Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Regina paying climate crisis skeptic $10K to speak at 'sustainability' conference

  1. #1

    Regina paying climate crisis skeptic $10K to speak at 'sustainability' conference

    Regina paying climate crisis skeptic $10K to speak at 'sustainability' conference

    U of R scientist 'dismayed' by city's decision to have Patrick Moore speak at conference

    CBC News∑Posted: Feb 01, 2020 10:30 AM CT | Last Updated: February 1

    A former Greenpeace employee who has spoken out in opposition to environmental science has the top billing at the City of Regina's upcoming conference on future sustainability.

    The Reimagine Conference 2020: Roadmap to Sustainable Cities will run May 20-21 with keynote speaker Patrick Moore kicking off the event Wednesday morning.

    Moore was one of the early figures in the Greenpeace movement, serving as Canadian president for nine years and as a director of Greenpeace International for six before parting ways with the organization in the mid-1980s.

    He is now criticized by environmental groups — including Greenpeace — or his views, particularly questioning the link between carbon emissions and climate change.

    In March 2019, Moore was interviewed on Fox and Friend and said, "the whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it's fake science." Moore's Twitter bio says "CelebrateCO2!"

    Some environmental advocates and city residents spoke out on Twitter soon after Moore's appearance was announced.

    Simon [email protected]_enoch

    Why is @CityofRegina and @MayorFougere inviting a known climate change denier to keynote its Renewable Cities conference? Talk about bad faith. https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore

    Patrick Moore

    Patrick Moore

    desmogblog.com

    73

    10:07 AM - Jan 31, 2020

    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    61 people are talking about this

    Ryan K. [email protected]

    Replying to @simon_enoch and 3 others

    Does the city know he’s anti-science? this is really embarrassing.

    25

    11:06 AM - Jan 31, 2020

    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    See Ryan K. Brook's other Tweets

    [email protected]

    I wonder if the @CityofRegina social media team expected to come to work today and have to defend why the city booked a debunked, climate change denier for a sustainablity conference...

    26

    12:37 PM - Jan 31, 2020

    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    See Matt's other Tweets

    Moore undermines city's sustainability agenda: scientist

    Britt Hall, a biology professor at the University of Regina, said she's "dismayed" the city picked Moore to speak at the conference.

    She said it's a decision that goes against the city's stated agenda that sustainability and climate change are important issues.

    "It just makes me feel like, again, the politicians in this city and Saskatchewan just don't get it," she said. "They just don't understand that climate change is an important thing to take seriously."

    The city said Moore will be paid $10,000, plus expenses, to speak at the conference, double what the next-highest speaker is receiving.

    Science is a fact-driven situation ... you either accept it or you don't.- Britt Hall, University of Regina biology professor

    "One of the things that we're aware of is that he would probably create some interest ... and he has — you're here today," said Mike O'Donnell, a city councillor who helped pick the speakers for the event. "Two, he has an interesting background."

    Guests will be required to pay $300 to attend the event, according to its website. O'Donnell said that will help the city recover the costs for the event.

    Moore told CBC Saskatchewan he's not a climate change denier — "I know that the climate changes" — but said "alarmists" are trying to force a link between carbon dioxide, extreme weather events and increasing temperatures.

    "I'm going to give a pretty complete presentation of the long history of climate on this Earth and then I'm going to talk about energy choices because the biggest expense of this, basically, climate emergency hoax ... is not the climate research," Moore said.

    "The biggest expense is basically revamping our entire energy system with much more expensive, less efficient technology than we have at the present time."

    Hall said the city should "talk the talk" and "walk the walk" if it's going to take sustainability seriously.

    "I do not agree that when we are talking about science we have to give a voice to those that don't accept the science," she said. "Science is a fact-driven situation ... you either accept it or you don't. And if you are a scientist there is a very very, very good chance you will accept the data showing that humans cause climate change."

    With files from Alex Soloducha and Bryan Eneas.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...gina-1.5448458

  2. #2
    Half Man Half Amazing
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Room 112
    Posts
    17,721
    Former Greenpeace employee, gotta love the CBC the bastion of truth and accuracy in reporting. Patrick Moore is a founding member and past President of Greenpeace. He left the organization because it morphed into political extremism.

    I shine and rise at the same time.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by K Douglas View Post
    Former Greenpeace employee, gotta love the CBC the bastion of truth and accuracy in reporting. Patrick Moore is a founding member and past President of Greenpeace. He left the organization because it morphed into political extremism.
    Sure, he worked for Greenpeace but buddy went for the big bucks and switched to backing the mining industry, nukes and PVC.

    Best example of how honest and smart he is is on the video below, back when he was working for Monsanto he claimed Roundup is safe to drink but then freaks out when its there for him to drink.
    https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

    Fucking comedy gold.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlemagne View Post
    Regina paying climate crisis skeptic $10K to speak at 'sustainability' conference

    U of R scientist 'dismayed' by city's decision to have Patrick Moore speak at conference

    CBC News∑Posted: Feb 01, 2020 10:30 AM CT | Last Updated: February 1

    A former Greenpeace employee who has spoken out in opposition to environmental science has the top billing at the City of Regina's upcoming conference on future sustainability.

    The Reimagine Conference 2020: Roadmap to Sustainable Cities will run May 20-21 with keynote speaker Patrick Moore kicking off the event Wednesday morning.

    Moore was one of the early figures in the Greenpeace movement, serving as Canadian president for nine years and as a director of Greenpeace International for six before parting ways with the organization in the mid-1980s.

    He is now criticized by environmental groups ó including Greenpeace ó or his views, particularly questioning the link between carbon emissions and climate change.

    In March 2019, Moore was interviewed on Fox and Friend and said, "the whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it's fake science." Moore's Twitter bio says "CelebrateCO2!"

    Some environmental advocates and city residents spoke out on Twitter soon after Moore's appearance was announced.

    Simon [email protected]_enoch

    Why is @CityofRegina and @MayorFougere inviting a known climate change denier to keynote its Renewable Cities conference? Talk about bad faith. https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore

    Patrick Moore

    Patrick Moore

    desmogblog.com

    73

    10:07 AM - Jan 31, 2020

    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    61 people are talking about this

    Ryan K. [email protected]

    Replying to @simon_enoch and 3 others

    Does the city know heís anti-science? this is really embarrassing.

    25

    11:06 AM - Jan 31, 2020

    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    See Ryan K. Brook's other Tweets

    [email protected]

    I wonder if the @CityofRegina social media team expected to come to work today and have to defend why the city booked a debunked, climate change denier for a sustainablity conference...

    26

    12:37 PM - Jan 31, 2020

    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    See Matt's other Tweets

    Moore undermines city's sustainability agenda: scientist

    Britt Hall, a biology professor at the University of Regina, said she's "dismayed" the city picked Moore to speak at the conference.

    She said it's a decision that goes against the city's stated agenda that sustainability and climate change are important issues.

    "It just makes me feel like, again, the politicians in this city and Saskatchewan just don't get it," she said. "They just don't understand that climate change is an important thing to take seriously."

    The city said Moore will be paid $10,000, plus expenses, to speak at the conference, double what the next-highest speaker is receiving.

    Science is a fact-driven situation ... you either accept it or you don't.- Britt Hall, University of Regina biology professor

    "One of the things that we're aware of is that he would probably create some interest ... and he has ó you're here today," said Mike O'Donnell, a city councillor who helped pick the speakers for the event. "Two, he has an interesting background."

    Guests will be required to pay $300 to attend the event, according to its website. O'Donnell said that will help the city recover the costs for the event.

    Moore told CBC Saskatchewan he's not a climate change denier ó "I know that the climate changes" ó but said "alarmists" are trying to force a link between carbon dioxide, extreme weather events and increasing temperatures.

    "I'm going to give a pretty complete presentation of the long history of climate on this Earth and then I'm going to talk about energy choices because the biggest expense of this, basically, climate emergency hoax ... is not the climate research," Moore said.

    "The biggest expense is basically revamping our entire energy system with much more expensive, less efficient technology than we have at the present time."

    Hall said the city should "talk the talk" and "walk the walk" if it's going to take sustainability seriously.

    "I do not agree that when we are talking about science we have to give a voice to those that don't accept the science," she said. "Science is a fact-driven situation ... you either accept it or you don't. And if you are a scientist there is a very very, very good chance you will accept the data showing that humans cause climate change."

