Skip to main content

View Diary: A Very Cool Little POLITICAL Book In An Engineering Library. (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How does a diary that childishly smears (7+ / 0-)

    Greenpeace in the following manner....

    This is some bull crap "by 2090" fantasy of the consumerist creeps from the Yacht Club Set that runs the anti-intellectual, anti-science squad at Greenpeace.

    ... make it into the community spotlight list?

    What's happening in Ecuador is great, but to use those events to trash one of the main organizations that support protecting the rain forests is pretty disgusting.


    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 05:34:28 AM PDT

    •  Well it depends on how you define "Childish." (2+ / 0-)

      Here is the "by 2090" link to which I refer:

      Greenpeace's Soothsaying Energy "Study."

      These awful, mindless, consumerist bourgeois brats have this to say in their report on page 8 of the endless drivel it contains:

      In this report we have also expanded the time horizon for the Energy [R]evolution concept beyond 2050, to see when we could phase out fossil fuels entirely. Once the pathway of this scenario has been implemented, renewable energy could  provide all global energy needs by 2090. A more radical scenario – which takes the advanced projections of the renewables industry into account – could even phase out coal by 2050.

      The bold is mine.

      Phase out fossil fossil fuels by 2090?   Could?

      It may be childish to care about childish things and children generlly care about children.

      The people who dump responsibility on future generations not even born yet cannot be said to be caring about children.   Clearly they don't care about future generations at all, since they consume power and energy producing glib, scientifically illiterate drivel that does nothing at all now.

      The number of assholes who wrote this "report" who will be alive in 2090 to discuss what the soothsaying garbage they wrote in 2008 is zero.

      If one knows something about science - and this immediately excludes the entire membership of Greenpeace - one recognizes that the issues connected with climate change, the toxicity of dangerous fossil fuels and their waste - which kill 2 million people per year - are immediate tragedies.

      Don't tell me about childish.   Defending Greenpeace is all about contempt for children and our children's children.

      Have a great day.

      •  Another catch is that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NNadir, Susan from 29, Roadbed Guy

        projections become much less reliable the longer the time period. Just think of Malthus, who couldn't even conceive of the demographic transition.

        For this reason, I consider any planning with a time period longer than 10 or at most 15 years more or less informed speculation. The next 10 to 15 years are the meat of a plan.

        And that's why Greenpeace lost me. Their plans call for an increase in fossil-fuel use (natural gas) so those evil nuclear plants can be phased out. No, thank you.

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:45:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so new nuclear is informed speculation? (0+ / 0-)

          since it takes 7-10 years to get permits and then then 3-5 years to construct?

          Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

          by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:00:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are now more than 60 nuclear power plants (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy, bryfry

            ...being built around the world.

            Database of world wide nuclear reactor construction.

            The vast majority of them will each be able to produce more energy than all the wind facilities in Denmark, (and this without trashing huge tracts of land and without buying massive amounts of neodymium, an increasingly stressed metal supply on which wind turbines depend to avoid being destroyed by torque).

            The anti-nuke set, besides being ignorant of science and engineering, are also ignorant of history.

            Nuclear energy has proved the fastest form of carbon free primary energy to build, and this is not some made up soothsaying prediction, this is history.

            The United States historically constructed more than 100 reactors in 20 years, most of them capable of producing more electricity than all the solar installations in Germany.

            So you are in the position of whining that what has already happened is impossible.

            Anti-nukes are similar to arsonists who complain that there's too many fires.    They are the ones who attempt to destroy, out of fear, ignorance, and superstition, the world's largest non-carbon based form of primary energy, and they are the ones who come up with bullshit delaying tactics to try to slow nuclear construction.

            In a rational world, it would be possible to build nuclear reactors in well under 5 years.   How do I know?   Because for one thing its been done lots of times, and is being done right now in Asia.

            Have a great day.

            •  Sir (0+ / 0-)

              1/ I'm not anti-nuke.

