Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + +
What I'm saying is that it's just the latest in a series of leftist lies
The secondary No Nukes goal was to persuade Americans that [[nuclear power]] was inherently unsafe. This goal was shattered after the [[Chernobyl]] incident, and many people realized that the problem was shoddy Soviet engineering and safety practices, rather than any inherent danger. This erased much (but not all) of the propaganda gains made on the [[Three Mile Island]] incident and Jane Fonda's movie, ''[[The China Syndrome]]''. Leftists are still blocking the construction of nuclear power plants, even though they are safer and less polluting than coal plants. For more information, consult [[Petr Beckmann]]'s book ''The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear'' (1977).
The secondary No Nukes goal was to persuade Americans that [[nuclear power]] was inherently unsafe. This goal was shattered after the [[Chernobyl]] incident, and many people realized that the problem was shoddy Soviet engineering and safety practices, rather than any inherent danger. This erased much (but not all) of the propaganda gains made on the [[Three Mile Island]] incident and Jane Fonda's movie, ''[[The China Syndrome]]''. Leftists are still blocking the construction of nuclear power plants, even though they are safer and less polluting than coal plants. For more information, consult [[Petr Beckmann]]'s book ''The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear'' (1977).
Environmentalism sounds nice, but it is not the same as [[Conservationism]] which seeks to preserve nature and natural resources for human use and enjoyment. [http://www.coolestfamilyever.com/2006/10/06/conservationists-vs-environmentalists/] It begins with the observation that human beings have messed up nature, which is true as far as it goes. But like its Marxist antecedent it dismisses any possibility of people changing voluntarily. Government must intervene and stop people from using insecticides like [[DDT]], even if the scientific evidence of environmental harm has been exaggerated. False heroines like [[Rachel Carson]] posed as whistleblowers while actually providing a one-sided, anti-scientific and alarmist account. The DDT ban was eventually relaxed {{years ago|1996}} years ago when the UN quietly announced that it was dropping its opposition - coincidentally (?) after I had managed to use Wikipedia to publicize the deception and promote that scientific research that proved DDT was safe to use in anti-malaria programs.
The [[Montreal Protocol]] played on inflamed fears of [skin cancer] from [[ozone depletion]], and despite the lack of any scientific basis got laws passed to ban [[CFC]] (used in air conditioning and refrigeration). The leftists didn't care about skin cancer, but were just testing the waters. When they found they could sway lawmakers on this topic, they set their sights on a much bigger target.
The [[Kyoto Protocol]] is the global warming treaty signed by over half of the world's major countries, with the notable exception for India, China and the United States. It provides for a ban on emissions of "[[greenhouse gases]]" on the trumped-up grounds that such emissions will lead to harmful [[global warming]]. Actually, it is variations in the [[sunspot cycle]], a natural factor beyond human control, which are responsible for most of the ups and downs in atmospheric temperature. However, billions of dollars have been spent to publicize the leftist, environmental point of view, and even supposedly neutral Wikipedia has helped. It was recently that a backlash began turning the tide. British courts require schools showing [[An Inconvenient Truth|Al Gore's documentary]] to point out several scientific mistakes in it. And [[Climategate]] has revealed how supposedly objective scientists and journal publishers colluded to hide evidence against the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW).