Antarctice thinks farmers know more than geologists about the dangers of water contamination from fracking. What a joke. First of all, farmers are not experts on the fate and transport of toxins in the subsurface. Second, the danger to groundwater from fracking is grossly exaggerated by those I described above because they have a knee jerk reaction to anything that might provide energy. That is the most logical explanation for their lack of logic IMO.
This is the second time you have made a claim about being told fictional inside information, which does little for your credibility.
Nuclear is going nowhere it is a long term energy source, renewables will add to that, I also not denier when they push these agenda always leave out thermal energy a source that can provide round the clock energy.
It seems to be that the lobby that push incorrect information about renewables seem to be linked fairly solidly to the denier movement, while they spread lies solar has slowly grown around the world as people realise that it is a quite good way to reduce or even remove their power bill. I personally have such a system it has already paid for itself and my power costs are pretty much nil. There is much the same range of lies about wind power from the sudden pretend worry about bird strike, to the claimed noise to even how they look, it would seem that those that push the later think a coal smoke stack is somehow attractive while a simple turning fan is ugly.
Our energy future is going to use renewables in hand with nuclear and probably other things we have yet to invent like fusion but useful fusion is a complete unknown it may be 20 years away it may be a hundred years away or it may never work it is still in research. Things like Geothermal are here now they work and can provide base load power as can nuclear, solar is certainly not perfect but it is considerably better than it's detractors pretend the same goes for wind power, both are used by many remote communities and work sites for power generation and they work just fine.
Many who push against the above do push for fracking a very questionable way to obtain yet more CO2 producing power and one that is being fought against as much by farmers as it is by greens. Nobody could accuse farmers of being greens, farmers understand that the toxic chemicals used in fracking find there way into the water table and then into the crops they produce and then into everyone who eats those crops. Over a century ago open strip mining was pushed by powerful industry groups but it soon became obvious how much damage it did to the environment, I think over time fracking will be pretty much the same. We all want power but at what cost.
You do understand that "greens" aren't a uniform mass, right? That there are some "greens" opposed to nuclear power, because of the potential threat it poses, and others who welcome it, as a way to get us off of coal faster?
The thing is... the environment is not simple, so solutions to environmental problems are very often not simple, either. It's often more a question of finding the least bad answer, rather than a good answer. I think nuclear is one of the least-bad options, other environmentalists don't.
Yes that is right. Here is a quote from Jimmy's bosom buddy, Paul Ehrlich.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Cheap energy is the bane of the greenies. It adds up!
I have to agree with Jim Z on his point that environmentalist will attack renewables if they become viable. They are now saying that wind power kills birds, produces supposedly harmful low frequency sound waves and are eye sores.
Everything about the man-made Global Warming SCAM is deception.
Green is the new Red.
The U.N. Climate Chief Christiana Figueres recently had high praise for the Communist Chinese government and the way they do things. We all know the Chinese government simply commands the way it's going to be and the people of China have almost nothing to say about it. That's called a totalitarian government and Christiana Figueres thinks that is wonderful because then the Climate Cultists can get everything they want and rob us citizens blind. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13...
The man-made Global Warming scam is just a branch of the Green movement and it's goals are 1) power, 2) money and 3) the establishment of world socialism.
Isn't it funny that Warmist/Environmentalist goals would accomplish everything the Leftist/Commies have been trying to achieve on a global scale since the early 1940's? That is no accident or coincidence.
You will note that the real Warmist/Environmentalist goals have nothing to do with the environment or the little furry creatures, it's all about gaining power and maintaining that power.
In Russia and China they call these people Communist, in America they call them Democrats or Liberals or Warmists or Environmentalists. In Germany in the early 1940's they called them Nazis. They are all the same.
The reason socialism is so popular with tyrants is because it allows them to maintain their power much more easily than in a true republic. Socialism serves to get the entire population under the government's thumb. Under socialism/collectivism you have no rights, you do as you are told. You own no property and you dare not speak out against the powers that be, unless you want to find yourself in a re-education camp or dead, depending on the harshness of the regime.
In America we are not quite to that point yet but we are swiftly moving in that direction.
If the Warmist/Environmentalist/Communist/Nazis... whatever you want to call them have their way, we will be an enslaved population just like much of the world is under Communism and other tyrannical regimes.
But the new excuse for your collectivist enslavement will be 'for the planet' instead of 'for the fatherland.'
-----------------------
Jim Z makes great points about the conformist sheep that don't really understand the agenda they push. That is so very true. Some people are just joiners and want to belong to a cause. And of course they want to belong to the side they perceive as fashionable with celebrity people as its representatives, like Bill Nye, The Science Guy.
Young people are especially susceptible to this. They join the side they perceive to be 'cool' without much thought to that group's underlying agenda or the consequences if they win the political battle.
If they ever figure out the agenda is based on lies, many times they are already in too deep, all their credibility is already spent and wrapped up in their pronouncements in support of the 'cause.' If they lack integrity, as so many people do, they will probably continue to support the 'cause' even knowing deep down that it's wrong.
The Left knows about this syndrome and take advantage of it, that's why they target the young and the inexperienced.
-----------------------
Jim z and maxx have got it spot on I was going to write something similar from your answers I would presume you both have read agenda 21. I think more people should read it
No reference, no link, no logic, no question.
Translation of question: "Shall we all bash Hansen for some reason we don't understand and cannot articulate?"
And deniers whine like babies that they are really "skeptics".
No
The asymmetry finally hit me over the head when a renewable energy advocate told me that the main purpose of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) was to “kill nuclear”.
I had naively thought that the purpose was simply to kick-start renewables. Instead, I was told, because utilities were required to accept intermittent renewable energies, nuclear power would become less economic, because it works best if it runs flat out.
Hansen goes on to conclude that nuclear is then replaced by a combination of renewable and natural gas, increasing CO2 emissions. He accuses greens who accept such logic that it will lead to fracking everywhere.
