Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

4 Comments

  1. Rod, I would say that Johann Hari has handed you the smoking guns on the fossil fuels producers, environmentalists anti-nuclear, you have postulated. Your views have been vindicated once again. You have my commendation.

  2. What’s ironic in this piece is that the author either doesn’t see – or is willfully blind to – the link between corporate cash and anti-nuclear bias that you point out here.
    He seems to segregate environmentalist groups into the ‘good’ ones (that haven’t been tainted by cash) and the ‘bad’ ones (which have become PR frontpieces for large corporations). And then he proceeds to put some particularly egregious offenders against nuclear (greenpeace, 350.org) into the good category!
    So yes, I think there is some dawning of the light here, but not a complete dawning. As far as I can tell, the truth is that lots of the ‘getting paid to protest nuclear’ bias that you saw in that meeting comes from public misconceptions about nuclear and the funding opportunities that those public misconceptions fuel. And that there is a long road before folks like Mr. Hari see this to be the case.

  3. “What’s ironic in this piece is that the author either doesn’t see – or is willfully blind to – the link between corporate cash and anti-nuclear bias that you point out here.”
    Heh … That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
    There is no “dawning” here and folks like Mr. Hari are not headed in the right direction.
    The real irony is that this poorly written piece is essentially just a call for a return to fundamentalism in the Environmental religion … er … movement. The ironic part is that this author has the gall to use such terms as “science-based” in his fundamentalist revival rhetoric.
    It’s much like a fundamentalist Christian talking about science-based creationism.

  4. Rod,
    Your theories seem to be holding more and more water.
    @ Brian,
    You are giving the Creationist a bad name through the comparison.
    I am finally starting to understand the “science” behind the alarmist rhetoric. I guess I am slow to the table. The idea that very small percentage rises in CO2 will lead to a reduced cloud cover which will increase the level of heating more. This is at least an understandable concern. I would simply ask if the CO2 level in the past has been higher than at the present time. If it was and if clouds did not disappear then perhaps the assumptions for their models are incorrect.
    I live in an island nation for the past 12 years. I go to the same beaches I have gone to for years. If the ocean can rise in Bangladesh and not here I am interested to see how that is accomplished.

Comments are closed.