    With files from Alex Soloducha and Bryan Eneas.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...gina-1.5448458
    $10,000 ????
    You are worried about $10K spent to try and bring some sanity into the climate change debate?
    Perhaps you may consider questioning the Billions of $ which have been spent on the propaganda effort to support anthropogenic global warming and only anthropogenic global warming
    And then ask yourself. Are we getting the whole picture here ?

    Then perhaps you might consider applying for a grant to investigate natural variation in climate. A most worthwhile endeavor if we truly want to understand how the climate is changing.
    You will not get a dime and you would be ostracized in the workplace
    "We have a consensus !!!!", gee that's surprising

    The article itself is about efforts to shut down any counter arguments and this happens all the time
    Think about that
    That is not the path to scientific understanding an extremely complex and important issue
    Think about that

    We know multiple ice ages occurred, without any intervention by man, so we know for sure, natural variation in climate does exist
    Fossil fuel use does not turn nature off
    However natural variation is ignored and not incorporated into the models used for policy decisions
    Despite the fact the models have consistently predicted far too much warming

    How in the world do you expect to successfully "tackle climate change" with this approach.
    How do you solve a problem if you do not truly understand what the problem is?

    The odd thing about arguments & news media coverage related to climate is that it is often what is not said or mentioned which is critical for evaluation

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Sure, he worked for Greenpeace but buddy went for the big bucks and switched to backing the mining industry, nukes and PVC.

    Best example of how honest and smart he is is on the video below, back when he was working for Monsanto he claimed Roundup is safe to drink but then freaks out when its there for him to drink.
    https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

    Fucking comedy gold.
    I know attacking a scientist's character is what you do best,
    Character assassination is something everyone learns in the school play ground

    Too bad that Character assassination does not change the facts he illustrates
    You lack the understanding of the facts he presents, have no logic or scientific arguments to refute him
    He has not falsified data (Michael Mann) or conspired with others to "hide the decline" climategate

    The round up video does show he is capable of making regreatable statements & plainly does not look good

    Since the only thing (of value ?) you bring to the discussion is character assassination and questioning others motivation why do you not look into the $100 MM Al Gore has pocketed from his climate change crusade?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    $10,000 ????
    You are worried about $10K spent to try and bring some sanity into the climate change debate?
    Perhaps you may consider questioning the Billions of $ which have been spent on the propaganda effort to support anthropogenic global warming and only anthropogenic global warming
    And then ask yourself. Are we getting the whole picture here ?

    Then perhaps you might consider applying for a grant to investigate natural variation in climate. A most worthwhile endeavor if we truly want to understand how the climate is changing.
    You will not get a dime and you would be ostracized in the workplace
    "We have a consensus !!!!", gee that's surprising

    We know multiple ice ages occurred, without any intervention by man, so we know for sure, natural variation in climate does exist
    Fossil fuel use does not turn nature off

    The odd thing about arguments & news media coverage related to climate is that it is often what is not said or mentioned which is critical for evaluation
    I find it pathetic that you still think more money is spent by climate change scientists than deniers.
    In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...denial-effort/

    Big oil is the side with the deep pockets here and the side that has spent money on the propaganda you post here.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    I find it pathetic that you still think more money is spent by climate change scientists than deniers.
    In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...denial-effort/

    Big oil is the side with the deep pockets here and the side that has spent money on the propaganda you post here.
    Again, the odd thing about arguments & news media coverage related to climate is that it is often what is not said or mentioned which is critical for evaluation
    https://www.heritage.org/environment...e-change-money

    ” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
    That is the US government only & excludes the billions spent by activist organizations like WWF, the tides foundation & Rockefellers
    One can only guess how much the Europeans have poured into this money pit

    And Al Gore is $100 MMM richer than before his crusades. Go figure

    Thanks for doing half the work to provide half of the story

    Find it pathetic do you?

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    16,325
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Sure, he worked for Greenpeace but buddy went for the big bucks and switched to backing the mining industry, nukes and PVC.