              2/ I was responding to the short-sightedness of Dauphin's comment that 10-15 years is the maximum limit to any planning horizon.

              Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

              by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:22:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You just don't like Greenpeace because they (3+ / 0-)

        won't line up for your "nukes are the magic solution to everything" stance.

        That's childish.

        And so is this comment of yours.

        Phasing out coal completely on a global level by 2050 is an ambitious, yet realistic, goal.

        And we won't need nukes to do it, no matter how many insulting and derogatory diaries you write here on DKos.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 09:39:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't like them because they're scientifically (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, Roadbed Guy

          and morally illiterate.

          I've made my case well enough.  

          If you don't get it, it's none of my concern except to note that you are yet another member of the squad of people who rely on rote dogmatic ignorance, fear and superstition.

          I deplore all of these things, and have absolutely no intention of apologizing for doing so.

          You hate my response to Greenpeace, I suspect, because you are also a mindless consumer with no sense of the suffering of humanity now and no sense of responsibility to future generations..

          Phasing out fossil fuels "by 2050" is garbage.   They need to be phased out now.

          There is only one form of energy - exactly one - that is proved on scale to be capable of doing this.   It's the one that you and the other mindless anti-intellectuals despise, nuclear energy.   You despise nuclear energy not because you are aware of risk analysis, not because you understand the first thing about neutron diffusion theory, not because you understand the phase diagrams of plutonium oxides in various fluid phases - including melted PWR fuel - but out of ignorance of any of these topics.

          I make no secret that I despise ignorance.   Tough shit if you don't like it and what to whine about my contempt, of which I am proud.

          I couldn't care less what you think.   You are obviously the very thing I fight against.

        •  Common courtesy would suggest (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          that you adhere to Joieau's request to stick to your own sandbox as most of those here have lately refrained from stirring up hers.

          Moderation in most things.

          by billmosby on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:41:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  realism and yachts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, jam

        a) How long to you think it would take to replace 90% of fossil fuel consumption by nuclear if we started today?

        b) If it would take longer than 2050, may I conclude that you care nothing about future generations?

        c) Your link does not establish that the GP Board of Directors is a yacht club of some sort, only that one of the members made his money in small  boat manufacture...I suppose that would include yachts  but what it if does?

        d) One of the directors also has a PhD in physics, but clearly he is also a malicious and innumerate murderer of the unborn.

        e) I wonder what would be the composition of the board of International Nucleonics Incorporated, and how many ecologists or 3rd world development experts it would contain.

        f) I have been a supporter of yours for years, but I now conclude that you are simply not in your right mind.

        Scripture says "resist not evil", but evil unresisted will prevail.

        by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 11:43:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By comparison, how long (0+ / 0-)

          would it take to build the 90,000 large scale wind and/or solar projects to do likewise?

          From what I've been reading on this site how it's damn near impossible to get even one built, I'm thinking MUCH MUCH longer than 2050 . . .

          •  too many pronouns (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean

            Impossible to get one what built? The US has installed >23 GW of wind in the past three years and 0 GW of new nuclear.

            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

            by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 05:48:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for proving my point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              So, in the past 3 years we've installed wind generating capacity worth ~1% of the electricity consumption of the country.

              So, at that rate it'd take about 300 years to get to full capacity.  Let me pull out my handy calculator to see if that's before or after 2050 . . . .

              •  um... (0+ / 0-)

                so it would take infinitely long to do it with nuclear so we should stop even having the conversation?

                Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:19:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We got to about 20% nuclear (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  by building nuclear power plants for about 20 years.

                  Just saying, that rate (i.e., ~1% a year) is about 3x faster that the (allegedly) fabulous burst of wind energy now being brought online.

                  •  which says nothing (0+ / 0-)

                    about the current regulatory and economic environment. I'm saying that your premise, that it is "damn near impossible to get one [wind farm] built" is unsupported by facts. Comparing nuclear power's rise to wind's rise is not only irrelevant but unproductive.

                    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                    by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:39:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Muskegon Critic has had any (0+ / 0-)

                      number of diaries right here at this site proving what I said . ..

                      Plus there are numerous examples elsewhere ranging from the Air Force squelching projects to rampant NIMBYism in many places (the New York Times, for example, has an amusing series of articles about Upstate NY).

                      The same thing goes for large scale solar - the last time I looked into it there were 5 or 6 molten salt projects being held up (compared to 0 or 1 actually being built) by so-called environmentalists and NIMBYists.

                      The bottom line is that it IS damn near impossible to get these things built - in a sane world we'd be building them 10 to 100x faster than we are.

                      •  anecdotal at best (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm going to a ribbon cutting for a wind project on an Air Force base on Friday.

                        Molten salt projects are being held up less for NIMBY than for economics. They are being switched to PV projects that are going forward.

                        Not saying it is perfect, just that it is. But now, I'm not sure of what your point is. It is hard to build wind and solar, but impossible to build nuclear (in the U.S., Watts Bar 2 not withstanding).

                        I would advocate for increasing the construction pace of all three technologies. But if you asked me to bet, I would have to place my money on wind being the dominate constructed energy supply (of the three, gas will win the day) over the next 10-15 years.

                        Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                        by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:06:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  According to Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

                          link - there was a burst of wind installations in 2008 & 2009 that appear to be tailing off.

                          Presumably because of diminishing government incentives, indicating the technology based on it's own merits is not financially sound of yet . . . .

                          And if you get a chance, I hope you ask your Air Force buddies about this: Air Force concerns about radar interference stall huge Oregon wind energy farm

                          •  What? (0+ / 0-)
                            Presumably because of diminishing government incentives, indicating the technology based on it's own merits is not financially sound of yet . . . .

                            Why don't you just make up some more dumbass shit?

                            First, there was this little thing called "The Great Recession" - maybe you have heard of it?

                            Second, there have been no diminishing government incentives - the incentive structure has essentially stayed the same in the U.S.

                            Third, "technology based on it's own merits is not financially sound" - you sound like a ridiculous market obsessed republican, because obviously, the market is perfectly incentivizing energy generation so that all of society's needs are perfectly met in the most efficient economic way possible. The electricity market is completed screwed up and incentivizes all of the wrong shit and doesn't take into account any externalities.

                            Fourth, you obviously don't understand what the word anecdotal means.

                            Fifth, for criminy sakes, do your damn research:

                            The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is an 845 megawatt (MW) wind farm under construction in Oregon, United States. The project is located in Eastern Oregon in both Morrow and Gilliam counties, near Arlington. Approved in 2008 by state regulators, groundbreaking came in 2009. The wind farm is being built by Caithness Energy using General Electric (GE) 2.5 MW wind turbines, and it will supply electricity to Southern California Edison.

                            In April, 2011, Google announced they had invested $100 million in the project. The wind farm is estimated to have an economic impact of $16 million annually for Oregon. It is projected to be the largest land-based wind farm in the world when completed in 2012.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 10:41:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bottom line - the Oregon wind (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            project was delayed by 5 to 6 years by Air Force opposition.  But I see you have no plans to ask your buddies over there why . . . .

                            Also, about the precipitous dip in wind installations over the past year - you're really going to blame that on the Great Recession?  When, at the very same time domestic coal and oil extraction have reached highs not seen in a generation.  That excuse totally does not pass even the most rudimentary smell test.

