• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Greenpeace Is A Physics Denier

by Doomberg
October 21, 2021, 9:12 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
5

greenpeace nuclear protest“The only countries that have successfully moved from fossil fuels to low-carbon power have done so with the help of nuclear energy.” – Michael Shellenberger

As Europe and China are finding out the hard way, energy is life. Energy is food. Energy is warmth. Energy is order. Energy is civilization.

The absence of energy is death. It is hunger. It is cold. It is disorder. It is the end of civilization.

These are simply indisputable axioms of physics. The second law of thermodynamics is as brutal as it is undefeated: disorder is spontaneous, and life is the pinnacle of high order.

In a potentially watershed moment for a truly sustainable low-carbon future, several member countries of the European Union are pressing Brussels to officially label nuclear energy as green.

Doing so would have substantial implications for future investments, government policy, and, ultimately, an improved environment.

Here’s how Euronews describes it:

“A group of ten EU countries, led by France, has asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc’s decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.

Tapping into Europe’s ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a ‘key affordable, stable and independent energy source’ that could protect EU consumers from being ‘exposed to the volatility of prices.’

The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.”

What was Greenpeace’s response to this perfectly sensible policy recommendation? Here’s a tweet from their official account:

There’s so much wrong with that tweet that it is difficult to know where to begin. As a contribution to the environmental policy debate, it is decidedly unserious.

Putting aside the tired tropes of the alleged dangers of nuclear energy and handling of nuclear waste, one wonders if Greenpeace understands the basic concept of energy return on energy invested (EROEI), or where the “energy invested” comes from as we build out renewables and hope for a reasonable return.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

How are solar cells made? They come from polysilicon, which comes from metallurgical grade silicon, which comes from sand.

It takes an enormous amount of energy (gasp!) to turn sand into solar-grade polysilicon. You can read about it here. That energy must come from somewhere.

Because of previous policy blunders, the vast majority of polysilicon is now produced in China. In case you haven’t noticed, China is a bit short of energy these days as well.

Guess what they took off the board first?

I guess Greenpeace China isn’t a thing? Does Greenpeace speak truth to Xi’s power, or are their dangerous platitudes reserved for us gullible know-nothings in the West?

For a dose of much-needed sanity, we turn to Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Lux Capital, technology investor, and all-around brilliant guy:

Wolfe is – as usual – utterly correct in his thought experiment. If the almost magical power of nuclear energy were discovered today, it would be heralded as a transformative and breakthrough invention to be widely celebrated.

We laid the groundwork for our views on energy in Why Are Cows Sacred and followed up with our proposed policy framework in America’s Energy Strategy is Bonkers.

The only ethical path to decarbonization at scale has nuclear energy as a core foundation:

“Under President Doomberg, the US would revitalize its nuclear power industry. If you claim to be serious about reducing our carbon intensity but you are opposed to nuclear power, you aren’t actually serious about reducing our carbon intensity – you are a scientifically ignorant poseur.  That might sound a little harsh, and might even cost me a few subscribers, but it must be said. I’d be intellectually dishonest if I softened the message. Nuclear power is safe, affordable, and must be a critical part of our energy future.  In the past 25 years, the US has commissioned precisely one new nuclear power facility, a true failure of political leadership. Opposition to nuclear power is destroying the planet. Get over it. It’s time. Better is better.”

It is time for Greenpeace to get over it. An organization that opposes all development of fossil fuels while simultaneously opposing nuclear energy is actively working to kill tens of millions of the poorest humans on Earth.

More than unserious, more than a physics denier, Greenpeace is gross.

h/t Rúnar O.

Read more at Doomberg

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. J. Fred Kuntz says:
    4 years ago

    Nuclear energy is zero-carbon in the generation process, low-carbon when you compare the total life-cycle with other energy types, lower mortality compared to hydro (and especially compared to fossil fuels, which kill millions a year in air pollution), lower land-use compared to solar and wind. As Canada’s government has acknowledged, no credible path to net-zero exists without nuclear in the mix. As for the nuclear by-products, good solutions exist for permanent disposal, including deep repositories for used fuel, or near-surface facilities where lower-level materials can return to harmless levels in shorter periods of time. (And let’s not forget the valuable by-products of nuclear, including: tritium used in signage and technology; rare Helium-3 used in quantum computing, neutron research, border security, medical imaging; and most importantly other medical isotopes created in CANDU reactors such as Carbon-60 and Molybdenum-99, which together are helping to treat millions of patients a year).
    Two types of science deniers are slowing action to save the planet – those who deny the science of climate, and those who deny the science of energy. They are equally dangerous, but can be won over. We have to share the facts on energy types, comparing them on costs (including new SMRs), mortality rates, grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour, feasibility for implementation (in time to stop catastrophic levels of human-caused global warming). When you do that, nuclear wins – as a vital part of the mix, together with hydro, solar, wind. Solutions to address the science deniers include education, information sharing, open dialogue and transparency to built trust.

