Apr 20, 2024


Again, why would anyone believe anything said by a fossil fuel propagandist who says that climate science isn't science and that CO2 isn't known to cause global warming?

As for green energy production not being 100% rainbows and unicorns--yes, we know that, contrary to that other propagandist Edney. Remember, folks, these are fundamentally dishonest arguments and the people who make them are not good people.

As for nuclear power, there are legitimate debates among *people of good faith* ... but this is Chip. Note the structure of his argument: he says that, if you're opposed to nuclear power because of concerns about nuclear waste then you should be opposed to green energy because of nuclear waste. But a) He thinks that opposition to nuclear power is irrational, so he's advocating irrational opposition to green energy--this is how a propagandist argues, not someone of good faith. b) Radioactive waste is fundamental to nuclear power plants, is high energy, and is not comparable to the low energy radioactivity of tailings from mining. c) What matters is a *comparison* between the costs of green energy production and the costs of fossil fuel energy production--which are immense and include an existential threat to humans (among others). Propagandists ignore the negatives of what they are promoting and only point to the negatives of what they are opposing (of course we see this in politics all the time, like that dishonest jerk who rails against people who voted for Newsom without mentioning the guy he ran against). d) Chip's link doesn't exist. I did, however, find this lovely article from professional propagandists of the nuclear industry: ... it's very illustrative of propagandist techniques that they compare forms of energy production in terms of *tonnage* of waste ... but maybe there's some other problem with spent nuclear fuel that doesn't apply to spent solar panels and windmills.