cancels how many fossil fuel tax dollars a day, again? And the tax man gives back even more, as nuclear subsidies; there are idiots and web pages to prove it. Wish if you will for journalists to mention Moore's unknown, possibly token, receipt of money from the nuclear industry, but there's a lot of antinuclear money around.

Progressives don't oppose nuclear energy.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

Even if you like Nukes.

You do have to admit Patrick Moore is a lying bastard.

Infact he's a professional greenwashing consultant for dirty industries.

And then there's money. Even 18 years after he left Greenpeace, Moore's business relationships with polluters and clear-cutters elicit disgust from his erstwhile comrades. "He'll whore himself to anything to make a buck," says Paul George, founder of the Western Canada Wildlife Committee. In an email, former Greenpeace director Paul Watson charges, "You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money."

Moore admits he's well paid for his speaking and consulting services. He won't say how well, avowing only that his environmental consultancy, Greenspirit Strategies, has been "very successful because we know what we're talking about and give good advice."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore_pr.html

I wouldn't believe for a second that he even gives a damn about reducing CO2 emmisions.

I feel that Patrick Moore should be identified as an employee of the nuclear industry, even though he obviously applied for the work after changing his mind on nuclear power, rather than before.

It's also fair to point out that some environmental groups traditionally depend on opposition to nuclear power as a fundraiser, even if occasionally -- or often, for that matter -- facts are wrong.

A friend who belongs to mainstream environmental groups said that it was only after Gore's movie came out that climate change became the lead article in the magazines.

Back to the article in question -- mistake after mistake after mistake. Why not mention them? The concern about toxics in San Luis Obispo from the nuclear plant -- the other alternative was a coal plant with a trainload of coal every day. What toxics are building up in SLO from nuclear? Weapons grade plutonium from commercial nuclear power?

And to cite Caldicott on fallacious -- some people I know stopped listening to her when the Y2k meltdown failed to occur; almost everyone else I know stopped listening to her in the 1980s. Remember her promoting the idea that the shuttle program would destroy the ozone layer?

I am not paid by the nuclear industry.

A Musing Environment

Karen Street