  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    So when will Greenpeace be quit using their Fossil Fuels ships Arctic Sunrise and Rainbow Warrior II how soon will they quit using those Zodiacs with their Gasoline Engines? and when will their H.Q. Go Solar?

    • J. Fred Kuntz says:
      4 years ago

      Nuclear energy is zero-carbon in the generation process, low-carbon when you compare the total life-cycle with other energy types, lower mortality compared to hydro (and especially compared to fossil fuels, which kill millions a year in air pollution), lower land-use compared to solar and wind. As Canada’s government has acknowledged, no credible path to net-zero exists without nuclear in the mix. As for the nuclear by-products, good solutions exist for permanent disposal, including deep repositories for used fuel, or near-surface facilities where lower-level materials can return to harmless levels in shorter periods of time. (And let’s not forget the valuable by-products of nuclear, including: tritium used in signage and technology; rare Helium-3 used in quantum computing, neutron research, border security, medical imaging; and most importantly other medical isotopes created in CANDU reactors such as Carbon-60 and Molybdenum-99, which together are helping to treat millions of patients a year).
      Two types of science deniers are slowing action to save the planet – those who deny the science of climate, and those who deny the science of energy. They are equally dangerous, but can be won over. We have to share the facts on energy types, comparing them on costs (including new SMRs), mortality rates, grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour, feasibility for implementation (in time to stop catastrophic levels of human-caused global warming). When you do that, nuclear wins – as a vital part of the mix, together with hydro, solar, wind. Solutions to address the science deniers include education, information sharing, open dialogue and transparency to built trust.

  3. Sonnyhill says:
    4 years ago

    This article reminds me of the author of “The Deniers”, Lawrence Solomon. His book introduced me to the climate fraud. Solomon is a no-nukes guy. He believes that the switch from fossil fuels would lead to more nuclear generating stations. Ontario Hydro gets by because of Niagara Falls and our existing nuclear stations, but there are no plans for new construction. All the coal fired stations have been demolished. Something has to change for the better, soon.

  4. Edward Burke says:
    4 years ago

    You’re right if the target is to reduce CO2 but it’s NOT. CO2 is essential for life and does NOT cause global warming. The target is socialism/communism controlled by a handful of elitist. Please don’t misrepresent the issues, science is NOT POLITICS.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Exxon gas stationExxonMobil Sues California Over Forced Speech, Climate Reporting Laws
    Oct 28, 2025
    ExxonMobil says California’s disclosure and reporting laws violate its free speech by forcing the company to accept the state’s view on climate change. […]
  • cop30‘UN COP FLOP’: Most Countries Will Miss Climate Targets Ahead Of Major Summit
    Oct 28, 2025
    Most countries are set to miss their climate pledges as the UN COP30 summit nears, highlighting global inaction despite international commitments. […]
  • mosquitoes swarmingMeteorologist: Iceland’s Mosquitoes A Byproduct Of Global Shipping, Not Global Warming
    Oct 28, 2025
    NPR blames climate change for mosquitoes in Iceland, but a meteorologist shows how they arrived by global shipping, not warming. […]
  • clouds sun earthNew Study Finds Recent Global Warming Mostly Driven By Natural Forces—Not CO2
    Oct 27, 2025
    Recent warming is largely due to natural climate factors, with only one-third linked to rising greenhouse gases, new study shows. […]
  • Poverty in IndiaHow Climate Dogma Is Keeping The World’s Poor In The Dark
    Oct 27, 2025
    Western climate policies keep billions in poverty by denying developing nations access to affordable energy, all in the name of climate change. […]
  • EU's Ursula Von Der Leyen and TrumpUS Pressures Europe To Roll Back Climate Mandates, Targets Net Zero Policies
    Oct 27, 2025
    The Trump administration urges EU to weaken rules on emissions and sustainability, citing risks to trade and energy reliability. […]
  • aoc dollarClimate Tightwads: Most Americans Reject $1 Monthly Carbon Fee, Poll Shows
    Oct 27, 2025
    Most Americans won’t pay $1 a month to fight the so-called threat of human-caused climate change, new AP-NORC/EPIC poll shows. […]
  • Surface miningTrump Moves To Break Communist China’s Grip On Rare Earth Minerals
    Oct 27, 2025
    Trump moves to break Communist China’s control over rare earth minerals critical to U.S. technology and defense. […]
  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky