Seriously, dude? Steven Pinker is peddling NFTs now?
On March 14th at 7pm ET, thought leader and Harvard professor Steven Pinker will release digital collectibles of his famous idea that “Free speech is fundamental”.
These collectibles will guarantee recurrent access to intimate group video calls with Pinker to discuss this topic for the next several years.
Two tiers will be available: the gold collectible, which is unique and grants the buyer the right to co-host the calls with Pinker, will be priced at $50,000; the standard collectibles, which are limited to 30 items and grant the buyers the right to access those video calls and ask questions to Pinker at the end, will be priced at 0.2 Ethereum (~$300).
The NFTs will be available for purchase on the Polemix NFT platform. Holders of the NFTs can expect to book their first call with Pinker as soon as two weeks following their purchase; thus receiving utility for the NFTs shortly after.
HIS famous idea that “Free speech is fundamental”? And all it is is a picture of Pinker with the words “free speech is fundamental” printed on it? Here you go, I’ll save you $50,000, although I can’t provide the phone call.
My first thought: this has to be a joke, a satirical web page made to poke fun at the self-importance of these IDW gomers.
It’s not. Pinker himself promoted it.
Jesus. It is a big joke, a joke named Pinker.
Except…apparently they’ve already sold out. Maybe humanity is the joke.
Oh look, the temperature of my urine has risen.
No one, just no one thinks free speech isn’t fundamental. Period, the end. Thanks for playing. Good night, good health. Big kiss. Of course free speech is fundamental, just like a bunch of other things.
Here’s the thing Pinker et al. know to be true but cannot use in the grift:
Other people have free speech too and may, if they so choose, use their speech to criticise your speech.
That’s it. That simple.
Is there a zeitgeist? An Overton Window? Will it be harder to get some conversations into some places than others? Sure. But this isn’t censorship or anti-free speech. I means that you’ll have to create your own platforms, work a bit harder, and try to convince people of your ideas more effectively. Equally, some ideas are just drivel. Flat earthers aren’t oppressed truth tellers, they’re clueless/dishonest pushers of antiscience and guess what, their place at a geology conference just really isn’t assured. And that isn’t censorship in any meaningful sense of the word.
And isn’t it funny that it’s always those on the political “right” (hate the word, too inaccurate) that whine about this? Try being a socialist. Good luck getting your slot on daytime telly with no pushback.
(Incidentally, I don’t think socialists are censored or lacking free speech, see above: takes more work)
Louis
NFTs always sell out, by design. The insiders trade them a bunch to create buzz and then look this NFT is going to the moon, so an outsider buys it and … the value crashes but the insiders got their payout.
An NFT grift? Lol. That’s so last year. And not even late last year…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/nft-volumes-tumble-97-from-2022-highs-as-frenzy-fades-chart?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Also, what kind of egomaniac gets themselves photographed with one of their own books prominently displayed on the shelf behind them?
It would be funny if someone just used their “free speech” on one of these calls to ask about Pinker’s relationship with Epstein to see how fast he shuts down that speech.
Pinker forgot the second part of the “Free speech is fundamental” phrase. It goes like “and grifting suckers is profitable”.
I used to really respect this guy. What happened to him these past 10 years? Did I just give him a pass because he’s an atheist?
That has to be the worst Yu-Gi-Oh expansion deck ever.
POSU? Piece Of Shit University?
Anyway, I can’t imagine not dying of embarrassment at being described as a “thought leader”, especially during a grift.
As completely bogus as most NFTs are, this seems like an actual decent use case for them. The value the token represents is the right to participate in or co-host a talk with Pinker. Of course, how valuable that is in itself is a totally separate question. This actually reminds me a bit of Dan Savage’s sack lunch, an exclusive webcast you get to join if you pay twenty bucks a year for the Magnum subscription.
He’s basically just selling fancy tickets to webinars.
Is speech really “free” if you have to pay $50,000 for it?
Yes. I receive email promotions from the “Free Speech Alliance” organization at my university. They are ever so concerned with free speech, yet they never seem to comment on the actual book banning, curriculum restriction and hostile takeover of college boards going on in ‘red’ states.
What value is the NFT bit of this actually bringing though? Is there any real reason for a webinar ticket to be associated with an ERC-721 cryptotoken at all? What’s the benefit of doing this through an NFT rather than any of the other much more straighforward options that don’t involve a payment ecosystem deeply associated with fraud and money laundering?
Oooh! Thought leader online merchandise! What a treat!
I’m looking forward to the Noam Chomsky fortnite skins.
@10–
Yes, but all that is entirely possible without NFTs, and there is nothing that an NFT adds to the act of selling/auctioning access to conversations other than a démodé scam-adjacent digital token.
cartomancer–
Fortnite completely ripped off the Chomsky Cachucha.
If Pinker is pretending to be such a bold and brilliant free-speech advocate, it’s probably because he’s being called out for one or another of the stupid indefensible things he’s famous for saying. We might make guesses as to which it is, but it really doesn’t matter.
And the fact that any significant number of his fans are actually buying into NFTs, so long after they’ve been proven to be a joke at best, speaks volumes about his fan-base’s intelligence.
There’s an obvious misspelling on those NFTs. POSU should just be POS.
I see several clues as to what’s going on: “effective philanthropies”, NFTs, Ethereum, and “first digital collectable” all point to him trying to rehabilitate his investments in cryptocurrencies by testing the waters for future grifts, all while reinforcing his echo chamber. It’s what dude-bros do…
… and I think it means Piles o’ Shit Unlimited®.
Or POSER. That works, too.
“Sold out” works on multiple levels…
Hey! I still have the very first email (from 2004) from Dover Area School District indicating that there was a bit of a problem brewing with Evolution in Dover High School. Think I can market that as a NFT showing the first stirrings of what became Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)?? Would the Discover Institute be interested? ;-)
Was listening to some Brahms symphonies this weekend, looked at the CD cover and became convinced that Pinker and conductor Simon Rattle were separated at birth. Srsly, do a Google image search and be amazed.
So, Pinker is surely coming out strongly against the shenagians by DeSantis?
……………(crickets) .
Steven Pinker is the liberal version of Jordan Peterson. He’s an obnoxious, arrogant, lying jackass who uses his academic credentials to get taken seriously even when a cursory glance should tell you he’s full of shit, except for people who think the world should be (and is) getting better even as they look the other way while people needlessly starve, rather than people who would demand it regress into outright fascism.
“Free speech is fundamental” seems like such a silly position for a supposed intellectual to take. It’s derived from freedom of thought, and a person’s freedom of speech is conditional on them not using it in inappropriate ways (i think Pinker would object if i wandered around yelling “muppet” at him).
Clearly a good position for a right wing grifter however
@kenmiller #22:
I’m sure they’d love to be reminded of their 15 minutes of
fameshame.Dangerousbeans @ 26
Let us do empirical studies! I would volunteer shouting “muppet” at him.
It’s obviously not a great source, but someone on Twitter is claiming that all the Pinker NFTs were purchased by one person.
https://twitter.com/realluvbby/status/1637890273593139215
My guess would be “yes.” Pinker may have had credibility as a linguist once upon a time, but Better Angels was a cherry-picked piece of bullshit that made it clear he was an egotistical schmuck who was happy to pontificate on subjects outside his expertise. IIRC, he scorned statistics used by rape crisis centers and embraced perspectives from men’s rights types, which added an extra layer of assholiness.
He also quoted Soviet propaganda numbers to back up his argument that nuclear power wasn’t as dangerous as all those nervous nellies on “the left” said it was.
Raging Bee
You mean Soviet organizations like the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the World Health Organization?
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident
Also:
Literally the excessive fearmongering is more harmful to public health than the radiation.
@ ^ GerrardOfTitanServer : literally huh?
&
Source : https://www.mamamia.com.au/chernobyl-radiation-poisoning/
But yeah, suuure, the “excessive” fearmongering is worse than that.. (Does that really need a sarc tag?)
PS. How much “fear mongering” do you think would the right amount here?
Or is any concern about the risks of nuclear power and its potheer problematic issues ever justified in your view?
Doesn’t contradict a damn thing I said. Do you know the awful symptoms that you get if you ingest the cleaning chemicals under sink? Or the symptoms from the Bhopal disaster? I bet those are awful too.
Doesn’t change the fact that hysteria about radiation and Chernobyl is a bigger threat to public health in that area compared to the radiation. This is not me saying it. It’s basically every reputable international health and science organization saying it. Citations already provided.
Did some people die horrifically? Yes. Did anyone die who wasn’t on the scene in the first week of the accident? Maybe. Maybe not. As Pinker rightly argues, coal kills more people every day in horrific ways compared to all of the deaths from radiation from nuclear power.
It really upsets me when people misrepresent the science on this in favor of their own religious cult organizations, e.g. Greenpeace.
@ ^ GerrardOfTitanServer : Yes it does contradict a thing you said. Specifically the word “literally” when you typed :
You do know what literally means right?
Does “fearmongering” ie saying things that youor even I would consider excessive and overly alarmist about nuclear radiatiion, resuklt in the horrendous sort of death that Chernobyl victoms like Vasily Ignatenko experienced? No, it does not.
PS. Your (GOTS) failure to answer my questions to you most notably :
Is any concern about the risks of nuclear power and its other problematic issues ever justified in your view?
Is noted.
As is your description of Greenpeace as a “religious cult” which, nah, it really isn’t. Hint :lack of supernatural & prayers & worship at least for most members. Too obvs for you? Some very lazy & inaccurate word choices from you here lately GOTS.. Tho’ I will admit you at least can type them better than I!
Fuck off to bed, Gerrard; you’ll never build enough walls of text to hide all the obvious bad-faith arguments you’ve made on this subject.
@ ^ Raging Bee : Yup – and don’t forget the whattaboutery!
Eg,. GOTS #36 Yes, other things can also kill people horribly and painfully and gruesome-ly too. That’s not really an argument in favour of nuclear power doing so and nor does make the agony of those dying from nuclear radiation – radiation sickness – better or in any way ok. /Cap’n Obvs.
I provided a quote and citation from a very large number of the world’s leading health and science organizations. Let me copy it again here.
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident
Comparing the relative harm of one thing to another is not whataboutism. It’s commonplace and done all the time. Putting things in context is important. For example, we have all heard the line about being much more likely to die in a car collision than being killed by a shark as a way to remind ourselves that shark attacks are really rare and not a big public health threat. Here, it’s important to note that coal kills more people from mundane air pollution every day than have every died from radiation from nuclear power to remind us that nuclear power is really really safe.
Greenpeace is a religious cult organizations that did exactly what Raging Bee accused Pinkerton of doing: publishing and distributing obviously bad science from a Soviet / Russian source, of 3 random authors, that drastically overplayed the harms of Chernobyl, saying a million people will die from Chernobyl. Back in reality, 31 is a much more accurate number than 1 million and much more supported by the science. Who are you going to trust? The best international scientific and health organizations? Or Greenpeace when they cite three Soviet / Russian nobodies?
It’s not just me to notice the religious nature of anti nuclear activism. Preeminent climate scientist Dr James Hansen has also described these Green NGOs as being “quasi religious” in their opposition.
You’re in a religious cult, and you just don’t see it. I quote from a report from nearly all of the world’s leading expert organizations which clearly says that false (and exaggerated) information about the danger of Chernobyl is a bigger public health threat in the impacted area, compared to the radiation, and it looks like your brain just shut down. It says what I said it says. Try to read the report. Try to square the information in it with the lies that you have been fed by Greenpeace. Everything you know is a lie because you get all of your information from NGOs and other sources which keep their sources of funding private, and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, probably get their funding from fossil fuels billionaires because Greens would rather shut down nuclear and replace it with coal, and because renewables can never replace fossil fuels worldwide (again, not just my position, but the position of most climate scientists). You are a useful idiot to the fossil fuels lobby.
Sorry, meant this quote
Who pays you? Is it some pro-wind and solar group? Becacaue all you do with your dishonest walls of text is put people off nuclear power.
Gerrard:
What an outré claim. Akin to a Q loonie’s.
Yeah, but nuclear is not any better for replacing fossil fuels worldwide than solar or wind, because what those techs generate is electricity.
But.
The Sun may not always shine, the wind may not always blow, but neither will ever run out or need a chain of supply to be maintained, so the former has more reliability, the latter more puissance.
Thing is, solar, wind, tidal and geothermic (for example) need no ongoing fuel inputs, unlike nuclear power plants. Or waste outputs or management.
Just the setup and the maintenance. And therefore no need for fuel security, which (in case you haven’t noticed) has often guided geopolitics.
But nowhere near as much as you are a salivating servant being usefully idiotic to the nuclear fuels lobby.
A certain famous linguist with close ties to Pinker described his views to me as “monstrous” and “grotesque”, and suggested reading http://www.zcommunications.org/steven-pinker-on-the-alleged-decline-of-violence-by-edward-s-herman-and-david-peterson
Oops, that link no longer works, but this does: https://isreview.org/issue/86/steven-pinker-alleged-decline-violence/index.html
@41. GerrardOfTitanServer : “You’re in a religious cult, and you just don’t see it.”
I’m not a member of Greenpeace. I was a memebr of teh Greens but aren’t cyurrnelty – though I should rejoin. Not that it matters since your miscahrraterisation as wellas your assumptions are uttterly bogus anyhow.
This is all deja u all over again but see a scientific authority here :
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/
That’s one group Itrust among several albeit still worth checking and thinking for myself. Which you GOTS seem not todo so much given your worship of nuclear ideology.
Sigh. The typos. Sorry y’all. Gotta fix & expand.
@41. GerrardOfTitanServer : “You’re in a religious cult, and you just don’t see it.”
FYI. I’m not a member of Greenpeace. I was previously a member of the Australian Greens party but aren’t currently – although I should & intend to rejoin & not because of any disagreement simply my laziness and shortage of $. Not that it matters since your (GOTS) mischaracterisation as well as your assumptions are uttterly bogus anyhow.
Yeah, your whatabouttery is done all the time or at least very regularly by you & others. Point out the issues nuclear power has and how horrible death by radiation sickness is and your recourse is almost (but not quite) literally “But whaddabout…” see my #35 & your #36 upthread.
The specific context here was well, people can scroll up and judge for themselves. But you made a specific statement that, once again :
Which is simply false as I showed in #35. Radiation sickness e.g. from Chernobyl literally can be fatal in a very nasty manner. “Fear mongering” ie. people expressing objections to nuclear power on safety grounds however well founded, not directly so.
That is the relevant context here & my question to you from #35 still remains unanswered by you – again :
Is any concern about the risks of nuclear power and its other problematic issues ever justified in your view GOTS?
Oh & “really really safe.” Yeesh. How convincing and not at all subjective & relative & imprecise.. Not.
You’ve accused me of being a cult member for questioning your pro-nukes ideology.
You claim Greens want coal and other fossil fuels rather than nuclear power which is a blatant lie. They don’t. They want renewable alternatives and BTW uranium is NOT a renewable energy source but another fossil fuel with its own set of drawbacks. Weaponisation, waste disposal, meltdowns, etc…
@ GOTS :
Plus Covid19 plus Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences plus more. Yes, Chernobyl’s legacy includes mental health issues among its survivors causing them major anxiety, depression and other life altering for the worse stuff. This is not the point in support of nuclear power that you seem to think it is.
You repeat the same claims over and over regardless of them not being convincing the first time round.*
Seems to me that the “religious cultitst” or at least utterly blinkered ideologue here is you.
For the record, I support theuse of RTG’s in spaeprobes eg Cassini and see possible roles for thorium and other alternative better reactors perhaps – if they can be developed quickly enough and well enough. I’m happy to change my mind if the evidence is convincing. Are you? Will you ever actually deign to answer nmy question in bold here?
.* Mea culpa I tend to repeat things too but for clarity & expansion becoz I stuffed up saying them the first time..
Jazzlet: If anyone’s paying GerrardOfTitanicStupidity, I suspect it’s the fossil-fuels guys, with the intent of dividing their enemies against each other and discrediting both the nuclear and renewables factions. These are the same pond-scum who spent billions getting people to deny that global warming was happening at all, so I wouldn’t put such a relatively-minor propaganda stunt past them.
Then again, I also wouldn’t put it past Gerrard, and other longtime nuclear-power advocates and bygone-era technocrats, to keep on banging on without being paid, merely out of endless rigid resentment and butthurt over losing a policy debate they’d always thought themselves entitled to win.
Jazzlet: If anyone’s paying GerrardOfTitanicStupidity, I suspect it’s the fossil-fuels guys, with the intent of dividing their enemies against each other and discrediting both the nuclear and renewables factions. These are the same pond-scum who spent billions getting people to deny that global warming was happening at all, so I wouldn’t put such a relatively-minor propaganda stunt past them.
Then again, I also wouldn’t put it past Gerrard, and other longtime nuclear-power advocates and bygone-era technocrats, to keep on banging on without being paid, merely out of endless rigid resentment and butthurt over losing a policy debate they’d always thought themselves entitled to win.
Jazzlet: If anyone’s paying GerrardOfTitanicStupidity, I suspect it’s the fossil-fuels guys, with the intent of dividing their enemies against each other and discrediting both the nuclear and renewables factions. These are the same pond-scum who spent billions getting people to deny that global warming was happening at all, so I wouldn’t put such a relatively-minor propaganda stunt past them.
Then again, I also wouldn’t put it past Gerrard, and other longtime nuclear-power advocates and bygone-era technocrats, to keep on banging on without being paid, merely out of endless rigid resentment and butthurt over losing a policy debate they’d always thought themselves entitled to win.
Okay, I’ve tried to post a comment here and it seems to have vanished. PZ, if it appears more than once, please delete the duplicates. My bad.
Jazzlet: If anyone’s paying Gerrard, I suspect it’s the fossil-fuels guys, with the intent of dividing their enemies against each other and discrediting both the nuclear and renewables factions. These are the same pond-scum who spent billions getting people to deny that global warming was happening at all, so I wouldn’t put such a relatively-minor propaganda stunt past them.
Then again, I also wouldn’t put it past Gerrard, and other longtime nuclear-power advocates and bygone-era technocrats, to keep on banging on without being paid, merely out of endless rigid resentment and butthurt over losing a policy debate they’d always thought themselves entitled to win.
LOL. Good point.
I long ago decided that the main problem with nuclear power is…GerrardOfTitanServer. This guy by himself has set nuclear power back by several decades.
His dogmatic fanaticism isn’t very persuasive.
FWIW, I used to be agnostic on nuclear power.
If it works fine, if it doesn’t forget it.
In fact, the record of nuclear power in that way is rather mixed. Yeah, it works and nuclear power plants are everywhere. So are gigantic nuclear accidents starting with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.
Lately and despite Gerald, I’ve become a lot more accepting.
It was the war in Ukraine that did it.
.1. Fossil fuels have their own problems, not the least of which is geopolitical risk.
We’ve been trading the blood of our children for oil in the middle east from time to time.
The Europeans almost became slaves of the Russians over…Russian natural gas. It was an emergency to get rid of them and find other sources of supply.
The price included their national security and national sovereignty and that was too high.
.2. Ukraine itself gets half their electricity from nuclear power plants.
They’ve gotten it to work and work well. So have many other countries.
AFAICT, if it is done right, nuclear power is a viable method of generating electricity.
That was a good takedown of Pinker.
He is fractally wrong.
The closer you look, the more wrong things you can find.
He isn’t a scholar at all, he is a propagandist for the status quo.
Right, it is getting better every day. Except when it isn’t.
Today there are 89 million refugees in the world.
This is about a world record for the number of refugees and they are fleeing war, gang violence, attempted genocide, and climate change among other reasons.
This number has been steadily rising over the last few decades.
Pinker might want to ask these refugees if things are getting better.
Jazzlet & raven: If anyone’s paying GerrardOfTitanicStupidity, I suspect it’s the fossil-fuels guys, with the intent of dividing their enemies against each other and discrediting both the nuclear and renewables factions. These are the same pond-scum who spent billions getting people to deny that global warming was happening at all, so I wouldn’t put such a relatively-minor propaganda stunt past them.
Then again, I also wouldn’t put it past Gerrard, and other longtime nuclear-power advocates and bygone-era technocrats, to keep on banging on without being paid, merely out of endless rigid resentment and butthurt over losing a policy debate they’d clearly always thought themselves entitled to win.
Jazzlet
I just don’t understand. I post citations to the most reputable international scientific and health organizations, and this is the reaction that I get. I’m also citing the opinions of climate scientists. Almost everything I say is directly cited to respectable authorities. Cult much?
John Morales
When governor Brown won election first time in California via the Green vote, he shut down nuclear and built more coal. In Germany, just last year, they finished construction of a new coal power plant, Datteln 4 (sp), and they are shutting down their nuclear. I can post a similar story in Ohio where Greens again preferred coal to nuclear.
Renewables don’t need a supply chain to be maintained? What? Of course they do. They don’t last forever and need to replaced.
Of course renewables need disposal and generic toxic waste. Those solar cells are toxic waste and need to be properly recycled / disposed. There’s also the matter of the highly toxic rare earth metal minijg that is required at large scale for wind turbines – google “bbc worst place on earth”. Renewables create way more toxic waste than nuclear power, and most of that renewables waste is uncontained and dumped directly into the environment, harming a lot of people in the process.
Requiring fuel is a good thing. Not requiring fuel is a bad thing. Requiring fuel allows production on demand, allowing a modern industrial society. Fuelless sources, e.g. solar and wind, can’t produce on demand, which is one of their fatal flaws which is why they’ll never replace fossil fuels.
Steve or
You’re going to trust some random non profit over thousands of the leading scientists of the world as reported in the UNSCEAR, WHO, etc., reports? That’s ridiculous. Cherry picking “experts” who agree with you. PS is their list of funders public?
The cited and quoted report literally says otherwise.
This is about all I need to know that your are delusional, and no better than a young Earth creationist.
Raging Bee
Serious question. Do you think the world’s leading climate scientists, such as Dr James Hansen, Dr Tom Wigley, Dr Kerry Emanuel, Dr Ken Caldeira, and others, are being paid by fossil fuel money? Because they also say that 100% renewables are impossible, and two of them openly say that people like you, aka anti nuclear activists, are a bigger problem than climate change deniers, and James Hansen also makes the same observation I have that fossil fuel money likely funds renewables advocacy because they know that renewables are not a threat to their business. So, do you really think these climate scientists are being paid by fossil fuel money? These same scientists who have warning governments and the public for decades about climate change?
Raven
Come to the dark side.
One of those does not belong in that list. Three Mile Island was not like the others. No harmful amounts of radiation was released from the reactor. No exclusion zones. No deaths or injuries. In no way was it a “gigantic” accident like the other two.
Also John,
Remind me. Which is illegal in Australia? Coal power or nuclear power? Oh thats right, it’s nuclear power which is illegal and it’s coal power that is in widespread use. Keeping in mind the many other examples that I cited above, and the many more than I could cite, I am appalled by the gall to claim that I’m wrong to say that Greens prefer coal to nuclear.
I just don’t understand. I post citations to the most reputable international scientific and health organizations, and this is the reaction that I get.
You get this reaction because you’ve said far too many utterly ridiculous and obviously false and dishonest things that are NOT supported by any of your sources, or by anyone else. If you can’t understand this, then you’re not at all competent to participate in this grownup conversation. Fuck off to bed.
And no, I’m not going to waste any more time going back to give examples — you already know what I’m talking about, because all your bogus claims have already been refuted, by myself and others.
@ ^ GerrardOfTitanServer : You still didn’t answer my question to you in #35, #38 & #48. I’ll answer your questions after you answer mine.
You also misspelled my nymn. Rude. Is that beause I used GOTS insteda of your full nymn for the sake of brevity? If you object to that just say so.
Also I wouldn’t call myself an “anti-nuclear activist”. I’m certainly not a fan of nuclear fission reactors but,well, see my statement in #48. Interesting that anyone who doesn’t completely agree with you and points out where you are wrong gets this sort of mischaracterisation and attack from you. Vader’s If you’re not with me your my enemy (45 secs mark) seems to be very much your view here.
Also seems you also still don’t get the meaning of the word “literally” as in would you literally choose to be irradiated with nuclear radiation capable of causing fatal radiation sickness as happened at Chernobyl or told / shown some stuff you consider “excessive fear-mongering” for a bit?
Oh and GerrardOfTitanServer, the Climte Council :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Council
Is NOT just “some random non profit” organisation but a scientific one led by “experts in a range of fields including climate science, biology, health, bushfires, business, energy, public policy, and more.” (Wikipage linked above.)
Source – their FAQ’s here scroll down : https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/faqs/
Nor is it the Climate Council only group saying that nuclear power isn’t the cure all you seem to think it is. .It is you who is projecting and cherry-picking here not me.
@ # 58. “I am appalled by the gall to claim that I’m wrong to say that Greens prefer coal to nuclear.”
Y’know the Greens have a policy page stating what they policies are right :
https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy
Saying an organisation is doing one thing whern they are doing the opposite is outright dishonest.
Gerrard @58:
How it is: Greens don’t want nuclear, but also don’t want any coal.
Or gas.
Or petrol.
In short, they don’t want either nuclear or fossil fuels.
What they want is green energy, go figure.
What they have to settle for is another thing, of course.
You’re going to trust some random non profit over thousands of the leading scientists of the world…
Gerrard, here’s a fact that seems to be obvious to everyone but you: the feasibility or unfeasibility of nuclear power is not a question for “leading scientists;” it’s a question for engineers, managers, businesses, technicians, energy users/consumers, and, yes, regulators and lawmakers. They’re the ones who actually deal with the down-to-earth issues of how to design, build, operate, manage and clean up a power plant, how to make it run well, how to keep it safe, what can go wrong and how, and how to pitch and explain it to all the various stakeholders and spectators. Scientists are simply not competent to deal with such issues, and your endless repetitive arguments-from-scientific-authority simply don’t address any of the problems, technical, managerial, economic or political, that have bedeviled nuclear-power projects from day one. This is why your entire case for nuclear power is nothing but text-walls of bullshit. Scientific authority does not trump the practical expertise and experience of people and organizations dealing with this sort of thing on the ground at all levels.
PS
I made it explicitly clear that maintenance is required for those renewables, and obviously the provision of that maintenance itself requires a supply chain.
Just not a fuel supply chain.
No fuel supply chain needed for renewables being the point your Gerrard’s Demon © prevents you from seeing; the explicit and obvious point that nuclear power plants need ongoing fuel (and cooling) to keep running. And external electricity, evidently, as that place in Ukraine has been in the news again. UN is very concerned.
(Tide comes in, tide goes out)
Serious question. Do you think the world’s leading climate scientists, such as Dr James Hansen, Dr Tom Wigley, Dr Kerry Emanuel, Dr Ken Caldeira, and others, are being paid by fossil fuel money?
Serious answer: Your entire shtick seems to consist of making blatantly asinine and insultingly dishonest claims, then running off and hiding behind the prestige of famous scientists when we call you out for your bullshit. You’re nothing but an obsolete attention-seeking crank, and your opinions are laughably out-of-date and not worth the effort of trying to influence or improve them. If we want sensible energy policy, there’s more relevant and important people we’ll need to talk to. I, for one, am done with you and your incoherent rubbish.
” I am appalled by the gall to claim that I’m wrong to say that Greens prefer coal to nuclear.”
predicated by you saying that nuclear is “illegal” in Oz, how is that actually a choice?
oh right, it isn’t, you’re just inanely confused.
I don’t even know you, but already I can tell that being confused is likely your regular state of “mind”.
John Morales
Distinguishing between “non-fuel supply chains” and “fuel supply chains” is special pleading and irrelevant. All that matters is the total supply chains necessary. And renewables require a lot more in terms of supply chains. For example, solar and wind require approx 5x more concrete and steel.
Modern reactor designs do not need external electricity to remain safe, such as the AP-1000, which has enough cooling water on hand with passive systems so that with instant station blackout, the reactor remains walkaway safe.
StevoR
Was on a phone. Autocorrect. Sorry.
Still not what I, or my source, said. I said that hysteria regarding overexaggeration dangers of radiation are a bigger harm to public health than the radiation for the millions of people that lived near Chernobyl accident and that today live near the Chernobyl. In other words, overreaction to fears of radiation did more harm to public health than the radiation did.
So, does this organization publish a list of their funders or not? Because it sounds like they don’t. Betcha that their “philantrophic” sources include a lot of Australian coal and natural gas money.
And it’s still a random non-profit. Your sales pitch blurb does nothing to remedy my reasonable suspicion that it’s a special interest group with a foregone conclusion. Why do you trust such an organization over the likes of UNSCEAR, the WHO, the IAEA, etc.?
Again, which is illegal in Australia? Coal or nuclear. There are many examples of Green aligned politicians shutting down nuclear and building coal. I named several above. Even more examples if you include replacing nuclear with natural gas. How many examples are there of Green aligned politicians replacing coal with nuclear? Zero. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re denying reality. When Greens come to power, it is a regular occurrence that they will phase out nuclear and replace it largely with fossil fuels. They can say one thing, but their actions are consistently different.
Raging Bee
Name one ridiculous thing that I’ve said which was not also said in one of the studies that I’ve cited or said by one of the climate scientists that I’ve cited. If you think you’ve found something, I’ll be happy to provide a source.
I see. Ok then.
And the consensus as represented by the IPCC reports is that 100% renewables is impossible. Further, even the anti-nuclear IPCC reports say we need lots of nuclear. And if you remove the clear anti-nuclear bias, e.g. the arbitrary limiting of nuclear fuel supplies in the IPCC studies, then nuclear fuel dominates their models. Sources provided before for this claim, and I’ll happily provide them again if needed.
Scientists are not capable of dealing with energy modeling? What the fuck am I reading? Are you saying papers like
. Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States†
. Matthew R. Shaner, ORCID logo a Steven J. Davis, ORCID logo ab Nathan S. Lewis ORCID logo ac and Ken Caldeira*a
. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c7ee03029k
are inherently incompetent? Again, what the fuck am I reading? This is absolutely bullshit.
You didn’t answer my question. Everything I’ve said is simply a repeat of the IPCC reports, UNSCEAR reports, WHO reports, and/or leading climate scientists. At the very least, that should mean that this is not a crank position, and that it is a real, well-researched, reasonable, and respectable position. Or are you ready to call those climate scientists, including Dr James Hansen, quacks and shills for fossil fuels? I would love to see you work through this cognitive dissonance. The scientists at the forefront warning us about climate change telling you that you are the biggest obstacle to fixing climate change. How’s that for ya?
@ ^ GerrardOfTitanServer :
Okay. Apology accepted. Fair enough.
Oh fer … fucks sake! Scroll up to your comment #34. Read your own words aloud. You literally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literally#Controversy ) wrote :
Which, no. As I pointed out in #35, 37 & 60. Would you rather be :
A) literally exposed to Chernobyl 1986 disaster meltdown levels of radiation?
Or
B) some (non-deadly radioactive obvs) material you consider to be “fearmongering” by reading or viewing it.
I know which choice I would literally make here.
Also, again, for pities sake, you still have NOT answered my question repeatedly asked upthread :
Is any concern about the risks of nuclear power and its other problematic issues ever justified in your view, GerrardOfTitanServer?
So I guess since you deliberately refuse to answer it we can draw our own conclusions.
You accuse Greenpeace of being a religious cult*, falsely and absurdly claim the Australian Greens want something they strongly oppose and engage in the logical fallacy of casting asperisons / well poisoning at the Climate Council which, yet again, is not just “some random non-profit” but is, in fact, a dedicated Climate science organisation of experts. GerrardOfTitanServer; you have essentially lost any credibility you may have once had by saying all that and more.
You also seem keen to stress that nuclear power is illegal in increasingly more renewables powered Australia. (We do however have the Lucas Heights reactor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor so go figure..) Yet you fail to note that if that’s so then, hey, maybe there’s good reasons for that and, hey, maybe it isn’t everyone else who is wrong here but you. Your
pro-nuclearpro-fission reactors side lost this argument in the public sphere a long time ago. Maybe its time you accepted the verdict and moved on?.* Which, again, seems irelevant since I’m not a member of Greenpeace nor do I think it is especially powerful or influential here & it certainly isn’t the only or most important reason for the rejection of nuclear power.
@ ^ GerrardOfTitanServer :
Okay. Apology accepted. Fair enough.
Oh fer … pities sake! Scroll up to your comment #34. Read your own words aloud. You literally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literally#Controversy ) wrote :
Which, no. As I pointed out in #35, 37 & 60. Would you rather be :
A) literally exposed to Chernobyl 1986 disaster meltdown levels of radiation?
Or
B) some (non-deadly radioactive obvs) material you consider to be “fearmongering” by reading or viewing it.
I know which choice I would literally make here.
Also, again, for pities sake, you still have NOT answered my question repeatedly asked upthread :
Is any concern about the risks of nuclear power and its other problematic issues ever justified in your view, GerrardOfTitanServer?
So I guess since you deliberately refuse to answer it we can draw our own conclusions.
Not sure why this section of this isn’t posting here..Baffled.
GerrardOfTitanServer, you have accused Greenpeace of being a religious cult*, falsely and absurdly claimed the Australian Greens want something they strongly oppose and engage in the logical fallacy of casting asperisons / well poisoning at the Climate Council which, yet again, is not just “some random non-profit” but is, in fact, a dedicated Climate science organisation of experts. By saying all this and more, you have essentially lost any credibility you may have once had.
You also seem keen to stress that nuclear power is illegal in increasingly more renewables powered Australia.**
Yet you fail to note that if that’s so then, hey, maybe there’s good reasons for that and, hey, maybe it isn’t everyone else who is wrong here but you. Your
pro-nuclearpro-fission reactors side lost this argument in the public sphere a long time ago. Maybe its time you accepted the verdict and moved on?PS. Which, again, seems irelevant since I’m not a member of Greenpeace nor do I think it is especially powerful or influential here & it certainly isn’t the only or most important reason for the rejection of nuclear power.
PPS. We do however have the Lucas Heights reactor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor so go figure..
What is up with this NOT posting here?
GerrardOfTitanServer, you have accused Greenpeace of being a religious cult, claimed the Australian Greens want something they strongly oppose and engage in the logical fallacy of casting asperisons / well poisoning at the Climate Council which, yet again, is not just “some random non-profit” but is a dedicated Climate science organisation of experts. By saying all this and more, you have essentially lost any credibility.
You also seem keen to stress that nuclear power is illegal in increasingly more renewables powered Australia. Yet you fail to note that if that’s so then, hey, maybe there’s good reasons for that and, hey, maybe it isn’t everyone else who is wrong here but you. Your pro-fission reactors side lost this argument in the public sphere a long time ago. Maybe its time you accepted that and moved on?
PS. Which, again, seems irelevant since I’m not a member of Greenpeace nor do I think it is especially powerful or influential here & it certainly isn’t the only or most important reason for the rejection of nuclear power.
PPS. We do however have the Lucas Heights reactor but anyhow.
StevoR
There are no good reasons for that.
I’m the one with the best science behind me, e.g. the IPCC, WHO, UNSCEAR, etc. You have some random non-profit with who knows what criteria to get on the scientific committee portion of it, funded by god knows who (probably Australian fossil fuel money). No, it is you who should take your own advice. Why is it that you hold positions that are fringe in the international scientific community and you have to cherrypick private NGOs as opposed to respectable international scientific organizations?
Because I give a damn about humanity and the environment. I want to stop global warming and climate change. I want to stop the needless death of 7 million people every year from entirely preventable deaths from mundane air pollution. That’s why I keep doing this. Because I know that these things will not change as long as the public conversation is dominated by the myths that 100% renewables can work and that nuclear power is particularly dangerous (as opposed to the scientific consensus which is largely on my side).
HA
Again, option 3, which is what my source said, and what I said: Radiation from Chernobyl hurt and killed less people than the mental health harm from misinformation about radiation from Chernobyl. In other words, misinformation about radiation leading to mental health problems is a bigger public health harm than the radiation in the area around Chernobyl after the accident and today. This is not a difficult concept. I don’t understand why you’re having trouble with it.
Yes. I wouldn’t want to stay in Pripryat after the accident. I could get acute radiation sickness, maybe die from it, and also probably develop a (slightly) higher risk of cancer later in life.
I wouldn’t want to get within a few dozen meters of nuclear fuel or high level nuclear waste. I wouldn’t want to grind it up into dust and breathe it in, and I wouldn’t want to eat it either.
Per joule of energy, nuclear power is better for human health and for the environment compared to all other options to generate electricity and heat. It’s not even close. It’s far and away the best option.
One problem is that you probably believe outright lies about the dangers of radiation. I really wish you would educate yourself about the real scale of the danger. Start here:
The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity; Bernard L. Cohen
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/plutonium-bernard-cohen.html
Read the paper. Read the WHO report on Chernobyl. Gods damn it, just go educate yourself about what real scientists actually say about this shit instead of relying on fossil fuel funded private special interest groups like Climate Coalition Australia.
I wouldn’t want to get within a few dozen meters of nuclear fuel or high level nuclear waste. I wouldn’t want to grind it up into dust and breathe it in, and I wouldn’t want to eat it either.
Didn’t you say earlier that nuclear waste wasn’t a problem even if it’s mismanaged?
God’s balls, Gerrard, are you even smart enough to have any inkling of how irredeemably stupid you sound?
@70. GerrardOfTitanServer : “There are no good reasons for that.”
Yet the people in charge disagreed with you why? The almighty power of Greenpeace I guess? (Do I really need a sarc tag?)
Or y’know because the majority looked at the evidence and thought the case against was stronger than the case for :
Source : https://www.queenslandconservation.org.au/five_reasons_australians_say_no_to_nuclear
or from another source :
https://environmentvictoria.org.au/our-campaigns/safe-climate/nuclear-power-unnecessary-risk/
Which notes in numbered point summary : “8. The Nuclear ‘Debate’ is a Diversion.. 7. There’s NO Solution To Deadly Nuclear Waste.. 6. Nuclear Reactors Make Unpopular Neighbours ..5. Nuclear Reactors are being phased out .. 4. Nuclear Reactors are Expensive.. 3.Nuclear Reactors are too slow (to build -ed) .. 2. Nuclear Reactors are water-hungry ..1. Nuclear Reactors are dangerous.”
In addition, there’s always wikipedia FWIW : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia
I’ve looked at this, I mean not obsessively like you GOTS, but I’ve lived though and watched a lot of the debates and discussions at least seeing on the telly and in the papers and reading and seeing online. Please consider and remember that People that disagree with you, actually may know stuff already and not just need to follow your cherry-picked pro-fission uranium power sources. Also that we might be (are!) talking and discussing this in good faith and willing to change our minds given sufficient good evidence – I am as already stated. I see some role esp for alternative types eg thorium reactors.
Automatically accusing all your opponents of being sheeple or cultists or activists or whatevs. Not a winning idea and typical tactic of pseudo-scientists and cranks and the tinfoil hat set.
Also, yee-eeet again, you really don’t grok how your literal sentence and misuse of the word ‘literal’ works? Meh. ‘K.
Climate Council NOT Coalition (although maybe them too & you are confusing one group with another?) and no, despite your unsupported bulldust NO, they aren’t fossil fuel funded and also don’t arrogantly patronise me and everyone else who disgarees with you by falsely claiming everyone else is uneducated and only disagree with your pro-nuke ideology because of that.
Raging Bee
You’re being like John Morales now, being overly literal and pedantic when the meaning of my words were quite clear.
StevoR
What risks? What risks are too high? The worst accident ever killed at most 4,000 people, and plausibly only 50~. Nearly all of the so-called exclusion zones are safe to live in and also safe to grow food in.
The toxic waste from solar and wind also lasts generations, and hurts a lot more people. This is a ridiculous double standard based on a complete misunderstanding of the scale of the danger of both nuclear power and solar/wind.
Assinine. Again based on a complete misunderstanding of the real scale of the danger involved.
Yes, there is. It’s the easiest kind of waste to manage. There’s so little of it that it’s cheap and easy, per joule of energy produced, to handle it. It’s the only kind of power generation that actually contains its own waste. By contrast, solar cells produce a lot of toxic waste in their manufacture, and most of the manufacture happens in China with Uighur slave labor,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57124636and I doubt they’re properly disposing of the waste. There are reasons why solar is so cheap today, reasons which would be rather inconvenient for you if you bothered to look. Solar cells are also considered toxic waste when disposed, and they’re typically not disposed properly, often ending up in the electronic waste stream to be shipped to some poor third world country to pollute their local environment instead of ours. Wind turbines also produce lots of toxic waste in their manufacture, e.g. the rare earth metal mining, which also happens in China, this time nearly all of it, and again it’s because China is seemingly the only country in the world with lax enough environmental standards to do it cheaply, aka dumping the pollution directly into the enviroment.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earthBy contrast, disposed high level nuclear waste has never harmed anyone, and likely never will.
Your fears and misinformation is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of the dangers of nuclear waste. I provided a source above from Dr Bernard Cohen. I again strongly encourage you to read it. It will go a long way to dispel some of the myths that you hold.
The brute force fact is that yes, a leak at a permanent high level nuclear waste disposal location is possible. Because of decades of misinformation from Green sources, you automatically assume that any leak would have disastrous consequences, but that’s simply not true. If you look at the real science, you will find that nothing would happen from any sort of worst case leak. The real question is whether you are going to continue to go along with these pseudoscientific manipulations, or whether you’re going to read my sources and discover just how wildly wrong you are.
Here’s a new piece of information to consider: we have done the experiment already. We have buried high level nuclear waste underground, with no artificial barriers of any kind, in a water rich environment, and waited a few billion years, and watched what happened. The plutonium moves 5 ft. The experiment was done for us by nature in Oklo, Gabon, where a few billion years ago, there were natural underground fission reactors that ran on and off for millions of years. From core samples, we know the plutonium moved only 5 ft over few billion years in this water rich environment.
https://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/oklo-reactor.htmlHere’s a study of a very carefully overengineered disposal regime, which also shows the same thing – any plausible leak, in the worst case scenario, would result in miniscule amounts of radiation reaching the biosphere.
https://jmkorhonen.net/2013/08/15/graph-of-the-week-what-happens-if-nuclear-waste-repository-leaks/In terms of number of lethal doses, there are other kinds of chemicals and toxins that we make which have far more lethal doses in inventory than high level nuclear waste. Chlorine, phosgene, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, are all produced today in far larger numbers than any sort of nuclear material, measured in terms of number of lethal doses. Preemptively: (bolding added by me)
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/plutonium-bernard-cohen.html“One often hears that in large-scale production of Pu we will be creating unprecedented quantities of a poisonous material. Because Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, we compare it in Table III with quantities of other poisonous inhalants produced in the U.S. We see that it is relatively trivial by comparison. Moreover, it should be noted that Pu is not easily dispersed whereas the others are gases and hence readily dispersible. Of course, Pu released to the environment will last far longer than these gases, which would be decomposed chemically, but recall from our earlier discussion that nearly all of the damage done in Pu dispersal is by the initial cloud of dust; all of the later resuspension and the thousands of years spent in the soil do far less damage. It is thus not unfair to compare Pu with the poison gases, and we see from Table III that it will always be far less of a hazard.“
Nuclear waste disposal is a complete non-issue started by people who lie, and by people who have been misled by the liars.
Then built it.
Then built one.
I’m sorry, what? Since when is this how government works? Every individual gets a veto? No.
Renewables take longer, as demonstrated by every country that has ever tried. By contrast, France converted most of their grid to nuclear in just 15 years.
Again, see France.
The problem is twofold. 1- a hostile regulatory environment based on the misinformation that I’m talking about. This can be fixed. 2- These are first of a kind designs by work crews that have never built a nuclear power plant. Cost overruns are expected. Learning curve benefits come from building the same thing over and over again with the same work crews. Then you start to see learning curve benefits. Again, see France. Especially see South Korea which has seen upfront capital cost reductions year over year for decades. How did South Korea do it? By building the same design with little changes, over and over again, for decades. PS: Even at Hinkley C or Vogtle prices, had Germany spent its money on nuclear instead of renewables, it would have eliminated all fossil fuels from electricity already.
See above.
20 years to go from nothing to a built nuclear power plant seems reasonable. This is the only option that we have.
France has cheaper electricity than Germany. Other regions of Australia have cheaper electricity than South Australia. The brute force fact is that renewables are not cheap. Solar cells and wind turbines could be plentiful and entirely free, and it still wouldn’t be cheap enough because of the ancillary costs of turning intermittent unreliable electricity into useful electricity are too big. This includes transmission, storage, backup, grid inertia, blackstart capabilities, etc.
You’ve repeated yourself, and so I refer you to the points that I made above.
Based on what you have said, I know that you are grossly misinformed.
Similar complaints could be made regarding “thorium reactors” because the complaints against conventional light water reactors are almost entirely based in fantasy, and any argument based in fantasy could also be applied to next gen nuclear reactor designs. PS: This is another example of how I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a common thing where people who briefly read the headlines use the phrase “thorium reactor”, but any serious person would never use that phrase. It’s not the thorium that makes this certain class of reactors very cool. It’s the liquid salt fuel and coolant which could be used with uranium or thorium. Seeing “thorium reactor” instead of “molten salt reactor” is a dead giveaway that the speaker doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
I don’t know how else to phrase it – almost everything you know is wrong. I ask you – do you think Dr James Hansen, Dr Tom Wigley, Dr Kerry Emanuel, Dr Ken Caldeira, and others, are also pseudo-scientists? Cranks? Tinfoil hat wearers? Again, I have the scientific community behind me, and you have likely fossil fuel funded special interest groups.
To paraphase Dan Dennett, there is no polite way to ask someone “good sir, have you considered that you have squandered your life on a lie?”. That’s the situation that I’m dealing with here. Dennett was talking about convention religions, and here I’m dealing with a very specific and peculiar quasi-religious delusion, and the same principle applies. There is no better way to confront you on the fact that nearly everything you know on this topic is wrong. Not just a little wrong, but wildly wrong.
The odds are that they are funded by fossil fuel money. Again, do they publish a list of their funders? Seemingly not. There’s a reason for that. You’re too stuck in your delusion to admit it though. By contrast, all of the pro nuclear activist groups that I know of are very careful to publish a list of their funders and to avoid all nuclear lobby money.
See here for a list of such Green organizations and the fossil fuel money that they have taken
https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclearhttps://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-robert-anderson/https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun-sierra-club-admits-donations-targeting-a-natural-gas-competitor/https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-to-antinuclear-movement/And again, this is not just me saying this. This is also the foremost climate scientists saying this. For example, quoting Dr James Hansen.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/jim-hansen-presses-the-climate-case-for-nuclear-energy/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf“A facile explanation would focus on the ‘merchants of doubt’ who have managed to confuse the public about the reality of human-made climate change. The merchants play a role, to be sure, a sordid one, but they are not the main obstacle to solution of human-made climate change.
The bigger problem is that people who accept the reality of climate change are not proposing actions that would work.
[…]
The insightful cynic will note: “Now I understand all the fossil fuel ads with windmills and solar panels – fossil fuel moguls know that renewables are no threat to the fossil fuel business.” The tragedy is that many environmentalists lineup on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency, would solve the global climate change matter.
Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
This Easter Bunny fable is the basis of ‘policy’ thinking of many liberal politicians. Yet when such people are elected to the executive branch and must make real world decisions, they end up approving expanded off-shore drilling and allowing continued mountaintop removal, long-wall coal mining, hydro-fracking, etc. – maybe even a tar sands pipeline. Why the inconsistency?
Because they realize that renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future and they have no real plan. They pay homage to the Easter Bunny fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do in politics. They are reluctant to explain what is actually needed to phase out our need for fossil fuels. Reluctance to be honest might seem strange, given that what is needed to solve the problem actually makes sense and is not harmful to most people. I will offer a possible explanation for their actions below.
“
https://youtu.be/KnN328eD-sA?t=2041“Well, I can point out one or two points. What you find if you advocate – you know frankly. I’ve spoken to many scientists, and by far the majority agree that nuclear needs to be part of the solution. However, when you stand up and say that, there’s an anti-nuclear community which I would characterize as quasi-religious, which just hammers you, and you have to spend a lot of your time trying to deal with that. I’ve even found that, some of the – you know that I’m no longer a government employee, I have to raise the funds to cover my group of four people, and there are a number of foundations – the foundation that had been my most reliable source while I was a government employee – because I liked to speak out – is not part of my government job, but – so I had to prove that I was not using government funds, so when I traveled I had to get non-government funds to pay for that. Well, the foundation that provided the funds now will not give me a dime because they are anti-nuclear, and so there’s a lot of pressure on scientists just to keep their mouth shut, but you know we’re at a point where we better not keep our mouths shut when can see a story which has become very clear, and that is that it’s a mirage to think that all-renewables can provide all of the energy that we need and at the speed we need. China and India are using tremendous amounts of power – almost all coal for their electric plants – and there’s no way that they can power their steel mills and all the other factories that they’re building products for us on solar panels, and they know that. The governments of China and India know that. They want modern, better, safer nuclear technology, and for the West not to help them is immoral because we burned their share of the carbon budget. Now they’re stuck in a – they want to get wealthy. They want to raise people out of poverty. They need energy to do that. You can’t do it without energy, and so if they don’t have an alternative to do that, they’re going to use coal, and we should be helping them to find a clean alternative.”
<looks>
https://www.iea.org/countries/france
Last updated Dec 2, 2021
Non-sequitir. The history of France shows that nuclear can be built quickly, on time, and the grid of a whole nation can be converted in roughly 15 years (with the industrial and technological know-how already in place), and it’s not particularly expensive to do so either.
Well, Gerrard, “see France”, you wrote. I did. I quoted.
Not a non sequitur. Perhaps you should see France as it is, not as historical.
I mentioned (elseblog) to you how the French electricity authorities just commissioned an off-shore wind farm.
Mind you, that IEA report shortly precedes Russia’s Ukraine invasion, an invasion which in the short-term has been problematic, but which in the end may end up being a net benefit overall in climate terms, since now Europe is weaning (mostly weaned, actually) from Russian fossil fuels.
That was not going to happen otherwise, realistically.
Stuff was too cheap, too convenient from those pipelines.
(And, of course, the EU thought economic relationships with Russia would decrease the risk of armed conflict; it’s now evident that was not successful)
Still a non-sequitir to my original point that France shows a nuclear transition can be quick and cheap.
And yet.
France is not essaying a quick and cheap nuclear transition, is it?
In fact, nowhere in the world is that happening.
Yes, nuclear power plants are actually in development, but as a proportion of new energy infrastructure they lag far, far behind other forms.
These are the pesky facts.
(But Ah, that Golden Age when France transitioned to nuclear quickly and cheaply!
If only France would remember those glory days! Like mushrooms, they would pop)
“Essaying”? It made me do a double take and wonder if you were using the French meaning of the word “essay”, but I’m guessing not. What do you mean? Could you speak in normal English please? They’re not displaying a quick and cheap nuclear transition – is that what you mean to say? That’s nonsense. They already displayed a quick and cheap nuclear transition. It’s already over. They converted most of their grid from fossil fuel sources to nuclear in 15 years. This is a cold, hard fact.
It already happened. France and Sweden. Hydro and nuclear. I don’t know what you mean. The only industrialized economies that have practically eliminated fossil fuels from electricity are France and Sweden, and they did it with lots of hydro and nuclear.
I thought we were having a public policy discussion, which is a discussion about what is preferable, and not a future prognostication contest.
How are they pesky? Again, the entire point of a public policy debate like this often is to argue that we should be doing something else. Thus, citing that the world is not pursuing my preferred policy, by itself, is simply non-sequitir.
Do you think the current leadership of France are gods or seers? Why do you think that citing them is going to be a compelling argument to me or anyone else? You’re not making any sense.
What are you even trying to say? I don’t understand. It is a brute historical fact that France converted most of their electrical production to nuclear in 15 years. Nothing today changes that historical fact.
“France plans to reduce the share of nuclear from 70% to 50% in its electricity mix by 2035”
and:
“For the first time in several years, France was a net importer of electricity from foreign countries in 2022. The electricity trade balance was 16.5 terawatt-hours of electricity imported to France. That year, France could not meet its domestic electricity demand because this country’s nuclear fleet was under revision and the nuclear electricity production dropped. Net importers of electricity to France were the United Kingdom, Spain, and the Western European countries of Germany and Belgium.”
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/1279015/france-electricity-trade-in-europe-by-country/)
You: “See France”.
Me: Sees and reports.
You: What’s France got to do, got to do with it?
“The French government is to inject about €2.1bn (£1.75bn) into state-controlled energy group EDF to ease the financial pain inflicted by nuclear reactors going offline and the state making the firm supply power below market prices.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/18/french-government-to-inject-more-than-2bn-in-edf-energy-group
I cited France simply to show that nuclear is cheap and quick to build. Your arguments do not contradict this. (2 billion Euro in the scale of France’s electricity sector is a small amount.)
Ahem.
Most recent build: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Not quick.
Not cheap.
And those are results of political decisions which can be changed. The proof is the 15 years where France did build nuclear cheaply and safely. It is easier to change political decisions and public opinion compared to inventing new laws of physics, which is basically what would be required for solar and wind to work.
cheaply and quickly*. Safely too.
Gerrard, presumably you refer to 1974 to 1989.
I and your other interlocutors refer to right now.
(You’re living in the past, mate)
@ 85. John Morales : Also very importantly NOT fast to build especially considering theliklihood of public opposition. We’re in a life & death race with Global Overheating and losing already and there are simply better renewable solutions out there much as I know GOTS refuses to accept that.
@80. GerrardOfTitanServer : You noted “historical” a few times in those last few sebences and t hat should be telling. France historically did go nulcera for a while but is now mving away from it. Why? Perhaps because there’s better alternatives? Despite the fact that you dislike it, the reality is that govts globe-wide have decided nuclear power isn’t the right choice and other alternatives such as hydro, solar, geothermal, etc ..are better choices. You also note hydro for Sweden which, again, your own words show other alternatives exist. Of course, they might have their own drawbacks but still, its seems people have determined that those other drawbacks aren’t as bad as those of nuclear uranium fission reactors.
@ 74. GerrardOfTitanServer :
Who has not proven very persausive here – although personally he does get a lot of respect from me :
&
Source : https://theecologist.org/2015/nov/20/dont-nuke-climate-james-hansens-nuclear-fantasies-exposed
In addition :
Source : https://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2016/05/nuclear-debate-hansen-wrong-about-nuclear-power
NB. Most of that article is frustratingly inacessible at least to me and probly most others but still. Hansen has put his case for nuclear power to people and mainly been rejected. Again, you think everyone is wrong but you and the very small and often with vested interests minority of pro-nuclear people?
I recall reading about thorium reactors in old Isaac Asimov science essays back in high school as well as seeing a video or two on other blogs – Greg Laden’s I think. (possibly this post : https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/17/should-we-try-thorium-reactors ) I did mention other reactors I think having those molten salts ones in mind and then there’s RTG’s such as those used for Cassini as noted before and of course SF ideas about Hydrogen fusion reactors which , sadly, haven’t yet eventuated and more.
More pseudoscience sources I see. Look at the real scientific sources that I cited above. An estimated 4000 is the correct number of projected deaths from radiation for Chernobyl, and 0 is the correct number of deaths from radiation from Fukushima.
Why do you think that my sources have a vested interest in nuclear succeeding, e.g. financial investments in nuclear industry? This is simply not true. Dr James Hansen has no such investment. Nearly all of the sources that I’ve cited have no such investment. Most of my sources are quite careful to reveal the sources of their funding, and they don’t take nuclear industry money. Compare that to your favorite organization, which hides its list of funders.
And again, anyone who leads with the phrase “thorium reactor” instead of “molten salt reactor” probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I would be hesitant to use them as a source, either pro or negative, based on that fact in isolation.
You still seem to think that you have the scientific community behind you. You don’t. The IPCC is rather clear in its latest reports that there is no pathway to sufficiently eliminated greenhouse gases without massively increasing nuclear worldwide. According to several sources, including Dr James Hansen, the large majority of climate scientists agree with this assessment. I’m not the fringe position, scientifically – you are.
PS: Are you really citing Isaac Asimov concerning gen 4 nuclear reactors? Jesus. Just accept that you made a mistake talking about “thorium reactors”, and move on. Ideally spend some time to learn about it as well.
Gerrard @90:
Here’s a recent report; Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
On page 312, look at Figure 3.8, the energy system in each of the illustrative pathways. Not seeing the massive increase in all those pathways.
Some text from a not-so-recent report (2019):
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf
page 131
You’re being like John Morales now, being overly literal and pedantic when the meaning of my words were quite clear.
Yes, the meaning of your words was indeed quite clear: you’re dead wrong and blatantly dishonest to boot.
The history of France shows that nuclear can be built quickly, on time, and the grid of a whole nation can be converted in roughly 15 years…
If that’s the case, then why can’t you simply make an honest case for nuclear power without being so blatantly dishonest and downright stupid as you have been this whole time?
Kharecha and Hansen cite a UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report to justify their figure of 43 deaths from the Chernobyl disaster.
But the UNSCEAR report did not attempt to calculate long-term deaths from radiation exposure from Chernobyl, citing “unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions”. The credible estimates of the long-term cancer death toll from Chernobyl range from 9,000 (in Eastern Europe) to 93,000 (across Eastern and Western Europe).
And like I said before — and to get back to the original topic of the OP — despite all that Pinker cited the EVEN LOWER Soviet propaganda number of 39.
And again, anyone who leads with the phrase “thorium reactor” instead of “molten salt reactor” probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Only if they’re talking about reactors that don’t use thorium.
For you, Gerrard:
Philippines: The 70s nuclear relic that may open at last
From the Beeb article:
Anti-nuclear groups say re-commissioning the plant will take years and do nothing to help people like Ms Calica. Instead, they say the government should be investing in local solar and wind projects that are cheaper and much quicker to build.
“If they get it running, by 2040 it will contribute only 2.5% of the power in the Philippines, so why do they really want to do it?” says Derek Cabe, who leads the Nuclear Free Bataan Movement.
Not sure if their predicted percentage is correct, but they do raise a good question. I wonder how much the Philippines have done in the renewables sector…
@90. GerrardOfTitanServer :
No. I’m telling you that I recall reading about thorium and its potential as an alternative nuclear source in old Asimov science essays back when I was in high schooI. You being deliberately obtuse or something?
No. The fact that you falsely accuse a couple of environmentalist groups of that does NOT make it so. What precisely is “pseufdoscientific” about any of my sources or what they’ve said in my links?
The Climate Council is publicly funded and opposed by the Fossil Fuel lobby. If you read the wikipage or knew anything about it, you’d know they tried to get it abolished. Also “Nearly all ..” – in other words, some. You’ve engaged in more than enough well-poisoning / casting aspersions and I have a strong suspicion there’s some projection on your part here.
Asserted wthout evidence? What do we do in those cases again? Let’s see :
& scrolling up there from that :
Source : https://bonpote.com/en/analysis-what-does-the-ipcc-really-say-about-nuclear-power/#:~:text=Conclusion%20of%20this%20article%3A,IPCC%20does%20not%20recommend%20anything
(Emphasis original.)
Which looking closer at the cited IPCC report itself :
Source : https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf
So, surprise, no-surprise, the sources GOTS says support his extreme pro-fission views really don’t.
Then we have this fact check here :
Source : https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/what-does-science-say-about-the-need-for-nuclear/
Now, in fairness it does note that nuclear can help too and a safer startegy isn’t to exclude it and that maintaining existing nuclear plants is helpful. However, it does contradict GOTS extreme claim that all or even the vast majority science supports vastly expanded nuclear energy and is really pro-nukes because it turns out that, no, that isn’t true.
[others project about (5 EJ yr (superscript -ed) 1 of nuclera power in 2100 (figure 2.15.)]
Easier just to write 5 exajoules per year in 2100, no?
Rob
As an absolute measure, nuclear massively increases in all pathways in the 2019 report IIRC except for one where it stays steady. I did not say that nuclear increases as a relative percentage of generation in all pathways. Apologies for the ambiguity.
See also, 2022(?) report, Table 3.6, nuclear increases by 10% to 70%, average 40%, for all pathways for keeping global temp to less than 1.5 C. (I’m betting that the pathways with less nuclear are making more unrealistic assumptions, like large amounts of unspecified negative emission technologies.)
So, I think that is consistent with what I said earlier.
Raging Bee
Sigh.
I googled this. In the bit that I found, he cited 39, but in the same sentence or paragraph mentioned the real possibility of 4000 additional deaths from cancer in the following years. These additional cancer deaths are based on LNT, which is controversial in scientific and regulatory organizations around the world. Given that I think it’s pretty clear that LNT is false, I think 39 is actually a pretty good estimate. This is a perfectly defensible position, and he even hedged his position by explicitly mentioning that it might be up to 4000. Even the WHO report is wishy-washy in their language whether these additional 4000 cancer deaths are really real. Please read the report.
@99. John Morales : Wanted to keep as close as possible to the exact wording of quote. Can’t do superscript & couldn’t cut’n’pste in this case. Did also change the degree symbol also superscripted into the word degree as typed here.
The truth hurts. The circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that the biggest funders of the Green renewables worldwide movement is the fossil fuel industry. Again, I’m not crazy for believing this. For example, so does Dr James Hansen.
That they claim a number of deaths from Chernobyl higher than 4000, which is the estimate from the most reputable scientific organizations that have looked into this matter. I’ve linked to the report many times.
Why don’t they publish a list of their funders then? What have they got to hide?
There is no example pathway in the IPCC reports with less nuclear than today. ALl of the example pathways in the IPCC reports have more nuclear than today, and most have a lot more nuclear than today. That’s pretty pro-nuclear to me.
And I’m talking about nearterm, which is 2030 and 2050, and in those time scales, all of the example pathways involve much more nuclear than today. They decrease in 2100 in those models because of mostly mythical projected increases in unspecified negative emissions technologies plus a falsely assumed limit on nuclear fuel. As I noted above, once you remove that false assumption, nuclear power becomes a majority of all power generation in the IPCC models – see:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/29/top-climate-scientists-warn-governments-of-blatant-anti-nuclear-bias-in-latest-ipcc-climate-report/
https://passiiviidentiteetti.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/ideological-assumptions-manipulator-iam/
Curious that not a single example pathway in the IPCC report models such a scenario. I think factcheck only checked with “experts” who agreed with their ideological prejudices. Contrast that to Dr James Hansen and most other climate scientists, who call such thinking “a mirage”, “almost as bad as believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy”, etc. So, between random unnamed experts selected gods-know-how, I’ll take statements attributed to the foremost climate scientists, and I’ll take the results of the IPCC models thaknyouverymuch. You’re doing what creationists are doing – cherrypicking “experts” that agree with you, and ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus as represented in the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports say we need more nuclear, and this is in spite of the obvious anti-nuclear bias in the reports.
In the bit that I found, he cited 39, but in the same sentence or paragraph mentioned the real possibility of 4000 additional deaths from cancer in the following years. These additional cancer deaths are based on LNT, which is controversial in scientific and regulatory organizations around the world.
So you know Pinker cited Soviet propaganda, then you admit he said the number could have been much higher, and then you discount that much higher number and insist the Soviet propaganda number is “a pretty good estimate.”
So as the OP says, Pinker is embarrassing. And now you’re even more embarrassing. So fuck off to bed, Gerrard, once again you have no credibility and none of your eminent scientist name-dropping saves you.
I think factcheck only checked with “experts” who agreed with their ideological prejudices.
That’s pretty fucking rich, coming from someone like you who has said so many things that are nothing but ideological prejudice — and absolutely deranged and outdated prejudice at that — with no connection to observable reality, common sense, or actual real-world experience. Go fuck yourself, and take that discredited noncompoop Hansen with you.
However, it does contradict GOTS extreme claim that all or even the vast majority science supports vastly expanded nuclear energy and is really pro-nukes because it turns out that, no, that isn’t true.
GerrardOfTitanicStupidity is really starting to sound like some of those “race-realist” asshats who relentlessly cite a handful of “eminent scientists” who “prove” that black people are intellectually inferior to whites, then discount and ignore all the other scientists who don’t agree, on the grounds that they’re either “ideologically prejudiced” or too scared to face “the truth” that contradicts their “orthodoxy.”
PS: Remember how Gerrard keeps on citing the French as a beacon of nuclear progress? Guess what — even the French don’t support Hansen’s outlandish pro-nuclear claims:
Hansen’s views are also at odds with reports published this year by the French and US governments. The report by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) – a government authority under the Ministries of Defense, the Environment, Industry, Research, and Health – states:
“There is still much R&D to be done to develop the Generation IV nuclear reactors, as well as for the fuel cycle and the associated waste management which depends on the system chosen.”
IRSN is also sceptical about safety claims: “At the present stage of development, IRSN does not notice evidence that leads to conclude that the systems under review are likely to offer a significantly improved level of safety compared with Generation III reactors, except perhaps for the VHTR [Very High Temperature Reactors] … “
GOTS is nothing but a bombastic, self-righteous, abysmally ignorant and dishonest fraud.
Raging Bee
It’s just not Soviet sources that say approximately 50. All estimates that assume a threshold effect come to roughly the same conclusion. I can site such sources for you if you want. Is it (Soviet) propaganda if it’s accurate science and repeated by other independent (western) sources? I don’t think so.
Not just Hansen, but many other hugely influential and important experts. These people are not cranks. These people are the foremost experts in their field(s). Everything I say is the mainstream scientific consensus including the claim that we need a lot more nuclear. That is, except for the claim that 100% nuclear hydro is probably the ideal solution for nearly all places (and for my contentions about LNT). These stronger claims aren’t scientific consensus. However, for this stronger claim that 100% nuclear hydro is the ideal solution for nearly all places, I still have the support of some of these foremost experts, again meaning that while it might be a controversial position, it is far from fringe or crank.
Just listen to yourself. Because the internationally reknown experts disagree with you, you call them cranks? Jesus.
Dr Tom Wigley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_WigleyDr Ken Caldiera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_CaldeiraDr Kerry Emanuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_EmanuelDr James Hansen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_HansenJesus. Bait and switch. You cite arguments talking about the benefits of gen 4 reactors, and then pretend that’s the same thing as saying we need lots more nuclear. Those are very different things. Fucking dishonest.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.htmlhttp://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-changehttps://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/elaborating-on-the-views-of-aaas-scientists-issue-by-issue/#energy-issuesEducated people who actually know about the issues are more likely to support nuclear power. The only reasons to be against nuclear power are mostly if not almost entirely imaginary. The international reports prepared with the best scientific input that we have, the IPCC reports, also say we need a lot more nuclear (again in spite of its obvious nuclear bias).
And if you want to know again why I’m pretty sure LNT is false:
An MIT experiment proved it false — for a certain kind of mice, for a certain kind of ionizing radiation. In this case, it is simply indisputable that there is a threshold effect. Ionizing radiation of this kind, at a rate of 1 Sv / year, for these particular kind of mice, produces no ill health effects. They confirmed that there was no excess of mutations caused by 1 Sv / year of radiation at a constant background rate.
http://news.mit.edu/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515LNT is simply inconsistent with observed lung cancer rates in the US vs radon exposure rates. The data cannot be made consistent with LNT. Even if you assume a perfect inversion correlation between smoking and radon exposure, you cannot make LNT consistent with the data.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/LNT-1995.PDFFor more information, see:
https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/ijrit/international-journal-of-radiology-and-imaging-technology-ijrit-2-014.pdfConsequently, the real death count from radiation from Chernobyl is about 50, because every higher estimate is based on LNT which is simply false.
PS: See also:
https://atomicinsights.com/evidence-suggesting-lnt-fabricated-purposeful-effort-hamstring-nuclear-technology-development/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
@GerrardOfTitanServer #108 & various :
So 33% of scientists – specifically AAAS (who?) members oppose nuclear and do NOT favour building more. That means my position is hardly “fringe” as you’ve falsely described it. Presumably those scientists also practice and base their opposition on, y’know, science rather than “pseudoscience” as you accuse your opponents and esp my environmentalist sources of doing.
Not I note Climate Scientists specifically. The fact that a lot of engineers are also prominent Flat Earthers, Creationists and Denialists as well should make you think a bit here too.
So half the public in the USA oppsoes Nuclear power but yiou reckon thatwillbe overcome and thes ebuilt real quick as the magic bullet against Cliamet Change depsite Renewables offering betterand more popular optiopns. Yeah right.
Raging Bee, Name one ridiculous thing that I’ve said which was not also said in one of the studies that I’ve cited or said by one of the climate scientists that I’ve cited.
Several of us have already done that and you know it, you lying ignorant jackass. There’s no need to re-post all of our comments all over again, when you clearly refused to read or acknowledge any of it the first time. Go fuck yourself.
Fully 65% of AAAS members favor building more nuclear power plants, while 33% are opposed.
So what? That doesn’t mean “Fully 65% of AAAS members” are as dishonest and willfully ignorant of the relevant issues as you are. Nor does it mean they care as little as you do about complications or consequences. I’m in agreement with that 65%, but not to the extent of having total disregard for any of the very real problems we’ve seen around nuclear power.
Physicists and engineers are more strongly in favor of building more nuclear power plants than are those in other specialties.