    Best example of how honest and smart he is is on the video below, back when he was working for Monsanto he claimed Roundup is safe to drink but then freaks out when its there for him to drink.
    https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

    Fucking comedy gold.
    Goes to show what a stupid moron Moore has turned out to be. Talks the talk, but cannot walk the walk, when he is offered the Glyphosate to consume. There are some very dumb people in this Universe that would blindly do what he said!! Here is one such case of this individual who consumed it and paid the price for it!!

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22835958

    This is the kind of Science that the right wingers will pretend is meaningless!!


    On ignore: Disrespectful Individuals!!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Again, the odd thing about arguments & news media coverage related to climate is that it is often what is not said or mentioned which is critical for evaluation
    https://www.heritage.org/environment...e-change-money



    That is the US government only & excludes the billions spent by activist organizations like WWF, the tides foundation & Rockefellers
    One can only guess how much the Europeans have poured into this money pit

    And Al Gore is $100 MMM richer than before his crusades. Go figure

    Thanks for doing half the work to provide half of the story

    Find it pathetic do you?
    You're conflating research money with publicity money.
    All scientists are legislated not to use their research money on lobbying, whereas the half a billion spent in 7 years alone by oil lobbyists is entirely on propaganda.

    Not to mention that your numbers are inflated by including non climate change agencies and work.
    tsk, tsk.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    You're conflating research money with publicity money.
    All scientists are legislated not to use their research money on lobbying, whereas the half a billion spent in 7 years alone by oil lobbyists is entirely on propaganda.

    Not to mention that your numbers are inflated by including non climate change agencies and work.
    tsk, tsk.
    Conflating research money with publicity money ????
    Holy smokes, you can not be serious
    Al Gore made $100 MM & he is not a researcher
    Extension rebellion & the tides foundations pay people in order to increase protest crowd sizes
    Lets hope those wakos are not researchers

    On the flip side Dr. Willie Soon received $10 to $50 K to support his scientific research (maybe enough to support one research assistant) and he gets brain dead activists interrupting his presentation, yelling and calling him a whore for big oil.

    Half a billion vs. what looks like hundreds of Billions????
    0.5 % vs 99.5% ??

    This is not even close. your position is completely wrong and a flat out lie to keep repeating it
    What is wrong with you?

    Give it up, the people you think you are fooling are a lot sharper than you

    You will say anything and everything without any evidence
    Do you not realize you are the poster boy for what is wrong with climate activism?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Conflating research money with publicity money ????
    Holy smokes, you can not be serious
    Al Gore made $100 MM & he is not a researcher
    Who paid Al Gore?
    Or did he just make his own money?

    Go ahead and prove this is climate change research money, larue.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Who paid Al Gore?
    Or did he just make his own money?

    Go ahead and prove this is climate change research money, larue.
    You think $10,000 is too much to give Moore but Al Gore makes $100,000 per speaking event.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginomore View Post
    You think $10,000 is too much to give Moore but Al Gore makes $100,000 per speaking event.
    $10,000 for a kook is too much.
    Seriously, watch this video and tell me you think that guy is worth $10k.
    https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Ghawar
    Posts
    5,530
    David Suzuki's environment business wasn't as lucrative
    as Al Gore's. He made only $30,000 to $50,000 per
    talk. I presume payment was on top of plane ticket
    and hotel accommodation. The climate issue could
    actually be profitable.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Who paid Al Gore?
    Or did he just make his own money?

    Go ahead and prove this is climate change research money, larue.
    Prove it is not

    $100 Billion is a lot of money sloshing around
    no way that was spent entirely on research
    What is wrong with you?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Prove it is not
    Its your claim, I'm not surprised its bullshit and you can't back it up.
    Just like everything else you post here.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    $10,000 for a kook is too much.
    Seriously, watch this video and tell me you think that guy is worth $10k.
    https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM
    Hmm a pathological liar, who cant read a grade six chart calls a PHd ecologist who helped launch Greenpeace a "kook."

    Watch this video and then judge who is more credible and if $10,000 is a reasonable fee for his presenation?
    Given Al Gore was a c student and gets $100,000 . $10,000 for Patrick seems quite reasonable

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Hmm a pathological liar, who cant read a grade six chart calls a PHd ecologist who helped launch Greenpeace a "kook."
    Whoops, you fell for his bullshit too!
    He was not a founder of Greenpeace.

    tsk, tsk

    Moore is a lobbyist paid by the Heartland Institute.
    Same people who once used to be tobacco lobbyists.

    Regina should invite scientists, not lobbyists.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Whoops, you fell for his bullshit too!
    He was not a founder of Greenpeace.

    tsk, tsk
    Whoops , you cant read
    who helped launch Greenpeace
    He is quite clear about his participation in the video link I posted

    What is wrong with you?

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Whoops , you cant read


    He is quite clear about his participation in the video link I posted

    What is wrong with you?
    Like I said, you are a sucker and you fell for his bullshit.
    You fall for bullshit every time.

    Greenpeace USA
    @greenpeaceusa

    Mar 12, 2019
    Replying to
    @realDonaldTrump
    and
    @foxandfriends
    Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He does not represent Greenpeace. He is a paid lobbyist, not an independent source. His statements about
    @AOC
    & the #GreenNewDeal have nothing to do with our positions.

    https://bit.ly/2Tf6LCA
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Whoops, you fell for his bullshit too!
    He was not a founder of Greenpeace.

    tsk, tsk

    Moore is a lobbyist paid by the Heartland Institute.
    Same people who once used to be tobacco lobbyists.

    Regina should invite scientists, not lobbyists.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patric...e_(consultant)

    Patrick Albert Moore (born June 15, 1947) is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, and past president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".[2] According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"[3] who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson".[4]

    If you spent half as much time trying to learn some science as you do trying to assassinate the character of scientists, you might actually learn something
    instead you will remain scientifically ignorant with zero integrity.
    Please slither away

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patric...e_(consultant)

    Patrick Albert Moore (born June 15, 1947) is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, and past president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".[2] According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"[3] who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson".[4]
    You said Moore:
    helped launch Greenpeace
    Greenpeace says this is bullshit.
    This is from their site:
    Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace
    Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes the use of nuclear energy because it is a dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change.

    Greenpeace and the Green New Deal

    In 2019, Mr. Moore has been misrepresented as a Greenpeace spokesperson on the Green New Deal resolution, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). In contrast to Mr. Moore’s comment, please see Greenpeace’s response to the Green New Deal.

    Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
    Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).

    Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry
    In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

    Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power
    In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) journal entitled “Nuclear Re-think.” According to Mr. Moore, “Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment.”(2)

    Contrary to Mr. Moore’s claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn’t even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in “a significant release of radiation…”(3)

    Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, which published Mr. Moore’s article, acknowledges that the TMI meltdown released radiation into the surrounding community. As a result, the IAEA ranks the accident as a Level 5 on a scale of 7, an Accident With Wider Consequences. (Only Chernobyl & the Soviet nuclear waste tank explosion in 1957 rank worse than the Three Mile Island meltdown.)(4)

    According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the damaged reactor core. However, nuclear engineers who reexamined the accident estimate that as much as 150 million curies of radiation may have escaped from the reactor.(5) The meltdown at Three Mile Island turned a multimillion dollar asset into a multibillion dollar liability overnight and helped seal the fate of nuclear power in the United States. To claim otherwise is nothing but public relations spin.

    Unfortunately, Mr. Moore’s pro nuclear spin is not confined to the Three Mile Island meltdown. While praising the Bush Administration for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol(6), Moore promotes nuclear power as a solution to global warming because,”(i)t produces no harmful greenhouse gases…”(7)

    However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already determined in 1999 that the Nuclear Energy Institute’s claims touting nuclear power’s supposed environmental benefits were misleading because it did not disclose the fact that the production of nuclear fuel produced greenhouse gases. The FTC concluded that NEI’s claims could not be substantiated, “(s)ince there is not yet any permanent disposal system for radioactive waste and since the process of uranium enrichment that fuels nuclear reactors emits greenhouse gases…”(8)

    Patrick Moore’s Own Words
    Consider Patrick Moore’s own words when considering his claims and those of the nuclear industry: “It should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in the sexiest smile,”(9) he wrote before becoming a spokesman for polluters.
    https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/...ent-on-patric/

    And your wiki link says:
    According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry
    Let me know when you find some scientists who back your nonsense and until then stop pushing Heartland funded lobbyists.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •