Patrick Moore proves to be—gasp—a nuclear shill 13

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GRLCowan Posted 6:22 am
   17 May 2007

   Caricaturing opponents' arguments is dishonest"Chernobyl is so 1980s --"
   You wish. It was before 1950 when Dr. Teller and the Reactor Safety Commission set out to learn the lessons of Chernobyl in advance, and ensure the chance of one was never taken outside the former Soviet Union.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
   
   Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

   Permalink

2. 

   caniscandida Posted 4:23 pm
   17 May 2007

   the tar sands storyBut just to make sure we all understand: The tar sands development will be going through, one way or another?  And this will involve a remarkable emission of GHGs?  And this will involve the construction of a pipeline through forestland that is supposed to be protected in British Columbia, to a Pacific harbor?
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

3. 

   GRLCowan Posted 2:51 am
   18 May 2007

   Already a million barrels per day'Caniscandida' is right to draw attention, if in fact that is his posting's aim, to everyone in this discussion so far's tacit acceptance of a large increase in the already large rate of tar-to-oil upgrading. When he was Environment Minister, Stephane Dion once remarked, I seem to recall, that the money flowing from the tar patch into many pockets -- I'm pretty sure he acknowledged they included public servants' pockets -- was such that its expansionary tendencies would find friends everywhere.
   I didn't see anything in the Tyler Hamilton story about a pipeline to the Pacific. Mostly the upgraded tar goes south. If a protected forest is or has been in the way, I would expect the question of an easement for a carbon tax dollar pipeline was resolved expeditiously. Where is the nearest gas or oil pipeline to you, Canis? Did it go through more slowly, or with greater fuss, than a mosquito's proboscis?
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
   
   Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:18 am
   18 May 2007

   That brings up one questionHow does tarsand CO2 emmisions compare to CTL emmisions?

   Permalink

5. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:23 am
   18 May 2007

   Great Bear RainforestNo no, we do not like mosquitoes' proboscides one little bit.
   What I was inquiring about was something that I vaguely remember reading a while back in a news source linked to an item right here in Grist, concerning the newly created Great Bear Rainforest conservation area on the coast of British Columbia.  The environmentalist organizations, the First Peoples, the provincial government and the lumbering companies were all congratulating themselves on a wonderful negotiated compromise that seemed fairly satisfactory to everybody.  But there was a note of caution: not only could lumbering still do significant damage, but there was talk of putting through a pipeline from northern Alberta, with a (new?) Pacific port at the western end.  How serious that talk was or is, I do not know, and that is why I asked.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

6. 

   GRLCowan Posted 3:27 am
   18 May 2007

   A little lessHow does tarsand CO2 emmisions compare to CTL emmisions?
   A little less. Tar, aka bitumen, is already a fluid hydrocarbon, after all. It just needs to be made a little more fluid.
   As I recall, roughly three-quarters of the CO2 emissions from tar use is from the vehicle's tailpipe, one-quarter is from the upgrading operation. For CTL, it's one and one, or maybe four at the tailpipe, five at the CTL plant.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
   
   Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

   Permalink

7. 

   d41295 Posted 4:11 am
   18 May 2007

   80%If you idiots expect to reduce GHGs by 80% by 2050, you will have to consider nuclear. WILL HAVE TO.
   I await your argument that you will not.

   Permalink

8. 

   MarkUK Posted 4:25 am
   18 May 2007

   ChinaTar is not a fluid... Anything but. The pipeline to the west coast is under discussion because the Chinese are starting to invest in the tar sands and they want the oil out...
   Like it or not, the tar sands developments will go on for some time. Too much money has been invested and is at stake...
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:54 am
   18 May 2007

   Century tar dripThat turns out not to be quite the right Google key, but it still finds what I remembered: Experiment reaches delicate pitch.
   Someone had better keep an eye on that.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
   
   Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

   Permalink

10. 

    MarkUK Posted 6:37 am
    18 May 2007

    fluid propertieshehe...
    
    

    Permalink

11. 

    stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:51 pm
    18 May 2007

    humble request for intellectual honesty.....pleaseDear Friends and Colleagues All,
    Perhaps someone can offer guidance to those many elders in my not-so-great generation who have evidently chosen to eschew science and, for the sake of the comforts in our lives alone, to hold onto our one and only God: wealth accumulation and the power associated with it. Regardless of the consequences to environmental health, human wellbeing, the future of life, and the integrity of Earth, we want more and more money and all the things derived from it. Yes, we are insatiable, intellectually dishonest, and even call ourselves Masters of the Universe. We are loathe to live within the limits of biophysical reality, share resources, make behavior changes, and do what is necessary for assuring life as we know it to coming generations.
    Please consider assisting me with an unfulfilled responsibility to young people and future generations...... a responsibility I call a "duty to warn".
    Without success over the past several years, I have been inviting population scientists, demographers, biologists, economists and anyone else with appropriate expertise to openly comment on the apparently unexpected and unchallenged evidence on human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth from Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel. Where, pray tell me, might I find a deeply dedicated, top-rank brother or sister in the scientific community who possesses the necessary expertise and is willing to report in a professional manner on the Hopfenberg/Pimentel research?
    According to this scientific evidence, humanity could soon come face to face with daunting global challenges, ones that result primarily from 1)unbridled human overpopulation of Earth; 2) unrestrained per human over-consumption of scarce resources and 3) endless expansion of the global political economy in the relatively small, finite world God has blessed us to inhabit.
    Thanks for your consideration of this feeble request for help. Please feel free to contact me directly with a name or else have the scientist get in touch with me by email. I will do whatsoever is necessary to fulfill this unlikely personal obligation, one for which I am evidently unprepared and poorly equipped.
    Sincerely yours,
    Steve
    (Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D.,M.P.A.
    
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
    
    1834 North Lakeshore Drive
    
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514-6733
    
    USA
    
    Tele: 919-967-5764
    
    Email: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    
    //
    var l=new Array();
    
    var output = '';
    
    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[22]='\"';l[23]=' 109';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 99';l[26]=' 46';l[27]=' 108';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 64';l[31]=' 89';l[32]=' 78';l[33]=' 79';l[34]=' 77';l[35]=' 76';l[36]=' 65';l[37]=' 83';l[38]=' 69';l[39]=' 83';l[40]=':';l[41]='o';l[42]='t';l[43]='l';l[44]='i';l[45]='a';l[46]='m';l[47]='\"';l[48]='=';l[49]='f';l[50]='e';l[51]='r';l[52]='h';l[53]='a ';l[54]='

    Permalink

12. 

    glowingsponge Posted 8:41 am
    19 May 2007

    Moore is LessAs an ex Greenpeace staffer back in the times when Moore and his board were in charge in the Vancouver Chapter of GP, I can attest to the fact that Moore destroyed Greenpeace as a movement.
    Minor Details:
    The Vancouver board was caught in a $100,000 cocaine scandal that made it all but impossible for them to do any fundraising. They went after the San Francisco chapter of GP, where I was on staff. We did them a fundraiser, to help them out. They used the money GP-USA raised for them to file a trademark lawsuit against us, and the rest of the world. Back then GP was set up by chapter and were independent of each other.
    If you ever get a chance to confront Moore in one of his public PR operations, ask him about the cocaine problem on the Vancouver board in 1979!
    This fake eco-hero has been called a Judas and lier by real GP people.
    For a lot of details google Harvey Wasserman. He's done several articles on Moore.
    Note all dedicated support posted here in his defense!!! Remember, only the corporate media is making nuclear power the only option we are supposed to be talking about.
    When you start hearing about all the available options then you know we're finally getting a fair look at the alternatives available for the coming energy nightmare our shortsighted consumers oriented country has been trapped into. Here's one European list prioritized by cost and environment:
    1  Fuel switching
    
    2  Appliance efficiency improvements
    
    3  Industrial CHP (Congeneration)
    
    4  Lighting efficiency improvements
    
    5  Small-scale CHP (Cogneration)
    
    6  Cooking efficiency improvements
    
    7  Service sector space heating
    
    8  Advance Gas Turbines
    
    9  Water heating
    
    10 Industrial motive power
    
    11 Domestic space heating
    
    12 Country-wide CHP (Cogneration)
    
    13 Renewables
    
    14 Process Heat
    
    15 Industrial Space Heating
    
    16 Nuclear
    
    17 Advanced Coal Technology
    Note nuclear right at the bottom next to Coal!
    Nuclear has Moore Baggage than the queen of England!  
    Anybody seen a good list of all the dirty laundry on nuclear? When all the pork powered spin is carved away, the issues just grow and glow.

    Permalink

13. 

    amazingdrx Posted 4:48 pm
    19 May 2007

    "I await your argument .."If you want the argument you will have to do better than that tired old talking point.  It's known as the false dilemna fallacy.
    You set up a false choice between GHG disaster or nuclear power.  Ignoring distributed renewable generation and storage and conservation.
    In fact what you will need to do is prove that renewables and conservation can't replace fossil and nuclear.  Go ahead, present your argument.  
    Do you feel lucky?  Well do you?  Hehey.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink