May 5, 2006
Green Piece of Junk ScienceBy Marc Sheppard
Kermit the Frog once avowed in song that 'It isn't easy being Green.'�� Well, Kermie, it appears that you're not the only dummy with such problems — Not surprisingly, it isn't easy being Greenpeace either!
Greenpeace continues to beat one drum to the tune of� 'the Pentagon's report warning that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism'�with the left hand, while banging another drum, thunderously crashing the sheer unacceptability of the former's most promising solution with the right hand. Both convictions are based on 'science' which is nothing more than bunkum.�As our favorite flannel web—footed amphibian croaked — It isn't easy!
I'm sure you're all too familiar with the efforts of Greenpeace to blame putative anthropogenic global warming for — to name but a few:
Oh, the horror!� Contemplating all that damage, it's small wonder that the organization would campaign so steadfastly in opposition to all fuels fossil, given their propensity to release that devil of all 'greenhouse gases'�— carbon dioxide.� In fact, the logical conclusion to draw from these 'facts'�—notwithstanding their fallaciousness — would be this — The consumption of all fossil fuels must be eliminated at all costs, post haste, in order to save the planet from certain annihilation.
Furthermore, once we've removed the Greenpeace fantasy of a planet which runs on wind and sunshine and sugarplum fairies from the equation, the only remaining logical solution to the problem is to build more nuclear power plants!
Ah, but what's logical in matters science, to borrow an expression from Gershwin, aint necessarily so in matters junk science.
Recently, the 'experts' at Greenpeace exploited the 20th anniversary of the disastrous accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Pripyat, Ukraine, to revitalize their campaign of inveracities condemning nuclear energy.�
The March 25, 2006 edition of the UK�Guardian reported, in an article entitled 'UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths', that, while over 100 'leading scientists' accredited by both the IAEA and the WHO 'say that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster, and that, at most, 4,000 people may eventually die from the accident on April 26, 1986',� a report from a group of 'leading scientists and doctors', commissioned by, among others — Greenpeace,� will dispute the UN figures and 'suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe.'
In science,�where there's junk, there's agenda.� But, what ulterior motives could Greenpeace have for drawing their environmentally safe swords against the U.N?� Perhaps the answer lies in the gang's bugaboo that 'The International Atomic Energy Agency is dedicated to the worldwide expansion of nuclear power.'
Yet, this was but their opening salvo.
In its Greenpeace Chernobyl Anniversary Statement, released 20 years to the day after the casualty, the green guild states:
Scientists agree?� Which scientists?� Not those at the Federation of American Scientists.� Staunch nuclear weapons opponents, to be sure — the coalition was founded in 1945 by former physicists of the Manhattan Project who desired not to return to the bottle the Genie they had unleashed, but, rather, to help keep it in check .� But Greenpeace doesn't mention them, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Nuclear Society, nor any other scientists by name, do they?�
Deplorably, this tactic is typical of liberal 'science' in general and, particular to the junk—scientific methods of Greenpeace.� I invite you to read the sentence again.� It begins by field—promoting a hypothesis to the rank of conclusion —— then insinuates a fictive peer review and concurrence with its suppositious results.
In actuality, most experts (including those previously cited and those forthcoming) agree that the RBMK design of the Chernobyl plant was an accident waiting to happen.
Curious —— So, according to these scientists, Chernobyl's problems were unique to its reactor's sinister dual—purpose design flaws, and, therefore, not likely to 'happen any time, anywhere.'�
The Anniversary Song continues:
More from the Green Junk Machine:
At this point, I'd like to introduce Dr. Patrick Moore.� Dr, Moore was a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International.� In an article he authored which appeared in the Washington Post on April 16, 2006, Dr. Moore analyzes the 'growth' of these other 'renewable' energy sources:
And, of course, where there's solar power, malignant melanoma is only a few steps away.�
If there's any reasonable response to this position at all, it's that nations which have served notice upon mankind that they are unfit to maintain command over such technologies should be banned at all costs from acquiring them.� Is such not, indeed, within the mandate of the Nuclear Non—Proliferation Treaty, which they have championed?
I'd like to return now to Dr. Moore, who has been branded by a wide assortment of tree—hugging cabals as everything from a 'shill' to a 'lapdog' and worse, for his sudden moments of clarity. First, some background.
In 1979, just weeks after the release of the movie The China Syndrome, which did — in an equally inflated manner — for nuclear meltdowns what Jaws did for sharks, the U.S. suffered the disaster at the Three Mile Island plant in Harrisburg, Pa. Although the radiation released had no consequential impact on human health, thanks to the hysterical actions of 'activists' — including Greenpeace — and the ensuing public relations nightmare brought on by the media hyperbole, the US nuclear power industry was virtually frozen in time.
This also from Dr. Moore's Washington Post Article:
We're living in a nation which, despite pumping more oil in 2004 than Iran, Iraq and Kuwait combined, generates an energy production/consumption balance sheet which shines red each and every quarter.� 'Reformers' the likes of Greenpeace stress unrealistic goals of curtailed consumption through self—deprivation and 'conservation', while obstructing efforts to increase production, through their seemingly inexhaustible doctrines of Junk Science.
Contrary to their position, it is the actions of these junk scientists and pseudo—environmentalists which are analogous to those of terrorists, as both aspire, through propaganda and intimidation, to turn back the clock on the progress which has elevated our lives and potentials to the glorious levels we now enjoy.� Be there no mistake. These eco—terrorists are just as fanatical — just as likely a threat to our economic freedom — as their suicidal counterparts are to our physical freedom.� If we ever again hope to relish a quarter in the black, then we must stand up and forsake the folderol of the green.
Marc Sheppard is a business owner, software developer, and writer residing on Long Island in New York.� He welcomes your feedback.