The founder of Greenpeace said Tuesday night that "there is no proof global warming is caused by humans," but the relationship is likely enough that it's time to rely more on nuclear power.
This comes from IdahoStatesman.com.
Patrick Moore says while he believes Earth's atmosphere is changing of its own accord, "true believers" like Al Gore ought to endorse more nuclear power plants in an effort to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. Of course, Moore says, that's just a precaution. In case global climate change is man-made. He says building more nuclear power plants to reduce the effect of coal emissions on the atmosphere would be akin to purchasing fire insurance. We purchase that insurance, he says, on the slim chance our house will burn down. We ought to shut down coal plants on the slim chance that they're contributing to global warming.
What?
Pardon me while I double-take.
Could we be any more wishy-washy? First he says the relationship is likely enough that we ought to fire up more nuclear power plants. Then he says the correlation between the actions of humankind and climate change is actually very low.
While I agree that we ought to rely more on nuclear power, I don't think Moore has a very good chance of convincing those "true believers" he talked about that it's a good idea.
I think any eco-credibility he had is going up in smoke. But at least it's not contributing to global warming, right?
Why won't environmentalists take Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, seriously? Greenpeace was founded to protest nuclear testing. Now who does he work for? He's a representative of the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition. That coalition happens to be backed, in large part, by the nuclear energy industry. This might explain Moore's argument that other alternative-energy sources don't have as much potential as does nuclear energy.
Moore says he's simply realized with the help of science that nuclear energy is a better route to sustainability. Critics say he's just sold out.
While I laud Moore for his position, I want to make two points about this case. The first is that the money trail is important to take into consideration, obviously. This leads to the second point.
While the money trail is important, it's not enough in this case to dismiss Moore's position, and malign him as a heretic. This seems to be the major tactic of the "true believers" of the global warming movement when confronted with a dissenting opinion: discredit and destroy.
This comes from IdahoStatesman.com.
Patrick Moore says while he believes Earth's atmosphere is changing of its own accord, "true believers" like Al Gore ought to endorse more nuclear power plants in an effort to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. Of course, Moore says, that's just a precaution. In case global climate change is man-made. He says building more nuclear power plants to reduce the effect of coal emissions on the atmosphere would be akin to purchasing fire insurance. We purchase that insurance, he says, on the slim chance our house will burn down. We ought to shut down coal plants on the slim chance that they're contributing to global warming.
What?
Pardon me while I double-take.
Could we be any more wishy-washy? First he says the relationship is likely enough that we ought to fire up more nuclear power plants. Then he says the correlation between the actions of humankind and climate change is actually very low.
While I agree that we ought to rely more on nuclear power, I don't think Moore has a very good chance of convincing those "true believers" he talked about that it's a good idea.
I think any eco-credibility he had is going up in smoke. But at least it's not contributing to global warming, right?
Why won't environmentalists take Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, seriously? Greenpeace was founded to protest nuclear testing. Now who does he work for? He's a representative of the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition. That coalition happens to be backed, in large part, by the nuclear energy industry. This might explain Moore's argument that other alternative-energy sources don't have as much potential as does nuclear energy.
Moore says he's simply realized with the help of science that nuclear energy is a better route to sustainability. Critics say he's just sold out.
While I laud Moore for his position, I want to make two points about this case. The first is that the money trail is important to take into consideration, obviously. This leads to the second point.
While the money trail is important, it's not enough in this case to dismiss Moore's position, and malign him as a heretic. This seems to be the major tactic of the "true believers" of the global warming movement when confronted with a dissenting opinion: discredit and destroy.
No comments:
Post a Comment