Split the difference

Ken Parish comments on falling Global temperatures;

That means we should take modest, considered action to moderate CO2 emissions, but extreme, drastically growth-inhibiting measures simply aren't justified by the current state of knowledge and evidence. It would be a good idea for the US and Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and for carbon taxes and an international and domestic emissions credits trading system to be developed. And it's very important that the third world be required to sign up to Kyoto-style emission reduction targets. First world governments should also continue and expand funding for development of sustainable, non-carbon energy sources (e.g. hydrogen).

But that's about as far as it goes. There's certainly no overwhelming case for major conversion to nuclear energy, at least until generation costs come down and waste disposal and proliferation problems can be more securely managed.

At this point, my simple little brain is siding with the 'Nuclear, are you nuts!?!' argument. Though I'm sure as soon as the heavyweights (Lambert & Quiggin) step in and commence discussions, I'll be left in the dark (and their dust).