In a stunning 180, the founder of Greenpeace now backs nuclear power!
http://gallery.greenpeace.ca/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=243&g2_serialNumber=2
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.
It's also interesting that he admits there's no proof of anthropogenic global warming. He has other ideas as well:
He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales.

In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability.

He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful.

"We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies."The guy is actually sounding reasonable all of the sudden. How do his former compatriots respond to his ideas? Predictably, they claim he's in the pocket of "big nukes". Do global warming true believers not have any other arguments? They always resort to this kind of crap:
His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out.

"The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said. http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

Pathetic.

It just proves how the "human caused" Global Warming movement is becoming a fundamentalist religion. They don't want to hear (or have anyone else here) alternative scientific theories.
And if anyone on their side starts to open their eyes and question their religion, then they're a "sell out".......:rolleyes:

That doesn't mean it's not probably true. Mathematical proof will always be elusive in a complex system like the climate.

I think a case can be made for nuclear power, but it's likely that building and operating these plants will consume vast amounts of fossil fuels.

It just proves how the "human caused" Global Warming movement is becoming a fundamentalist religion. They don't want to hear (or have anyone else here) alternative scientific theories.
And if anyone on their side starts to open their eyes and question their religion, then they're a "sell out".......:rolleyes:

If the objections were merely scientific, that's fine, but science has little tolerance for the political bias that is behind most efforts to disprove that humans have a major effect on climate.

mad i wonder what you would be saying if say George Bush 1 came out and said that "we need to stop using oil because ifs fucking the world and solor and wind combined with hydrogen are the only solutions"

Would you take that as proof Global warming exists or would you think that he had been paid to say it?

this is not new information...

he's been working on that pro nuclear power message for years...

nuclear power is good for the environment, and is the 'greenest' of the 'green' energy sources...

If the objections were merely scientific, that's fine, but science has little tolerance for the political bias that is behind most efforts to disprove that humans have a major effect on climate.

Sure they're political efforts ? How about the political efforts of the "human caused" global warming hype ?
I have a feeling there's politics behind both sides, as well as science on both sides.

mad i wonder what you would be saying if say George Bush 1 came out and said that "we need to stop using oil because ifs fucking the world and solor and wind combined with hydrogen are the only solutions"

Would you take that as proof Global warming exists or would you think that he had been paid to say it?

I'd be all for electric cars or something to replace our dependancy on oil.
I just don't care for this Global Warming religion that's developing.

mad i wonder what you would be saying if say George Bush 1 came out and said that "we need to stop using oil because ifs fucking the world and solor and wind combined with hydrogen are the only solutions"

Would you take that as proof Global warming exists or would you think that he had been paid to say it?Asguard. You should know better than that. Do you really think I'd look to George Bush for information on matters regarding science?

Regardless of what he said, I'd want to see the evidence. I judge matters of science on their merits, not based on who funded the study. If they fudged the data, it will come out when the findings can't be repeated.

exactly my point. It doesnt MATTER that he founded green peace, if hes right no real down side by ignoring it (hell whats the down side in poluting less?), if he is wrong there is a HUGE problem with ignoring climate change.

mad i wonder what you would be saying if say George Bush 1 came out and said that "we need to stop using oil because ifs fucking the world and solor and wind combined with hydrogen are the only solutions"

Would you take that as proof Global warming exists or would you think that he had been paid to say it?

Perhaps a better question is what would YOU be saying :)

that its about bloody time he woke up

exactly my point. It doesnt MATTER that he founded green peace, if hes right no real down side by ignoring it (hell whats the down side in poluting less?), if he is wrong there is a HUGE problem with ignoring climate change.Asguard, there is a huge downside to using our limited resources to mitigate an imaginary or exaggerated problem while real problems go unsolved. I'd think the recent food shortages, which have been made worse by the rise of biofuels (to help prevent global warming).

You see, we have people starving because we were trying to prevent climate change. If it's not real, if using biofuels has no effect on the long term global climate, those people are starving for nothing. Isn't that a down side?

Patrick Moore talks a lot of sense on a lot of issues - nuclear power, genetically modified crops etc - and on the fact that Greenpeace is a politically motivated organisation interested more in anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than it is in environmentalism.

In terms of his views on climate change - well you cant expect a guy to be right on everything can you :D

on a more serious note, most of the stuff I have seen him present on that subject was refuted 10 years ago apparently

You see, we have people starving because we were trying to prevent climate change. If it's not real, if using biofuels has no effect on the long term global climate, those people are starving for nothing. Isn't that a down side?

Good point - and at the same time, organisations like Greenpeace are dead against - and are actively blocking - the same starving people using genetically modified crops that might actually make a difference to their standard of living.

Because people starving is another plus for these enviro-psycos. The less people the better in their eyes.

Because people starving is another plus for these enviro-psycos. The less people the better in their eyes.

That's just silly - they are generally well meaning people - just not too bright and with skewed priorities

Liberal land France already gets 80% of its energy from nukes. -_-

This change of mind is not a surprise. Many Trotskyists changed their minds to become neocons later (Leo Strauss).

Liberal land France already gets 80% of its energy from nukes. -_-

How did France managed to do that with all the environmental nutcases out there? In late 70's I was in Boston taking training...and saw a few teenagers protesting on nuclear power. When I talked to them, they did not know anything about how the power is generated. These people thought that the radiation will travel through wires to homes.....like electrons....

In a stunning 180, the founder of Greenpeace now backs nuclear power!
http://gallery.greenpeace.ca/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=243&g2_serialNumber=2

It's also interesting that he admits there's no proof of anthropogenic global warming. He has other ideas as well:
The guy is actually sounding reasonable all of the sudden. How do his former compatriots respond to his ideas? Predictably, they claim he's in the pocket of "big nukes". Do global warming true believers not have any other arguments? They always resort to this kind of crap:

Pathetic.

So what ?
Suppose it was your father.. what should we then do with you ?

So what ?
Suppose it was your father.. what should we then do with you ?
What are you talking about? What does my father have to do with GreenPeace or Nuclear energy?:huh:

It just proves how the "human caused" Global Warming movement is becoming a fundamentalist religion. They don't want to hear (or have anyone else here) alternative scientific theories.
And if anyone on their side starts to open their eyes and question their religion, then they're a "sell out".......:rolleyes:

yeah... the idiots are actually hurting their cause by doing this.

It just proves how the "human caused" Global Warming movement is becoming a fundamentalist religion. They don't want to hear (or have anyone else here) alternative scientific theories.
And if anyone on their side starts to open their eyes and question their religion, then they're a "sell out".......:rolleyes:

I disagree - the tactics of a good proportion of the anti-ACC bunch bear a close resemblance to the tactics of the religious fundie whackjobs in the evolution denial scam.

for example - a favourite tactic of both is to nitpick a few small incosistencies and flaws in OLD research - and hold it up as proof of how the fundamental theory is wrong.
Like using solar activity or milancovich cycles as an explanation for climate change instead - these of have been incorporated into current research for around 10 years - and the results still point to ACC

Science welcomes new information - problem is the anti brigade aint got none - so you can hardly blame science for speaking out against people who are anti-science

What are you talking about? What does my father have to do with GreenPeace or Nuclear energy?:huh:

Well, I was just wondering why you made a point of it that he was the founder of Greenpeace.. :shrug:
Apologies if you need one ;)

Well, I was just wondering why you made a point of it that he was the founder of Greenpeace.. :shrug:
Apologies if you need one ;)

actually he's not the founder - he credits himself as a co-founder - the founders and other co-founders say he was simply one of the first members.

I don't really trust either side all that much so not sure who is telling the truth

It just proves how the "human caused" Global Warming movement is becoming a fundamentalist religion. They don't want to hear (or have anyone else here) alternative scientific theories.
And if anyone on their side starts to open their eyes and question their religion, then they're a "sell out".......:rolleyes:

By the way Cazzo - this is yet another case of you making a fool out of yourself by not reading the info and jumping to your default position of crazed consiracy nut.

Patrick Moore actually says when referring to climate change (and I quote verbatim FROM THE ARTICLE):
"is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power"

In terms of what causes climate change he says: "The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said."

so to summarise Patric Moore's views on climate change, it is: Likely caused by greenhouse gasses.

Yup - sounds like a real anti global warming activist to me


Fool!

Well, I was just wondering why you made a point of it that he was the founder of Greenpeace.. :shrug:
Apologies if you need one ;)
I made that point because Greenpeace has always opposed Nuclear power (as illustrated by the picture in the OP). And now this same guy who founded (or was one of the original members) this group has turned around and decided to promote nuclear power. Notice that it wasn't his father that founded Greenpeace, it was him (at least according to him).

By the way Cazzo - this is yet another case of you making a fool out of yourself by not reading the info and jumping to your default position of crazed consiracy nut.

Patrick Moore actually says when referring to climate change (and I quote verbatim FROM THE ARTICLE):
"is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power"

In terms of what causes climate change he says: "The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said."

so to summarise Patric Moore's views on climate change, it is: Likely caused by greenhouse gasses.

Yup - sounds like a real anti global warming activist to me


Fool!

Resorting to personal attacks is a sign of weakness in an arguement.....
I stand by what I said too.

I made that point because Greenpeace has always opposed Nuclear power (as illustrated by the picture in the OP). And now this same guy who founded (or was one of the original members) this group has turned around and decided to promote nuclear power. Notice that it wasn't his father that founded Greenpeace, it was him (at least according to him).

Ok. I was just using your father in an analogy to get across a point, no bad intentions there.
Maybe I'm still not getting it, but how does this reflect negatively on Greenpeace ?

I made that point because Greenpeace has always opposed Nuclear power (as illustrated by the picture in the OP). And now this same guy who founded (or was one of the original members) this group has turned around and decided to promote nuclear power. Notice that it wasn't his father that founded Greenpeace, it was him (at least according to him).

Its a fair point, but in a way is a little irrelevant.

Bear in mind that a good proportion of serious environmentalists - certainly environmental SCIENTISTS as opposed to environmental lobbyists and pressure groups, support the extended use of nuclear power and have done for some time, and plenty have crossed over from the contrary position.
The reason? They are smart enough to look at the evidence, and as the evidence changes, they change their views based on the new information.

So you have a fairly typical story here - the mainstream media, the pressure groups and global warming conspiracy theory loonies all spin their sensational semi-baked stories, while the real scientists get on with the real work and discuss real solutions.

One thing that hasn't changed about nukes - they are incredibly expensive.

Unless you want to just pile the waste around, and shortcut the safety.

My guess is the environmentalists who have become nuke backers are realists, who can see the writing on the corporate wall about solar and design efficiencies and conservation and so forth - and don't really care about the economic and political effects, or the occasional accident, or people in general maybe.

They see what coal and oil and so forth are going to be doing, and recognize that nukes are realistically better for almost everything except people. People will pay for clean nukes - through the nose, but they will. They will not pay for clean coal, or heat engine solar with associated infrastructure.

For example: Chernobyl is a game refuge, one of the better-protected "natural" places on earth. A serious waste or fuel or even (it's always possible) reactor accident in the upper Mississippi valley would be even better, from a treehugger's pov.

One thing that hasn't changed about nukes - they are incredibly expensive.

Unless you want to just pile the waste around, and shortcut the safety.

My guess is the environmentalists who have become nuke backers are realists, who can see the writing on the corporate wall about solar and design efficiencies and conservation and so forth - and don't really care about the economic and political effects, or the occasional accident, or people in general maybe.

They see what coal and oil and so forth are going to be doing, and recognize that nukes are better for almost everything except people.

For example: Chernobyl is a game refuge, one of the better-protected "natural" places on earth. A serious waste or fuel or even (it's always possible) reactor accident in the upper Mississippi valley would be even better, from a treehugger's pov.


Well most "tree huggers" are still in the no nukes camp - they want to effect enviromental change by getting us all to live in log cabins and knit our own museli.

On the otherhand there are the pragmatists - confronted by the fact that there's no currently viable way to reverse the way we consume energy and resources - they decide that we need to find better ways to do it that don't pollute the atmosphere with CO2 - of which there aren't many ways other than nuclear - especially if the wind isn't blowing, the sun isn't shining, or you live inland away from any potential sources of HEP.
The pragmatists also look beyond the scare stories and look at the facts - the lastest review of the chernobyl accident includes the following conclusions:

28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004.

An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005-06 study.

If that's the worst a nuclear accident can do then I'm not too worried personally

Resorting to personal attacks is a sign of weakness in an arguement.....

Dear oh dear - do you ever engage your brain before typing? - considering how badly you had lost the argument, pointing out that mine was weak hardly does you any favours now does it - silly billy!

I stand by what I said too.

of course you do - you're a conspiracy theory whackjob - why should you let something as insignificant as fact, truth, or evidence change your mind?

Why should the fact that the article says something completely different to what you think it does - because youy never bothered to read it - change you mind?

let me guess - you're still in your teens - am I right?