Patrick Moore is a paid shill for the nuclear industry -- through op-eds, astroturf groups, and relentless cozying up to reporters, he works around the clock to convince the public that nuclear is safe and clean and economical and consequently that it deserves billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
Fine. That's his right. What's not OK is that the press insists on introducing Moore as "one of the founders of Greenpeace," often burying or entirely failing to mention his current shillery. In Moore's youth, in the '70s and '80s, he was indeed heavily involved in Greenpeace. Then, around 1986, for whatever reason, he flipped and became a corporate "consultant" for industries that have since included timber, fishing, and now nuclear.
Seems to me his activities over the last 20 years are more relevant to identifying him than his ancient and now clearly desiccated idealism. No?
Aaaanyway, I bring all this up in order to point you to a just-released official Greenpeace statement on Patrick Moore:
While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.
Ouch. Greenpeace goes on to disavow any connection to or relationship with him, describing some of his anti-environmental positions and rebutting them.
There you go: Greenpeace no likey Patrick Moore. He no likey Greenpeace. The two are Mars and Venus. Will this convince journalists to accurately identify Moore? I won't hold my breath.
New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride
David Frum says ‘Conservatives Heart Nuke Power.’
Comments
View as Threaded
David Bradish Posted 9:46 am
13 Oct 2008
This post makes sense. Only people who DON'T work in the nuclear industry are the only people who can give an honest opinion and provide real facts. Got it.
Oh wait. What about other experts who speak on behalf of their professions like environmentalists and climatologists? I know of a few experts who make great money in those professions. Yet according to your logic, we can't believe what they say because they make money as well. Brilliant logic.
Just so people know, I work for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:09 am
13 Oct 2008
The only reason the nuclear industry and others hired him was because he worked for Greenpeace. All he does lend the NEI and others false environmental credibility in public relations. He is no expert on nuclear energy.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 2:24 pm
13 Oct 2008
Dr. Franklin is no dummy, as the nation's foremost expert on forest ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest, he's going to go where all the money is. Restoration forestry is the cutting edge but, today's Americans just aren't progressive enough in their thinking, yet, to allow scientifically-sound forest management in their National Forests. Soon, but probably not soon enough.
How many MORE dead trees and scorched earth can people ignore until they realized they sacrificed too much green canopy, wildlife habitat and clean water?
Once again, uncontrolled fire is NEVER good!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:16 pm
13 Oct 2008
grist.org
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:02 pm
13 Oct 2008
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:57 pm
13 Oct 2008
Now if you applied the same logic to Obama, he wouldn't even be a Senator because of his support for corn ethanol.
Not on topic? PSSSHAW!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:06 am
14 Oct 2008
Environmentalism, still alive and kicking.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink