humankind could use to obliterate itself. First and foremost, these include nuclear weapons, but they also encompass climate-changing technologies and new developments in the life sciences that could inflict irrevocable harm.

'Nuff said.

Some poor soul made an immense mistake. Only mankind is so stupid as to kill his only nest. What other specie kills his only nest?

Perhaps we are at the end of the evolutionary ladder and about to fall off.

Tell that to the Sun.

Not many people living on the Sun.

Nuclear energy is the tree huggers wet dream. And the newest generation of reactor is simple and safe, not needing a complex control room, not capable of going critical. It does not pollute, kill birds, change wind patterns, threaten the jet stream etc. The biggest threat to the planet, other than the unknown, is breeder families like those glorified on TLC and that octopus lady or whatever. The Earth is designed to handle around 2.5 - 3 billion people. Do you know why China is enjoying its current success? Because the population there is more stable than anywhere else. Sure they have a huge population. They have a huge land mass. As a percentage, our population is growing much faster. Pie in the sky unicorn energy is a lie. And BTW, you know the windmills are all made in China.

Well, all you libs are gonna have to do something if you want us all driving those electric crackerboxes....

You can't pull more and more energy out your a$$ you know....

You don't want coal, don't want natural gas or oil, don't want nuclear...hell, what's left.

Maybe we could all ride bikes or something.

While we're talking about lies, solar is the biggest one out there [unless they develop a engine strong enough to power a car or truck that only takes a fraction of an amp]. hahahaha.

Maybe one day when they have intergalactic travel, but not anytime soon.

Excellent commentary, Robin. One of the world's top ecologically literate scientists maintains, nuclear energy is the future as windmill dead factory fields and solar panel dead fields are as life creating and supporting as the surface of Mars. The problem is, modern man is illiterate in the science of ecology or all the reasons Earth creates and sustains all life or the Earth's natural and wild ecosystems, the eco-nomy of all life.

We require a new world vision, a land ethic, that states that something is right if it preserves the integrity, stability and beauty of the Earth/or the land. Why? Because human existence depends upon it.

Robin Steele and skor154: Which generation are you discussing: the generation III reactors, of which there are a handful in existence, or the generation IV reactors, which exist only on paper? If the former, then there are plenty of ways these could go critical, including a repeat of the circumstances in Fukushima. The passive systems would only work for 72 hours without intervention - best case scenario. If roads were blocked, or conditions such as storms prevented air support, they would go critical. If you are discussing the latter, non-existent generation IV reactors, you are right; they can't go critical - because they don't exist.

Regarding solar, while PV efficiency is still quite low, if you look at the Carnot efficiency of the heat engines that are the basis of nuclear reactors, they are remarkably similar. Also comparable are the efficiencies of solar thermal engines from solar thermal collectors, which require far lower initial expenditure than PV (or nuclear). To be clear, all we are doing with nuclear power is splitting atoms in order to boil water, the same as coal energy, the same as solar thermal. The principal difference is that in the former two, accidents (and sometimes even normal operation) can result in huge, I mean HUGE areas being rendered uninhabitable for decades. A solar worst-case scenario is positively benign in comparison, and normal operation adverse impact is negligible, involving a remarkably small "dead field" to use your phrase.

@WMG-21: The Sun is a FUSION reactor - not fission - and the vast majority of the byproducts of its reactions are conveniently located 93 million miles away. Try again.

Ah, DD, but nuclear energy is being generated, is it not?

The statement:

Nuclear Energy is a lie.

from comment #4 is as nonsensical as it gets. Nuclear energy is all around us in the universe. In fact, all physical matter in the universe is a direct byproduct of nuclear energy-- we're all made of stardust. The statement, to which I was objecting, is most clearly proved false by pointing to the largest nuclear reaction in our neck of the woods-- the star in the center of our solar system. To deny that it is generating energy is absurd. I'm not entirely sure why you think there needs to be some caveat vis a vis fission vs fusion-- that was never implicated in the original statement and therefore is not germane to my response, nor is it in any way a premise from which you can refute my response. So... "Try Again," DD.

you took the words right outta my mouth, wmg! :)

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! xD

122112. Come on, you need to keep up!

hahaha i know me way behind...is it that mayan calender thing?

...it was about 30 years ago when the Constitution and Bill of Rights went out the window...about the same time when being a [Fill in ethnicity] American became more important then just being an American.

Mr. Steady: Sarcasm...I hope?

The DDC is supremely stupid. What a terrible concept. Its point is moot these days.

Nope, no sarcasm. Why be sarcastic about having inner peace? It is what everyone in the world is looking for and the answer is so simple. Place your trust in God and accept the free gift of salvation and be set free from the cruel wages of sin. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would resist it.

Actually, I need to make a correction. I can understand why people resist salvation because I did myself for far too long. I realize now how needlessly miserable I made myself. Guess I too easily forget.

Yawn. Sarcasm is so much more interesting. You know, the world would be a nicer place if religion were regarded the same as sex toys. I mean have one if it makes you feel good, fantastic, yet why the hell do you think anybody wants to hear about it?

Exxxcellent!

One word - plastics.

THe only reason conservatism is less exhausting is that it requires no thinking.

It is legitimate to consider climate change. Although the climate won't change enough to destroy all or most life, it could increase tensions among nations enough (due, for example, to increased competition for resources) to increase the risk of nuclear war.

could increase tensions among nations

Yes. This. Exactly.

If your whole methodology is focused on the precursors of war, history clearly shows that environmental stressors can be a very large component of why peoples fight.

It all boils down to food. Everyone in first world countries takes it completely for granted, because it is simply impossible to die of starvation. For now.

But there are other reasons for upping the clock. Pakistan is not getting any more stable, and may collapse. North Korea is a big question mark right now, not to mention the Iran problem.

When Iran gets a nuke, how likely do you think it is that they will use it? It will only take one to wipe their mortal enemy off the map.

I think that's a valid point, if I were much less informed I wouldn't worry about anything. I think I will schedule a lobotomy for next week.

You don't need a lobotomy. Just join the Tea party it's the same thing.