Again, so what? Are you saying physicists and engineers are the only people whose opinions matter? I mean, they’re smart and have a lot to contribute, but they’re not some enlightened elite the rest of us have to defer to. And they sure as hell don’t have a monopoly of all the knowledge that needs to go into a sensible energy policy.
By contrast, about half of Americans (51%) oppose building more nuclear power plants, while 45% are in favor.
Did anyone ask those Americans who they want to see in charge of any of those nuclear power plants? Because if they see arrogant uncaring stupid cranks like you in charge, I bet that pro-nuclear minority would shrink to single digits.
@112. Raging Bee : From my #70 :
Is a pretty good start I think.. albiet for this thread alone.
The only reasons to be against nuclear power are mostly if not almost entirely imaginary.
FUCK YOU, liar. That statement is an outright lie and you know it.
The very least I can say for the Soviet regime, is that, while they may have lied to their own people and the world about the extent of the danger of the Chernobyl failure, they also mobilized people to take serious precautionary measures to prevent the damage from getting a lot worse then it was. Maybe all that work was necessary, maybe it wasn’t — but at least those commie collectivists cared enough to do the right thing, just in case. And you, Gerrard, can’t even manage to sound more honest or engaged than Soviet propagandists? Why the actual FUCK should anyone take you seriously? You (and Pinker) are not just embarrassing, you’re disgusting.
Also GOTS calling my sources in #89 “psuedoscience”: and accusing the Climate Council which the Fossil Fuels lobby tried to shut down of being funded by (.. drumroll) the Fossil Fuel lobby..Like that’s plausible. (No.It ain’t.)
Okay, fair enough to disagree with them or say source X isn’t a scientist but togo that extra needless and inaccurate step and callsomething “psuedoscience” when it isn’t just ebcause you disagree with their casulaties estimate as GOTS specified in his #102 where he also accuses factcheckers of being ideological because of them disagreeing with him..
GOTS also totally ignored my comment #63. It seems like to him, the only “real science” is from the 1960s, back when white Western technocratic men were promising to bring all the heathen savages out of darkness with brand new, modern, clean, perfect, lab-science-based one-size-fits-all solutions to everyone’s problems, and everyone else would simply have to accept all of it without question because white Western technocratic men always knew best. Windmills? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA so primitive and backward…
I remember a lot of that “enlightened” arrogance from US technocrats back then, and it really seems to have revived or reinvigorated older notions of “manifest destiny” and “advanced” white Christian civilization leading the rest of the world into “the light.” And it’s that attitude — including an emotional investment beyond all reason — that led pro-nuclear lobbyists to totally discredit themselves and their cause by telling everyone else they were dummies for questioning their scientific expertise and were all just a bunch of hysterical ninnies imagining things. And some people, as we see here, still haven’t learned from that mistake — assuming, that is, that those people really want nuclear power; which is, as I’ve also said earlier, not really a tenable assumption.
GerrardOfTitanicStupidity @106: Once again, when called out for your obvious lies and hyper-emotional bullshit, you run away and LITERALLY hide behind a text-wall of nothing but eminent big-name scientist credentials. None of that makes any of your shtick any less false, any less dishonest, or any less batshit-irrational. All you have is argument-from-authority, and — as I already clearly said @63 — the authorities you cite aren’t even relevant to many of the specific issues being discussed.
You guys are funny. Fortunately, your silliness has no real world consequences and nothing hinges on it.
The fact is that, to avoid extreme calamity, fossil fuels need to be phased out much more rapidly than is happening. The replacement will be solar, wind, nuclear, and other technologies. Some organizations take stances that are more ideological than factual … that’s not the same as being a cult. And just because an organization or scientist is wrong (or right) about one thing doesn’t mean that they are right (or wrong) about everything.
And FWIW, “LNT, which is controversial in scientific and regulatory organizations around the world” is true and is not just “Soviet propaganda” (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20585443/), and James Hansen–who warned Congress about the threat of global warming in 1988–is not a “discredited nincompoop”; anyone who says that is an ignorant imbecile, but we’ve long known that about the Bee. (Which is not to endorse everything or anything GOTS says or his use of Hansen as an authority–I’m not going to waste my time reading through all this swill to evaluate it.)
Er, make that
Jim: Just because LNT has been refuted (and you just admitted it was “controversial”), does not in itself prove that there were no fatalities or other harm from the Chernobyl incident other than the 39 the Soviets admitted. At most, you’ve proven that one particular method used to estimate longer-term fatalities isn’t reliable. But is that really the ONLY method ever used to figure out the long-term harm done by the release of radiation? That’s an unspoken assumption behind Gerrard’s reasoning, and now yours; and I’m not inclined to simply believe it sight unseen.
The dishonest imbecile makes obviously ridiculous claims about my reasoning that aren’t found in my comment.
That’s because I’m talking about Gerrard’s reasoning (one small part of which you seem to support).
An imbecile and a liar — my whole point in #122 is that he attributed to me reasoning by GOTS: “now yours”. The dishonest cretin says “you seem to support”, despite my explicit statement: “Which is not to endorse everything or anything GOTS says or his use of Hansen as an authority”. All I said was that the stupid lying RG pustule’s claim that the assertion about LNT (that it’s a dubious hypothesis) is “Soviet propaganda” is false.
U mad bro? Yawn
Burned out. Just coming back to the thread to se if there’s anything I should say. And I see that there’s nothing really to say except for one small thing that I’d like to comment on.
Jim Balter
Again I note that Dr James Hansen describes the anti-nuclear movement as, quote, “quasi religious”.
It’s not just being wrong that makes someone part of a cult. The intellectual leaders of the Green energy movement and anti-nuclear movement are proven liars and quacks.
Take Amory Lovins. He’s the clear primary intellectual foundation of Germany’s modern Green energy transition. He’s also a college dropout. He’s been saying for 50 years now that today is finally the time when solar and wind and other renewables are cheap enough to replace fossil fuels. It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. How can a person make the same prediction, year after year, for half a century, being wrong every time, before they discount him as a reliable source?
Take Helen Caldicott, arguably the world’s leading antinuclear campaigner. She has dozens of honorary degrees of prestigious universities from around the world. She’s also a deranged quack peddling insane conspiracy theories. She says that UNSCEAR, WHO, and the entire worldwide medical community engaged in a coverup over the “real scale” of Chernobyl.
Take Mark Jacobson at Stanford, who is arguably the foremost expert today doing modeling on the feasibility of Green energy transitions. This dude blatantly lies to the public and brazenly just makes up data in his peer reviewed papers. He stealth edits live published versions of his own work on his own website in response to criticism and simultaneously accuses others of making it up. He does SLAPP suits against his professional peers who publish rebuttal papers in the same peer reviewed journal that he publishes in. His university programs are funded in large part by a fossil fuel mogul, and he also sits on a think tank of that same fossil fuel mogul.
It boggles my mind how these people have not been drummed out of the Green energy movement and how they maintain positions of respect and prestige in the Green energy movement. It’s just a sick joke. Raging Bee exemplifies it well. It’s like the “know-nothings” of the last century, immediately suspicious and sometimes outright hostile to knowledge and progress, saying “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” in the worst kind of multicultural cultural-relativism. Did you even read what he wrote in 118? Disgusting.
Re Helen Caldicott. She’s on videotape as saying that the coverup over Chernobyl is the biggest coverup in the history of medicine.
Sorry. One more.
I’ve said it before. Let me say it again. The fossil fuel capitalists know the history. When Green aligned politicians come to power, they shut down nuclear power plants and replace them with coal or natural gas. It happened in California. In happened in Germany. It happened in New York state. If you believe like I do, and like Dr James Hansen and most climate scientists do, that it’s impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels, and if you know the history of Green aligned politicians replacing nuclear with fossil fuels and natural gas, then it logically follows that the Green energy movement is an incredibly useful ally to the fossil fuel industry. If you believe as I do, it’s far more than merely plausible — it would be amazing if the fossil fuel industry was not funding the Green energy movement.
Again, have you stopped yourself yet to ask “why does my favorite Green NGO keep the list of their funders secret?”. There’s a reason for it. The same reason that Greenpeace also keeps its list of funders secret. This is something that you appear to be afraid to ponder. I wish I had some better way of “breaking the spell”, but I don’t. There is no better or more polite way to ask “good sir or madam, have you considered that you’re part of a quasi religious cult?”.
PS: Again, you say that your favorite Green NGO is composed of “experts”. Shenanigans. The IPCC is composed of more-expert experts. Dr James Hansen’s informal survey of the large majority of climate scientists are the most knowledgeable and trustworthy experts. There’s no where the experts of your Green NGO can compare to that level of knowledge and vetting. Worse, your Green NGO’s hiring practices and internal review processes are probably just as opaque as their funding sources. As I say again, why you would put your trust with this one (rather small) opaque special interest group instead of the world’s most renown scientists as part of the world’s most renown international scientific organizations is beyond my understanding.
SIWOTI syndrome
I did link to a rather exhaustive list of evidence and sources to determine the damage from long-term exposure to low dose rate radiation, along with a brief summary of the evidence and citations; It’s harmless. The MIT mice direct-experiment in particular should be quite compelling, along with the radon exposure vs lung cancer study which basically shows that radon doesn’t cause lung cancer in the large majority of exposure levels in the USA.
I’m not wed to any particular number of deaths from Chernobyl as exactly accurate. I say again: 50 is a much better estimate than 4000, and anything above 4000 is simply not supported by any reputable scientific or medical source.
I again extend my offer to meet on discord or email or some other medium to hash this out. We might be able to make better progress on this. A more personal connection and mode of communication could really help as opposed to some just text on the screen. I think you’re a mostly reasonable fellow who just happens to have some deep-seated delusions on a few topics. No one is perfect.
God’s balls, Gerrard, you’re starting to sound like Sal “Wormtongue” Cordova when his utter ignorance and dishonesty was exposed: invite everyone to continue the conversation via email, or on some other form where fewer people were likely to see how lame and dishonest his claims really were. No one bought it then, and we’re not buying it now.