May 18, 2011

Climate Scientist, Yo!

Warning, contains explicit language, go to YouTube for clean version.

Below is Ripped of and Duplicated (R&D :o) from Stan (see below for link).

There is no reason to complain about the "potential dangers" of nuclear energy when the "actual damage" done by oil spills, coal mining, and natural gas extraction far exceed the "actual damage" done by nuclear accidents.  AND...and this is a big and, which is why I capitalized it...AND nuclear accidents have all (for the most part) actually been accidents.  Oil spills, while they may be accidents, have all been mostly the result of negligence.  And any mind of drilling or mining destroys the environment and pollutes by default as it is part of the process of extracting fossil fuels.

So why are we so stupid?  Why are we so slow to adopt clean energies?  Nuclear energy is a great alternative, but if you are scared of the power, what about solar and wind energies?  They are not only renewable, and free, but the only "damage" they cause is a visual one.  It makes no sense to fight the mass production of turbines and solar panels and the immediate adoption of an overall conversion process that moves us to free energy.  But we do.  Why?  Aesthetics!  Not in my back yard!  I don't want to see it.

Thanks to Stan for posting this.


  1. Big oil has infiltrated our politics and our minds -- they tell us not to trust anyone but them.

  2. I recently remarked how the word 'theory' is badly misunderstood. I don't think I had the same kind of force and definitely the 'mad skillz' of the scientists!

  3. Ken, thanks for the shout out to Stan. He would be thrilled and would tell you so himself, but he is in DC for work right now.

  4. Hey Ken,
    Thanks for the shout out to my post. I appreciate the "air time".
    Go alternative! :)


Tell Me What You Think, Don't Make me go Rogue on you :o)