Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't regard side shots at Greenpeace as being off topic when the topic is nuclear energy.  

Greenpeace is a major force of ignorance in my view.   This is easily seen by going on their website and clicking on "nuclear."

I do not regard them as environmentalists in any way.   They have no credibility with me whatsoever.  

I believe that they are encouraging a kind of thinking that will lead to the collapse of the earth's atmosphere.   They may have cute pictures of whales on their website, but I assure you that if the krill population is decimated by climate change - and it may be - there will be no whales, no penguins, and probably not much of anything else.

Basically I regard Greenpeace as an organisation for middle and upper class people who want to engage in "feel good" denial and elaborate ill informed pretence.

If you look for anything I write anywhere, you should expect to see shots at Greenpeace.   I very much want to divorce the international media from the ridiculous contention that one should refer to Greenpeace for an "environmentalist view."   This media conceit is about as harmful as climate change denial.  

I extend this criticism of Greenpeace to the curiously famous Patrick Moore by the way, who - his claim to fame being a founder of Greenpeace - also has no credibility with me.

I happen to agree with some things Patrick Moore says about nuclear energy, and maybe I agree with some things that Greenpeace says about wind, but to be perfectly clear, I think for myself.  I do not respect "appeal to authority" arguments in any way and I believe both Moore and his former organisation are essentially saying useless and dangerous things and that neither have "authority," in any case.

by NNadir on Mon Jan 8th, 2007 at 04:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Nomad 4
Plan9 4


Occasional Series