You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #5: There is a difference between being part of the antinuke industry and being anti nuclear war. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-23-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. There is a difference between being part of the antinuke industry and being anti nuclear war.
Edited on Sun Sep-23-07 11:06 AM by NNadir
I note that there is NOT ONE anti-nuke with the courage or guts to call for the phase out of dangerous fossil fuels because of dangerous fossil fuel wars, which have constituted 100% of the wars fought in the last century.

Instead, the shit-for-brains anti-nuke industry, lead by pieces of shit like the Royal Dutch Shell apologist Amory Lovins, who is paid $20,000 a day to say that the dangerous fossil fuel company has the "environmental stamp of approval," tries to say that only nuclear energy has a war potential, although there have been zero nuclear wars in the last 60 years.

The highly paid and corrupt anti-nuclear industry loves to distort things, and typical of such distortion is this representation of Crutezen's position.

In fact, the idea that Crutzen is a part of the moronic anti-nuclear industry is a bald faced distortion of the type one normally sees from the highly paid corrupt anti-nuclear industry of shit-for-brains pseudoenvironmentalists trolling for payoffs.

On Jan 23 of this year, Dr. Crutzen addressed the World Sustainable Development Forum.

http://www.teriin.org/dsds/2007/prog23.htm

The focus of the address by Prof. Paul Crutzen, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany, was on the scientific aspects of climate change and its history, the challenges we face today, and the possible solutions. The issue of climate change needs to be broadened from the main theme of carbon dioxide emissions, to consider other ozone-depleting gases such as methane, water vapour, and nitrous oxides. Heightened human activity has changed atmospheric chemistry and, as a result, global temperature is rising. We need to ask ourselves the question: ‘what can we do?’

There is an urgent need to stabilize the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by reducing emissions by 60%. Although methane emissions have stabilized in the past five years, nitrous oxide emission is still a matter of concern. Chlorofluorocarbon reduction has been achieved, but due to its long lifetime, it will continue to linger in the atmosphere for at least 70 years. Solutions are available in the form of striving for energy efficiency; carbon capture and storage; using nuclear power and renewable energy; and so on.


Italics and bold are mine.

The anti-nuclear industry is starting to look more and more like the rest of the highly paid religious fundamentalist movement. It has nothing to do with science, and in fact, despises science and speaks of science only to distort it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC