Greenpeace founder gone Nuclear

Big Green Lies

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:07:08 +0100

Back in the late 60s when PAUL EHRLICH wrote his book THE POPULATION BOMB he was making all sorts of rediclous predictions and none of them ever happened and yet the news media still listen to this idiot and parrot his lies all the time - Birdzilla

Nuclear works, it's clean, GLobal Waming =TOTAL BS SUCKERS

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:50:28 +0100

First-global warming is total and complete b.s and anybody who has bought into anthropomorphic Global warming that can be linked to CO2 should be ashamed of being so easily misled by such obvious hypocrites (Al Bore and his 50,000 square foot house, Celebrities and their private jets etc.). The original professort who taught the one class that AL Gore took-discounted and dismissed his own theory, the data has been falsified and this is nothing but a tax and wealth redistribution scheme whose economic costs will kill the elderly and the poor and further devastate US competitiveness. So don't worry about the Earth's temperture-cap and trade will accomplish nothing, the Earth is actually cooling. Second, to anyone who is concerned and bought into this nonsense-which is it? Are you going to save the earth by reducing CO2? Then Nuclear is a must and anyone who doesn't concede this is either a lunatic or simply so mentally addle brained that they too should be discounted. - Heknowsitall

Greenpeace is dumb

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:05:33 +0100

Hey GREENPEACE LISTEN TO ME YOU BRAINLESS MUTTONHEADS MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECUASE OF THE BAN ON DDT AND BECUASE RACHEAL CARSON LIED BIG TIME - Spurwing Plover

Greenpeace is stupid

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:30:56 +0100

Look at all those stupid and absolutly stupid protests GREENPEACE always pull off i mean running onto airports or coal piles to unfurl their stupid banners or climbing up on bridges and buildings to hang their rediculous signs and then getting fined a few years ago for damaging that coral reef off the philipeans and even claiming that the 2004 tsunami was cuased by global warming and still there someone especialy in hollyweird who donates to these liars SCREW GREENPEACE GREENPEACE GO AWAY AND DONT EVER COME BACK - Flu-Bird

screw greenpeace

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:25:37 +0100

Screw greenpeace go nucilar and tell the greens and the makers of the china syndrome to go take a hike :D - Wildbird

The Future

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:20:58 +0100

The best energy source we have is solar power. If we had the technology, we could power the whole country with it. Currently, however, it is too expensive to do so. Having studied nuclear power in school, I have become an advocate of using nuclear power as an intermediate solution for reducing greenhouse gases. If we want to reduce CO2 emmissions now, this is our best option. It is not perfect, but it is vastly superior to coal, and until renewable power technology is developed enough to gain widespread use, our only other option is coal, oil, or gas. I expect renewables to be cost competitive within 10 to 20 years, but until then we need to do something now. It is my opinion that unless we embrace nuclear power as our future baseload power, more coal, oil, and gas plants will be built to fill our energy needs. Also, if we convert our transit energy source from oil to electricity, this will raise our electricity demand even more than projected. This will force power companies to build even more new plants, and will probably do so before renewables are economical. I would much prefer nuclear plants to coal plants. My ideal scenario is to have 50% of our electricity come from nuclear, and 50% from renewables by 2050. From there we could begin a phase out of nuclear plants as they reach their design life and replace them with renewable. By 2100, most of our power would be renewable. This probably will not happen, but I think it should at least be a goal. Thirdly, whether or not you are a nuclear power advocate, look for a jump in nuclear power plants if emission caps are introduced. Nulcear power is currently the only non-renewable energy source that accounts for all of its emissions. The price of nuclear power will stay relatively constant, while coal, oil, and gas costs will go up. Nuclear power is already very competitive with coal, and introducing another cost to coal would make nuclear look a lot better. - Ian

Credibility

Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:11:37 +0100

Has this (person)'s credibility always been so shaky? How does this effect the credibility of Greenpeace? The wheel of karma tends to level things out. - Celia

Moore wasn\'t the only founder

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:11:48 +0100

Your article makes it seem like PM founded Greenpeace all by himself. In fact it was established be several people all of whom (except PM) are still totally against nuclear power or were up until the day they died.

Patrick Moore is nothing but a spineless sell out. - a guest

Moore is a Judas

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:03:35 +0100

I hate to say that Moore is a \"Judas\" and I only say that having just watched the Natural Geographic Gospel of Judas special where they state that maybe Judas was actually just doing what Jesus wanted him to. Maybe Moore wasn\'t really a true green at heart either. Maybe he just was hanging with the wrong crowd. Maybe hanging out with the Plastic and Timber industry is more his speed.

To say that Chernobyl wasn\'t so bad is just plain STUPID! What is wrong with this guy? His rebuttals have merit if you are a high school freshman, are you?

Can something that Dick Cheney supports actually a good idea? Doubtful.

Your support of Moore makes me want to stop going to this site. - a guest

Nukes answer the wrong question!

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:10:23 +0100

A conventional power plant wastes 2/3 of its energy as heat (cooling towers, river water, etc). No matter the energy source, it\'s just plain stupid to throw that much away. A better answer is cogeneration; smaller power plants located where you can use that heat, like hospitals, colleges, and factories. You can double the efficiency.

This is also known as Distributed Generation (DG), using lots of smaller generators to stabilize the electric grid and relieve congestion and overloaded lines. Good for costs, good for security. And if they\'re cogen they\'re good for the environment.

Nuclear does not lend itself to cogen or DG because nobody wants to live next to a nuke, and they don\'t scale down well. So nukes, whether you think they\'re right or wrong, are an answer the wrong question. We donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need any more big decentralized power plants. - a guest

...

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:57:50 +0100

A little more research into Patrick Moore is necessary before your tout him and his nukes. It turns out this guy is pushing all kinds of environmentally deplorable causes for big bucks now (http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/). Nuclear energy is still a long way from being any kind of panacea for global warming. We can\'t supplant one environmentally unsound practice for another and until we know what to do with nuke waste, protect nuke plants and their cooling ponds from terrorist attacks (even a small plane wreck into a cooling pond could cause a catastrophic meltdown), and clean up nuclear mining practices (among the most environmentally damaging on earth), nuclear power has no future. - Guest

wrong link

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:06:00 +0100

sorry - posted wrong link on previous comment - here\'s correct one: [URL=http://www.greengop.org/2006/04/its_pronounced_.html]www.GreenGOP.org[/URL] - Guest

Nuclear creates jobs too

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:03:59 +0100

Nuclear is a good example of technologies that create jobs while reducing emissions. [URL=http://www.greengop.org/2006/04/profit_from_glo.html]www.GreenGOP.org[/URL] - Guest