Is it, perhaps, because the catastrophic warming clique don’t believe their claims any more than the most ardent deniers? it’s pretty hard to explain the continued wide spread opposition to nuclear and geothermal power generation of anyone who really believes carbon dioxide is a problem.
Think about it— If they really believed in catastrophic climate change they could have started being honest about nuclear power 30 years ago. By now carbon dioxide emissions would be far lower than the best case scenario of the Paris agreement, just from the gradual replacement of fossil fired generation.
It seems the only conclusion is that Al Gore and his supporters are in fact “Climate Deniers.” If they believed their doomsday scenarios they would be behaving differently. They would be trying to solve the problem instead of trying to silence opposition.
13 comments
Some of us HAVE been protesting, for thirty years or more. I wasn't old enough to vote in the election that was held in 1980, sadly. Alternative 2 won; "Dismantle the nuclear power, but with reason". It was to have been dismantled slowly, in 25 years. Those of you able to count would realize that that would mean that all our nuclear power ought to be gone 12 years ago. It's still here...
Most of us are able to hold two opinions at a time. We can both be against carbon dioxide AND nuclear power. We can also be for one of them AND against the other.
The ones pushing and profiting from the fossil fuel knew about the problem more than 30 years ago, you silly bint. Most of them will be dead in 10 to 20 years anyway, so few of them care, one way or the other.
it’s pretty hard to explain the continued wide spread opposition to nuclear and geothermal power generation of anyone who really believes carbon dioxide is a problem.
The opposition to nuclear power is basically twofold. The first part can be summarised by simply saying that nuclear power carries with it the inherent risk of another Chernobyl. The second part is simply the fact that nuclear power generates nuclear waste, and there is always the problem of what to do with it, as that can remain radioactive for thousands of years. Renewables, such as wind, solar or wave power, produce minimal or no waste products, so are preferred over nuclear. As for geothermal power, as far as I'm aware, there isn't much opposition to it, but the main reason it is not used on a widespread basis is, basically, cost.
In my opinion, the main reason nuclear power isn't more widespread now is because of the anti nuclear movement.
Even counting Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power still is statistically the safest out there, and the nuclear waste problem is not unsolvable.
@WhiteNoise
Suppose I were to offer to install in your house a generator that gave you electricity for free. However, there was a 1 in 100,000 chance it would blow up, levelling your house and causing enough contamination that your entire neighbourhood would need to be evacuated permanently. Would you take that offer?
It seems the only conclusion is that Al Gore and his supporters are in fact “Climate Deniers.”
Question: Why did Donald Fart invite the Numero Uno of Climate Change for a meeting with him at his penis extension in New York?
An Inconvenient Truth indeed.
Also, a certain orange retard's insistence on solar cells on a certain 'Wall'.
image
My, but that golf cart's powered by a 1,125 CC W16 Quad Turbo'd Volkswagen engine: same as in a Bugatti Veyron, amirite...?! [/Doug Piranha-levels of sarcasm]
@WhiteNoise
Move to a certain part of Ukraine, then. There's plenty of land going free there: certainly for the next 150,000 years. Oh, and if you think nuclear power is safe...:
image
...spend at least five minutes in the same room as the above: the 'Elephant's Foot '.
Because you know what you'll be admitting when you say you can't, wont: or daren't .
@#2105340
1 in 100,000 chance of blowing up? Over what time frame? Ever? If ever, then sure I'd take the free electricity. It's safer than driving to work. Many houses are more likely to be levelled by a natural disaster than those odds.
Fewer people have died or sustained injury from all nuclear power disasters combined than die or get chronic illness from one year mining coal.
An actual modern fission power plant is one of the safest forms of electricity generation we have. Too bad we don't have any of those.
I'm rather strongly pro nuclear power, but why does this ass have to make that point in the stupidest way possible?
Turning against nuclear power was a mistake. That doesn't mean the entire movement of people trying to minimize the damage from climate change are automatically full of shit for not getting that memo. Humans make mistakes. It happens. Just look at the quote here.
Also, just something that irks me: Chernobyl and Fukashima being used as reasons why nuclear power is inherently dangerous. The former was poorly designed, never updated, run by imbeciles, and had everything that could possibly go wrong go wrong all at once. Citing that as a reason to oppose nuclear power is like saying that the lottery is a reason not to look for a job. And the latter was hit by a tsunami. While there was release of nuclear material, which I agree is a bad thing, again, this was an extreme case. I mean, if we're citing extreme cases as reasons not to do things, dam failures are reasons not to do hydroelectric, ecological damage caused by depopulation of avian and chiropteran species stands against wind, and atmospheric heating is a reason not to do solar. Use the average, not the extreme.
Nuclear waste is an issue. One that other countries (particularly France) have been working on. Cutting funding and avoiding the issue doesn't help
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