                          •  You really are just making stuff up (0+ / 0-)
                            This being a public forum, I'm not correcting you for your benefit. By pointing out your mistakes and emphasizing how very basic they are, I hope that those reading this will take away an important message from this exchange, so that the next time they run across some sort of idiotic, fearmongering claim on the Internet, they won't automatically take it at face value. I want them to question such claims with a bit of critical thought, and I want them to apply some context so that they understand, not just react. [bryfry]
                            A months-long stand-off came to a close today after the Deputy Secretary of Defense informed U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and U.S. Congressman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) that the Pentagon would no longer block construction of the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm in Oregon’s Gilliam and Morrow counties,

                            Your claim of 5-6 years is unsupported by the facts provided by the DOD and Sen. Wyden and Merkley.

                            CAGR 2007-2010 Electricity production
                            Coal    Petroleum    Nuclear    Solar    Wind    All
                            -2.8%    -17.5%    0.0%    28.5%    40.1%    -0.3%

                            Coal is down. Petroleum is down. Nuclear is flat. Solar and Wind have grown by 30-40%. Overall, electrical production is down.

                            Your claim that wind is dying and coal and petroleum (in the electricity sector) are booming is unsupported by the facts published by EIA.

                            Coal Production in the US has not changed significantly in the past 20 years: 1029 million short tons in 1990, 1085 in 2010. The range is only 226 million short tons from min (945 in 1993) to max (1171 in 2008)

                            Your claim that coal extraction has reached highs "not seen in a generation" is unsupported by the facts published by EIA.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:32:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Coal is being exported (0+ / 0-)

                            as fast as it can (Appalachian coal, for example, is limited by how fast it can be sent out the Chesapeake Bay - currently a huge bottleneck)

                            Coal exports through port booming

                            and a link to a largely ignored (who knows why - maybe it doesn't fit the populuar narrative of this site?) - pertaining to India's Coal Boom

                            And here's a link to the upswing in oil production under Obama (which, ironically, is never enough to keep the RW crazies happy - for fucks' sake, I really don't know why he keeps trying . . .)

                          •  and this has to do with (0+ / 0-)

                            US electricity production how?

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:33:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Seems like there are compelling shades of (0+ / 0-)

                            outsourcing torture to the Uzbeckistans and Egyptians and then claiming "our hands are clean" that has eerie similarities to outsourcing our polluting industries to the Chinese (e.g., steel and concrete) and Indians (as I linked, they're massively expanding coal) and then similarily claiming "our hands are clean".

                            If you are OK with this, I really have no rebuttal.

                            To me, however, it is somewhat troubling (in a similar vein as to how Gemany has claimed the moral high ground from shutting down all the inefficient East German industries to meet the Kyoto Accords, something few other countries have done . .. )

                          •  Roadbed Guy was fearmongering? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            Sorry, but I missed it.

                            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                            -- Albert Einstein

                            by bryfry on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:13:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, if I was, and it was (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            targeted at "business as usual" fossil fuels - then I'd wear the accusation as a badge of honor.

                            What really irks me, however, is those who point to (the incredibly paltry!!) gains in solar and wind as proof that everything is OK with the world . . ..

                            As I alluded to above, the only proven way to get off hydrocarbons is to engage is a full scale construction of nuclear power plants, something like was done in the 1960s and 70s . . .

                          •  yet (0+ / 0-)

                            Those incredibly paltry gains are just over 1000% more than the gains made by nuclear power in the United States over the past three years. (more of that percent talk again!)

                            I didn't say everything would be fine because wind and solar would save the day. In fact, I said

                            I would advocate for increasing the construction pace of all three technologies.

                            The tired argument that nuclear is "the only proven ..." is particularly irksome especially since I'm not arguing against nuclear, only for wind and solar. Like I also said earlier,

                            Comparing nuclear power's rise to wind's rise is not only irrelevant but unproductive.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:01:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In that context, you could equally dis (0+ / 0-)

                            oil refineries - of which no new ones have been built since the 1970s.

                            Yet, the existing ones (for better or worse - just like commercial nuclear power) - have become ever more efficient and profitable  - and have not diminished at all wrt  the national energy profile.

                            So sure, the meagre gains by solar and wind are fine as far as they go.  However, by looking at the "big picture" it is really, really difficult to see them as anything but a a smokescreen to mask the ongoing expansion of fossil fuels.

                            For the life of me, I don't see how you cannot be alarmed at the downward trends over the past year of wind and solar and the upward trends of coal, oil, and natural gas.

                            Unless, of course, it's your job to troll progress sites to present a "balanced view"  - note that I"m not at all accusing you of this, I'm just confused how any other scenario makes any sense.

                          •  yes, I secretly joined dKos (0+ / 0-)

                            in 2003, UID 3663, so that 8 years later I could troll progress sites and argue with assholes in a dead thread.

                            fuck off.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:57:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, this is an all too familiar end (0+ / 0-)

                            to trying to have a fact based discussion on this site.

                            It degenerates into being told to fuck off because the other person cannot rebut the information being presented.


                          •  You're hilarious (0+ / 0-)

                            You push a series of half-truths, lies, and conspiracy theories consummating in calling me a troll and then wrap yourself in the flag of a "fact based discussion."

                            I, in fact, rebutted all of your "facts" while you continued to wander aimlessly around the argument cherry-picking and lying the entire time.


                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:08:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  France phased out coal in ten years. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That's, um, history.

          The United States was well on its way to doing the same before fear, ignorance, and superstition took over.

          China plans to have 500 reactors by 2030, and will easily produce more electricity than the United States produces from all forms of energy using nuclear energy alone.   Most importantly they have between 30 and 40 under construction right now.

          Actually, I don't expect that dangerous fossil fuels will be phased out.   I think that fear, ignorance and superstition will rule the day.

          The time in which we may have prevented what will happen is past, but I'm not about to praise those whom I feel to be responsible for the coming tragedy, fuggettaboutit.

          The list of directors of Greenpeace does NOT include a Ph.D. in physics.   If you are referring to Frank Guggenheim, he has an undergraduate degree, in physics and a Master's degree in mathematics and and then went to medical school without apparently paying much attention to his work.   He also apparently got a Ph.D in immunology, which has nothing at all to do with the environment.  Even if he did have a Ph.D in physics, this is no indication that he understands the first thing about nuclear reactors, and yet the world wishes to include him as an "expert" on energy.

          In any case, I get very tired of this Ph.D. talk.   I know many thousands of people who have Ph.Ds.  An advanced degree in immunology, and 10 post docs in the same does NOT make one an expert in climate change.   OK?  Some of the Ph.Ds I know are brilliant and some are as dumb as stump.

          The "President of the Greek Yacht Owners Association" does say something.    I have argued that Greenpeace is all about bourgeios sensibilities.    However I am presonally gratified that Greenpeacers have not dressed up as organtans and climbed buildings to show that they give a fuck about the two or three billion people on this planet who have no drinking water.    I'm disgusted by such trivializing of important issues.

          The former head of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, famously worked to help Nigeria start its nuclear program, and Nigeria now has a working research reactor and is training nuclear engineers.   After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he made many speeches pointing out that the citizens of Nigeria live on an average of 8 watts of average continuous power.

          Besides his work on preventing war on hyped up nuclear fears, he has earned his prize by his work on fighting poverty.

          One of the most eloquent defenders of liberal causes was the very person who was responsible for organizing the construction of the first 60 to 70 American Nuclear Reactors.

          He was an outstanding scientist, outstanding educator, an
          outstanding administrator, a great writer, a great diplomat, a great advisor to almost all of the Presidents in his adult life, and winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.   Until the end of his life, this great man, who redefined chemical physics by changing the shape of the periodic table, was a strong defender of nuclear energy.

          That would be Glenn Seaborg.    

          Compared to him the yacht club head, as well as the securities analyst, the "financial consultant" and the other liilliputians on the Greenpeace board, look rather like the sort of people that the "occupy" movement might target.

          I am sorry that you don't like what I say and how I say it, but if I need to praise the assholes at Greenpeace to be your pal, well, I guess we're not pals.

          Have a nice day.

    •  Greenpeace has done (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NNadir, PeterHug, JayBat, Roadbed Guy, murasaki

      a real disservice to many aspects of environmental science with false claims and stupid stunts. They have become the PETA of environment, sadly.

      Doubt is cheap. Finding out is hard. --@Daniel_Loxton

      by mem from somerville on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:18:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GP's "stunts" have brought media attention (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dauphin, Mrs M, kurt

        to environmental issues that the media was ignoring. Do I agree with them on nuclear power? No. I think Germany is making a tragic mistake on nuclear power that will lead to more coal burning, more climate change and more ocean acidification. Nuclear power needs to be done better, not stopped.

        I disagree with NNadir's tactic of picking fights with GP supporters.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:45:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, murasaki

          PETA's stunts get media attention too. It doesn't make them good ideas.

          Doubt is cheap. Finding out is hard. --@Daniel_Loxton

          by mem from somerville on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:48:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? Dressing up in clown suits brings... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, billmosby

          ..."media attention?"

          What kind of attention would that be?

          I am not particularly interested in the stupid attention of our media.    They after all, spent several years trying to figure out whether or not they should report Dick Cheney's lies about Iraq's "nuclear weapons" - coupled with ignorant bull about their favorite topic of rote stupidity, uranium - verbatim as "news."

          So Greenpeace "gets media attention?"

          Maybe you should write to say, Jim Hansen, and tell him that he would be more effective at conveying the seriousness of climate change issues if he dressed up in a clown suit before testifying before Congress.

          That's a fucking joke, particularly as Sumatran rain forests are being destroyed so fucking Germans can meet their "renewable energy portfolios" with biofuels for the Autobahn.

          These are not environmentalists.   They're ignoramuses.

          I'm not "picking fights" with Greenpeace.     I start from a position of despising the way they trivialize and mock through stupidity the most serious scientific issue in modern history with stupid bourgeois jokes.  

          Moreover, they hate, from a position of complete ignorance, one of the most beautiful and important sciences there is, nuclear science.    There is not one member of Greenpeace who even remotely knows a single important fact about this science, other than that they hate it.

          This is not "picking fights."   It's something quite different.

          It's contempt.

          Some people regard contempt as ugly, but I couldn't care less.   I would be ethically remiss not to feel it, and couldn't live with myself without addressing it at these stupid, ignorant, clownish consumers who have no idea about how to address a serious issue.

          Their scientific illiteracy is legion.

          Your views, by the way, on nuclear power are just garbage.   I have zero respect for them, particularly in light of your awful Fukushima diaries which pretended that every one in Japan was about to die because of the failed reactors.   Your odious lie was that nuclear energy was the only thing that needed to be risk free in a 9.0 earthquake and a huge tsunami.

          Where, exactly, are the bodies from the nuclear "disaster?"

          We damn well know where the bodies are from the other technologies, including architecture, roads, and cars in which people died from during the earthquake and tsunami.

          As far as I'm concerned, you trivialized these people to focus on something that was not even remotely serious on scale.

          Nuclear energy is already vastly superior on proved grounds than all other forms of energy.

          Nuclear energy needs improvement?

          How come you never issue the same blathering garbage about dangerous fossil fuels?   They after all, kill more than two million people per year in normal operations, not even including climate change.

          You spent hours and hours and hours in orgies of hysteria about radioactivity in seawater after Fukushima, all of it barely literate.    Talking about such things in the absence of risk analysis is garbage.

          Where's your concern for the people who will die because fo the dangerous fossil fuel use because the reactors were destroyed?

          Nowhere.   You couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuels and the fact that they, and nothing else, are replacing the reactors destroyed as well as those irrationally shut by superstition, fear and ignorance.

          The existing nuclear infrastructure need not be perfect, nor without risk to be vastly superior to all existing infrastructure.

          Any money spent to improve nuclear safety would be a waste of money when measured in the important but often ignored unit of "lives saved per dollar spent."   We could save millions of lives for the same amount of money that might be spent to prevent a single death from nuclear energy by simply funding a free child vaccination program.

          As you seem to think otherwise, it's easy to see why you think clowning is a positive because "it get's attention."

          It's not positive.

          it's trivializing, it's childish, and it's not even good marketing.

          Yeah, dressing in organtan suits is um, real serious.

          I've met many thousands of high level scientists in my career, some spectacularly intelligent people.   I can't say that I've know one who would identify with this sort of "tactic," or be anything but embarrassed by association with dressing up as an organatan and climbing a building to protest soap.

          It appears that majority of the board of Greenpeace consists not of even one serious scientist, but consists almost entirely of "business types" that the "Occupy" types oppose, securities analysts, yacht club tycoons, etc.   If I listed the occupations and backgrounds of that board on this site without indicated what board they were on, I would generate vast displays of outrage.

          I'll let you know when I care about your view of my tactics.   As things stand, I don't.

          •  Hansen (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maybe you should write to say, Jim Hansen, and tell him that he would be more effective at conveying the seriousness of climate change issues if he dressed up in a clown suit before testifying before Congress.

            Well, Hansen has been arrested several times now for protesting fossil fuel facilities. Each time, he wasn't dressed like a clown, nor did he try to wiggle out of being arrested, like so many Greenpeace weenies do. He peacefully cooperated with the arresting officers, and he was dressed appropriately -- i.e., as a middle-aged man who was engaging in peaceful civil disobedience because of his principles.

            If he had dressed in a "clown suit" it would have cheapened everything that he was trying to accomplish.

            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
            -- Albert Einstein

            by bryfry on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:48:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My favorite is when they demanded (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billmosby, bryfry

        that chlorine be banned from this planet.

        Funny, funny stuff!

        •  I hadn't heard of that one, lol. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, bryfry

          Although, as I have related here before, chlorine figured in the only really significant life-threatening accident we ever had at Argonne-West. A too-helpful employee tried to fill in for the guy who usually changed the chorine bottles on our potable water system and ended up dumping the whole thing to atmosphere during a very calm day. The resulting chorine cloud stayed around for quite a while, resulting in about a dozen and a half folks being hospitalized for observation after they inhaled small amounts of the stuff.

          Moderation in most things.

          by billmosby on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:39:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Chlorinated compounds definitely can be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            nasty, but OTOH they are ubiquitous in nature, making the following rather silly:

            Greenpeace and its allies argue that chlorine and all organochlorines (i.e. compounds containing chlorine) threaten wildlife and people. They see an outright ban as the quickest and most effective way to improve environmental quality. Further, they claim that a "chlorine-free society" is achievable at modest economic cost. None of these claims are accurate.


            Of course, I believe it was way back in 1994 when Greenpeace proposed banning all chorinated hydrocarbons (not actually chlorine as I earlier stated), so maybe we should cut them some slack since Wikipedia was not yet in existence where they could have learned:


            many organochlorine compounds have been isolated from natural sources ranging from bacteria to humans.[1][2] Chlorinated organic compounds are found in nearly every class of biomolecules including alkaloids, terpenes, amino acids, flavonoids, steroids, and fatty acids.[1][3] Organochlorides, including dioxins, are produced in the high temperature environment of forest fires, and dioxins have been found in the preserved ashes of lightning-ignited fires that predate synthetic dioxins.[4] In addition, a variety of simple chlorinated hydrocarbons including dichloromethane, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride have been isolated from marine algae.[5] A majority of the chloromethane in the environment is produced naturally by biological decomposition, forest fires, and volcanoes.[6] The natural organochloride epibatidine, an alkaloid isolated from tree frogs, has potent analgesic effects and has stimulated research into new pain medication.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site