Anyone remember the predictions of the continuous drought? Greenpeace was touting this on their website and it was constantly on the news ....before the recent torrential FLOODING of the continent. Do they say they were wrong?..Never.

What about the 'tipping point' which never seems to come? The threat of the coming 'ice age' at the First Earth Day celebrations in 1969. Ehrlich's predictions that millions of Americans would die of starvation by 1990 and that England "would not exist" by 2000! David Suzuki also once claimed that 3 species went extinct per hour. This was completely incorrect and virtually impossible.They never take responsibility for their wildly inaccurate lies. They just go on and make up something else.

The environmental movement is not that interested in the environment. Its agenda is driven by the Marxism inspired de-industrialisation of the West using the environmental movement as a vehicle. Lies and exaggeration doesn't matter, because they are never held to account.

Being wrong about climate change has caused the greenies to be right about something. There is no problem about human emissions except in their deluded minds.

However, if it causes them to do something sensible, like endorse nuclear power, then that is a welcome outcome. Their ratbaggery caused legislation to be passed in Australia prohibiting the building of nuclear plants, so it would be nice to see this reversed, and a start made to the years of lead time it will take before we have the plants producing power.

The bull headed ignorance which underpinned the opposition to GM crops, has caused harm to vulnerable levels of humanity, mitigated by the industry which resolutely pushed this impressive, and beneficial technology.

The greens persist in their baseless demonising of carbon dioxide, in the face of the fact that the only basis for assertion of AGW, is the discredited IPCC, with its “summaries” based on slogans from Greenpeace, WWF, and works of university students. They have no basis in science, just an unscientific guess that it is “very likely”.

The lack of any scientific proof makes it very unlikely. Their predicted “hot spot” in the troposphere, to be demonstrated by readings from the stellite instruments, which would be the “signature” for AGW, does not exist.

We have a long way to go. This is too little, too late.

"The only problem I have with this is,is the threat for 3 world or worse getting their hands on weapons grade material."
-Deep-Blue

Worry ye not: a massive expansion of fission power generation will not make it more likely that weapons grade radioisotopes fall into the wrong hands. Weapons grade radioisotopes are far more highly enriched than fuel grade radioisotopes. Expanding the nuclear power industry will make it easier to illegally obtain fuel grade material, but will have no effect on the availability of weapons grade material.

"Waste is another huge problem. ( dirty bombs ETC )"
-Deep-Blue

A lie spread by Greenpeace and their vile ilk... waste isn't the problem they pretend it is. We have the resources and the technical capability to dispose of it safely; the only obstacles are political and sociological in nature.

The security issue is just a furphy. There is plenty of waste out there for the nicking, but it's so well guarded that nobody has managed to nick any yet (as far as we know). Even if they did, they'd probably find that turning high-level waste into a weapon of terror requires a lot more technical knowledge than they possessed.

So we need to look to source science to determine the validity of various arguments on important issues. It seems that some they get wrong and some they get right and that's not unique to environmental advocacy groups. On GM the science seems to show that fears are exaggerated. On civilian Nuclear energy and waste storage the fears are exaggerated. On nuclear weapons proliferation the fears have genuine basis. On climate change the fears have strong scientific basis supported by the world's leading scientific organisations.

When it comes to advocacy organisations environmentalist ones don't appear to be universally bad or unique in misrepresenting some areas of science in order to cater to the prejudices of their perceived core supporters. Check the antiscientific positions of leading think tanks like Cato, Competitive Enterprise Insitite, Heartland on issues like climate and tobacco. Ultimately these issues are not decided by such groups and the rise of the Greens merely reflects the abrogation of responsible policy based on science by mainstream politics in some of these areas. I don't believe the rise of the Greens is due to their position on GM food but on the much more solidly scientifically grounded concerns about climate and energy.

Riz
I do sort of agree the dangers are somewhat exaggerated. However the point that needs remembering is that neither GM or Nuclear are that good an answer either . They have their uses buts that's all.

Some of the greens (as do the likes of the tea party) exhibit a sort of religious/cult personality profile ; words and slogans become simply signs that you belong to the 'right' side.

That very weird(and dishonest) ad on SBS by some 'grand master' exhorting us to "save our planet - go veg" exemplifies 'greens' as a cult.

RIZ.

Harnessing the power of the atom has propelled humanity forward at an astonishing rate since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. However ( see no use of the word BUT ), the proper disposal and storage of nuclear waste leaves an incomplete equation. Nuclear waste comes from nuclear power reactors and byproducts of military-grade bombs. This waste can come in the form of spent nuclear fuel rods or even toxic sludge. Perhaps the greatest danger of nuclear energy is the long-term investment in waste disposal that will be passed to future generations.
Some radioactive materials are broken down into toxic, heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. The mining of uranium ore also produces a heavy medal byproduct called uranium mill tailings. These scrap metals are found at old mining sites and endanger the environment with toxic arsenic and lead. These heavy metals have no half-lives, and their danger to humanity and the environment is a permanent one. Toxic heavy metals are absorbed by the cells and tissues of the body and cause cancer and genetic damage for generations to come.

See the risks are there RIZ and are there for a very long time. The greens don't like it at all, and I share in the obvious environment and genetic damages ( and I'll use the but just one more time ) BUT! the fossil fuel we use has to also stop, because of the simple fact that man-kind is changing the climate so fast with it, unclear power is the only one I think can be used, so the world can still get to play in its sand-box for just a few centuries longer.

BLUE