@michiel @laufi

Majority of the "environmental" activism organisations sadly joined an anti-scientific movement initiated primarily by Jeremy Rifkin ages ago, probably because it sold better.

This is why you have Greenpeace hiring Seralini for GMO reports and Greenpeace Energy in Germany selling fossil gas and preferring it over nuclear against all available scientific evidence, including IPCC πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ

@kravietz
I'm sorry, but this statement is as unscientific as you claim activists to be. Instead of disproving the precise claims of these people you accuse them of being related to a movement (which you did not prove btw). Even if it is like you say, this does not mean their claims are wrong (logical fallacy of guilt by association).

Aside from that: By directly providing sources for your claims in context, you can make a focused discussion easier.
@michiel

@kravietz @michiel
And I have to add, that using Greenpeace, a strongly hierarchical organization, as a representative example for calling all activists that do not agree with nuclear power unscientific is a bit of a small sample for the whole movement. There are bigger organizations like e.g. Friends of the Earth who call a lot of well recognized scientists their members and have high scientific standards (with the exception of a few wavies that had to be cast out).

@laufi @michiel

All of their arguments come down to a number of false claims:

* we can't deal safely with nuclear waste
* nuclear accidents kill thousands of people
* nuclear power is very expensive
* nuclear power has very high greenhouse gas intensity

All of these are easily falsified by data. When confronted with data they usually simply ignore it 🀷 Or simply pretend it's not there - for example, find nuclear CO2 emissions on the infographic below:

@kravietz
But none of the claims you're talking about are visible in this infographic. You might be angry at their social media team for not including nuclear power, but that's a whole different topic. So let's start easy with the topic we disagree on: do you think there is a safe place to store highly radioactive nuclear waste? If yes, where do you think, this place is?
@michiel

Follow

@laufi @michiel

Here you go with a more representative example.

The same goes for the Jacobson article (which I already linked).

Β· Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon πŸ” privacytools.io

Fast, secure and up-to-date instance. PrivacyTools provides knowledge and tools to protect your privacy against global mass surveillance.

Website: privacytools.io
Matrix Chat: chat.privacytools.io
Support us on OpenCollective, many contributions are tax deductible!