Thoughts and Opinions - Greenpeace Founder on Global Warming

Print Page | Close Window

Greenpeace Founder on Global Warming

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=175146
Printed Date: 23 November 2025 at 10:52pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Greenpeace Founder on Global Warming

Posted By: WGP guy2
Subject: Greenpeace Founder on Global Warming
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:01pm

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html - http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

BY ROCKY BARKER - mailto:rbarker@idahostatesman.com - rbarker@idahostatesman.com
Edition Date: 04/24/08

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.

With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.

Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology.

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."

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.

Replies:

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:06pm

This guy was an idiot before, he is an idiot now.

This article is the shorter version - the full interview is a bizarre mix of obvious truths and complete falsehoods. His relationship with truth and facts has not changed, only the particular facts involved.

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:07pm

I'm for it. People are overly sensitive to the word 'nuclear power' because of stuff like Chernobyl. By and large, it's pretty safe, however.

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: Kingtiger
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:16pm

Benjichang wrote:

I'm for it. People are overly sensitive to the word 'nuclear power' because of stuff like Chernobyl. By and large, it's pretty safe, however.

Don't forget 3 mile island.

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:29pm

Kingtiger wrote:

Don't forget 3 mile island.

Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:30pm

Susan Storm wrote:

Kingtiger wrote:

Don't forget 3 mile island.

Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

Not a single one.

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:31pm

Regardless of whether this guy is crazy or not, we need nuclear power, and we need it now.

Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:39pm

Kingtiger wrote:

Benjichang wrote:

I'm for it. People are overly sensitive to the word 'nuclear power' because of stuff like Chernobyl. By and large, it's pretty safe, however.

Don't forget 3 mile island.

You can quote individual catastrophes, but those are few in number and far between.

Every advance in nuclear power makes it much safer. The benefits of having such powerplants are high, so engineers must be able to ensure it is safe so the plants can be made.

-------------

Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 9:04pm

Susan Storm wrote:

Kingtiger wrote:

Don't forget 3 mile island.

Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

None but it gave us countless Troma Movies

-------------

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 11:48pm

Susan Storm wrote:

Kingtiger wrote:

Don't forget 3 mile island.

Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

One less than at Chappaquiddick.

Sorry, I had to. (Old joke for those who don't understand.)

-------------

Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 9:54am

Neat to think about, probably won't happen for another 50 years.

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 10:46am

Evil Elvis wrote:

Susan Storm wrote:

Kingtiger wrote:

Don't forget 3 mile island.

Remind me again - how many people died from that incident?

None but it gave us countless Troma Movies

Why am I thinking that you and I have seen and enjoyed all the same movies... :)

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 10:56am

I still laugh at the idea that global warming is happening because I drive an SUV.

I suppose humans are responsible for http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm - this too.

Bunk. Paranoid bunk.

As for nuclear power, Despite being a good idea, its as realistic as us being able to build and update oil refineries. Too many powerful special interest groups will fight it and it'll never get off the ground. In fact, it'll be lucky to even hit the tarmac.

/rant that will piss off the hippies.

-------------
?

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 11:30am

Reb Cpl wrote:

I still laugh at the idea that global warming is happening because I drive an SUV.

I suppose humans are responsible for http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm - this too.

C'mon, Reb - you are smarter than that. The Mars thing is completely irrelevant and a complete distraction by science deniers.

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 11:37am

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html - Perhaps it is completely relevant?

.....and denied by science believers?

-------------
?

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 11:54am

Reb Cpl wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html - Perhaps it is completely relevant?

.....and denied by science believers?

Article wrote:

...according to one scientist's controversial theory...

"Irrelevant" was an overstatement by me - I should have said "way oversold by science deniers" - but my point is that when faced with apparently contradictory evidence like this, we should not immediately conclude that our previous theory was incorrect, but instead evaluate ALL the evidence together.

That type of cherry-picking leads to bad science.

The Mars warming has been ongoing for 30 years, and has been discussed for just as long. There are tons and tons of material on the subject, and how it relates to warming on Earth. This is not some revolutionary new discovery.

This is one claim by one scientist - and his claim has been and will be evaluated by all the other scientists. That's how science works. To look at this factoid and reach a conclusion on that alone is simply wrong.

The Mars bit sits right next to sunspots and irradiation cycles in terms of "new" discoveries by deniers that are really old hat being recycled for new excitement.

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 12:00pm

How come it works one way, but not the other? My reasons and material are 'cherry picking' and "An inconvenient truth" is gospel?

Thats why I don't usually bother with these things, they go nowhere. It's fun to poke at it with a stick, but in the end, nothing gets accomplished.

-------------
?

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 12:10pm

Reb Cpl wrote:

How come it works one way, but not the other? My reasons and material are 'cherry picking' and "An inconvenient truth" is gospel?

It absolutely works both ways. Inconvenient Truth is not gospel.

There is no gospel in science.

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 12:30pm

Nuclear power is never going to be the global power source that it could be for the simple reason that it would again break the world into the "haves" and "have-nots" when it comes to sources of power. The US and it's western allies will not allow others to develop nuclear programs unless we see fit. Look at North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, and any other number of states that we have stopped from creating nuclear power (either for military or civilian use). What that means is that when the world decides to crack-down on polluting nations like the India and China, they'll have the ability to switch to Nuclear power, however, non-nuclear countries that are trying to develop and must rely on fossil fuels due to not having the funding for a nuclear program will be left behind. We will hold them hostage. They'll either face economic sanctions for their use of polluting fossil fuels, or they'll wind up paying some large power for their excess energy produced using nuclear power.

As for safety...

While nuclear power has become far more safe in the past decade, the fact is that of all of the civilian nuclear accidents to happen from 1950 to present day, of the 22 reported civilian nuclear accidents, 10 of them have been of an INES level greater than 4 (meaning that the area surrounding the plant has been contaminated including non-plant personnel). That, to me, isn't a great safety record when dealing with a power source who's most common by-products are Cesium 137, Iodine 131, and Strontium 90. All products which become airborne rapidly and cause lasting damage to any and all who come in contact with them.

The fact is, nuclear power is neither as dangerous nor as safe as both sides of the argument say it is. It's a bandaide for our current energy needs, but until we come up with something better, I'd support it's use here in the US and in other stabilized western countries so long as only newer "safer" reactor styles are approved and used.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 12:36pm

^^ pfft, what do you know, n00b.

-------------
?

Posted By: thejudge
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 2:15pm

Kingtiger wrote:

Benjichang wrote:

I'm for it. People are overly sensitive to the word 'nuclear power' because of stuff like Chernobyl. By and large, it's pretty safe, however.

Don't forget 3 mile island.

those were older syle power plants too though. there have been alot of improvements but people are still just scared because of these kind of incidents.

-------------
Stay low, run fast, and hope that paintball doesn't hit your...
http://www.deltasquad.info/">

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 2:22pm

Reb Cpl wrote:

^^ pfft, what do you know, n00b.

I know enough to keep a 32-day supply of ingestible potassium iodide http://www.anbex.com/ - (Iosat) on hand whenever I live within 90miles of a nuclear power-plant.

That gives me time to let the I-131 contamination drop to 1/16th it's original level giving me much less risk of thyroid cancer. I'm not so worried about the I-129 as it tends to be a much less active Beta and Gamma emitter. So long as I only eat from packaged goods that have had their packaging thoroughly washed with soap and water to prevent cross-contamination, I figure I can avoid the Ce-137 and Sr-90 issues, well, so long as there are no dust storms. Call me a freak, survivalist, or worry wort if you will, but I know that the vast majority of issues caused by radiation exposure aren't due to high-level gamma emitters such as U-235 and Pu-239. There's no helping you if you get close enough to them. The deaths and illnesses caused by fallout tend to be linked most closely to Ce-137, Sr-90, and the fastest of these killers: I-131. You can get bone marrow transplants and live (albeit not as well as you would without exposure) after exposure to Ce-137 and Sr-90, but Thyroid cancer moves quick, especially with a intense gamma-emitter like I-131.

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>

Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 2:55pm

Move over, Iron Chef - here comes Plutonium Chef!

-------------
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 4:40pm

Susan Storm wrote:

Move over, Iron Chef - here comes Plutonium Chef!

Now with Cherenkov-glowing action!

-------------
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>