Since we don’t have a working nuclear fusion power plant at the moment, some of what I’m about to say is speculative. Nevertheless, the assumption that nuclear fusion would be entirely “clean” is probably unwarranted. Probably the easiest fusion reaction to get going would be deuterium-tritium. Under such high energies there will be quite a lot of separation of neutrons from the nuclei and so a pretty intense neutron flux will be leaving the reactor vessel since neutrons won’t be constrained by the magnetic fields. The surrounding material, being bombarded by neutrons, will be subject to neutron activation and some of it will become radioactive. The amount of radioactive waste from a nuclear fusion reactor is likely to be much less than from a fission reactor, but it won’t be zero. It won’t be as clean as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy.

Chernobyl does not exist only in our imagination. It really happened. Many towns in the Ukraine will be permanentaly uninhabitable for centuries due to the radiation danger. Now, of course you will be telling us that it was not a modern power plant.

Well, what about the Davis-Besse plant in Toldeo, Ohio. On March 12th, 2002 all that prevented a core meltdown was 3/16th inch of steel. If the plant had continued to operate for another few weeks boric acid would have eaten through the reactor vessel and a melt-down would have ensued. We got lucky that time because the corrosion was detected in time. We cannot count on being lucky the next time.

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/besse/davisbe7.htm

“On March 12th, 2002 it was discovered that the entire six-inch Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Reactor (Ohio) had been CORRODED THROUGH by boric acid which dripped onto it from “circular cracks” in reactor nozzles (flanges) which stick out from the top of the RPV. All that held back the 2200 PSI hot water on the other side was the 3/16’s inch Inner Stainless Steel liner (originally reported as 3/8ths of an inch thick, then as 1/2 inch thick, but they seem to have finally agreed on a number and it’s only 3/16ths of an inch). The liner had already bulged about 1/8th of an inch. We were very near a LOSS OF COOLANT ACCIDENT possibly leading to a CORE MELTDOWN…”

http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/AIRS_Takes_on_Global_Climate_Change/Severe_Weather_and_Climate_Change/

“…the AIRS science team has already demonstrated that AIRS data can lead to better forecasts of the location and intensity of “extratropical cyclones” which are mid-latitude storms (an example of which is the “Northeaster” that often strikes the east coast of the United States). This is a good indication that AIRS data are much better than what is available to the weather service, and probably good enough to test the climate-weather connection hypothesis. OF COURSE WE NEED A MUCH LONGER TIME SERIES OF DATA THAN WE HAVE SO FAR, [Empasis Added]…”

Given that the data is limited NASA JPL clearly isn’t following Phil’s lead in boldly committing to an increasing storm intensity conclusion — because they said so. Nice theory though. There might even be something to it…but not from the AIRS data. Yet.

NOAA has a nice link to an article that did some rigourous comparisons of hurricane data, storm intensity trends, in the Atlantic for the past 100 years or so:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

I think that you have misinterpreted the definition of “conservative” and “liberal” that I quoted above from the Oxford English Dictionary:

conservative adj. 1. Tending to favour the preservation of the existing order [basically: "Sod you, Jack, I'm alright!" attitude problem]; averse to change [stick one's head in the sand and pretend it ain't happening] and holding traditional values ['God created the Earth for man to exploit...'].

liberal adj. 7. (of education) Concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience [which is what Dr. Phil Plait, et al., are endeavouring to do].

I trust this is clear now.