Patrick Moore, Greenpeace and climate change denialism And ... the issues of nuclear energy, GMOs, etc.

In case you're not up to speed on Twitter hot takes, Donald Trump unshockingly had taken at face value Patrick Moore's climate change denialism, as well as the lies about Moore helping found Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has the truth on this. So does Wikipedia, there on Moore's page and again on Greenpeace's page.

For wingers trotting out a Wayback Machine version of Greenpeace's website? A self-owned fail, as that website lists Moore under "founders and early members." NOT "founders."

A list two paragraphs below that? "On board" is not "on THE board." Rather, it's on board the ship Phyllis Cormack when it went to Amchitka, Alaska in silent protest of a U.S. nuclear weapons test.

For wingers trotting out a Google search which allegedly shows Moore among Greenpeace's founders? Dudes, this is Twitter. And, that's not what MY Googling shows.

My first assumption is you, or another wingnut, is OK with Photoshopping 101.

So, put a sock in it.

===

Moore is generally a pretentious twat, such as bitching about enviros for saying "carbon" instead of "carbon dioxide."

Second, before he became a pro-nukes mouthpiece, he was a British Columbia timber industry mouthpiece, supporting forest clear-cutting, among other things. He ceased to be an environmentalist decades ago, as soon as he made that devil's bargain.

More on his background here.

===

That said, is nuclear power the devil?

Not in my book.

We need to approach it cautiously. We need to fix the long-term waste disposal before building any more nuclear plants. We need to correctly carbon-price nuclear power plants, including mining costs of carbon dioxide emissions.

AND, we need to do the same with wind and solar, including mining costs.

We also need HONEST answers on how much wind and solar we would need not just to replace the current electric grid but to allow us to go to a 100 percent electric car fleet.

And, so far, environmental groups have generally shied away from that.

IF we can do that (and reasonable estimates only, please) without nuclear power, fine. If we can't? Well, we need to start talking, then.

And, I'm far from the only environmental to feel that way.

I'm also not the only environmentalist who is OK with GMO crops. And, I've said that for years, too. Read Grist's "Panic Free GMOs." Let's talk reality, not bogeymen or Frankenfoods. Or "chemicals" in your food. (Which is also radioactive.) Let's also not ignore how "Big Organic" has a vested interest in running down GMOs.

And, for that matter, has Greenpeace ever apologized for its 2014 cultural desecration and cultural imperialism?

Overall, I see Greenpeace as about 50 percent Gang Green, 20 percent stuntmakers for stuntmaking's sake, and 30 percent trying to hold on to original roots. (Most Gang Green and non-Gang Green enviro groups alike are anti-GMO, with The Nature Conservancy being the one major exception. (OTOH, TNC takes donations from Monsanto; I agree with their stance but they leave themselves open to challenges there.) They're afraid of losing donors, and within non-profit groups, enviros in general and Gang Green in particular have a high "churn" rate on donors.)

That said, per one of the tags for this post, I reject the idea of "salvific technologism" — that is, I do not believe the tech world, whether in ag or elsewhere, is the cavalry always riding over the hill and guaranteed to save us. But, I'm not a Luddite, either. And, I think most non-Gang Green environmental orgs and activists are. I like a lot of Wrong Kind of Green, for being post-capitalist (that's me, but not anti-capitalist). But ... it too is on the Luddite wagon of most anti-GMOers. GMOs and Big Ag? I'm willing to talk, though I have in the past passed on that Montanto's market capitalization is smaller than that of Starbucks. But, pseudoscience, like WKOG swallowing whole cloth Arpad Pusztai? No.