I'm judging them by what they say, as quoted in the OP.
No, not those guys. The 99.9% of the conversation that is about radiation hazards. You're tossing that out because someone fed you three quotes from dudes decades ago.
No, not those guys. The 99.9% of the conversation that is about radiation hazards. You're tossing that out because someone fed you three quotes from dudes decades ago.
Environmentalism's Fear-Loathing of Technology
". . . In an article in Quest magazine, titled "The Case Against Abundant, Cheap Energy," Dartmouth professor Noel Perrin wrote: "I don't want nuclear technology (or solar, or any other kind) to work because the blessings of abundant energy are even more to be feared than its risks" (emphasis in original).
Two years later he would write in The New York Times: "What's needed from the nuclear industry is an actual catastrophe-such as it almost gave us at Three Mile Island. . . . We do need a nuclear accident-a nice big one. Soon! Three Mile Island would have done nicely. . . probably no more than a hundred people would have died from the initial contact with the radioactive steam. . . ."
You think quoting the same people more often makes this opinion become more prevalent?
First time Perrin has been quoted.
I can link you a dozen pages that talk about radiation. But it doesn't matter, does it? You've decided this is a majority opinion, and evidence cannot undo a conspiracy theory.
No conspiracy needed. An anti-abundant-energy position is integral to green energy ideology. And nuclear power remains a mere side issue in this discussion.
It's not. I am a green energy proponent and I am not against abundant energy. if we could work out that nuclear fusion thing, that'd be great.
But you don't give a ****. The real agenda is what you've decided it is.
You are an exception.
You are an exception.
No, I'm the majority. But since we can only use anecdotes, you'll never change your mind.
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
Out of curiosity, I'd like to hear from people who have gone "totally-solar" in their home, and how it's worked out for them, including the limitations in their lifestyle that they may have experienced.
Yes. By individuals.There's a documented record of anti-abundant-energy pronouncements by individuals widely recognized as green energy advocates and leaders.
Yes. By individuals.
And I showed you documented record of AGW skeptic leaders making religious arguments against climate change. Should I treat that opinion as a majority? Are you just a rare exception to those beliefs?
I'm indifferent to characterizations of skeptic leadership.
And everyone in the world is indifferent to characterizations of those whack job "leaders" you cherry picked. I'm glad we've come to an understanding.
Whack jobs they may be, but they're widely recognized as green energy leaders.
So is Senator Inhofe. And yet, I am indifferent.
Big Oil is just as anti-human as Big Green.
Senator Imhofe represents his constituents well, but I don't think he's a green energy leader.
Sorry, but no. Oil has raised living standards and saved lives across the globe.
He's a fossil fuel proponent. And therefore your leader.
And yet, indifference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?