Aletho News


Bait and Switch: Climate Alarmists have “Religious Conversion” to pro-nuclear

A New Generation of Nuclear Reactors, the logical “Solution” for the Climate Scare

Stephen Tindale

The “Switchers” and assorted prominent pro-nuclear climate activists:

George Monbiot – columnist with The Guardian newspaper in the UK, and author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning. “Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.”

Tom Wigley – of Climate-Gate infamy, he’s a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research. “We need nuclear power to solve this problem … people don’t realise just how bad climate change is.”

James Hansen – author of Storms of My Grandchildren.

Barry W Brook – is the Director of Climate Science at Adelaide University, and Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, is on the board of the Science Council for Global Initiatives and the International Awards Committee of the Global Energy Prize.

Gwyneth Cravens – novelist and journalist, author of Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy.

Ted Nordhaus – Chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, political strategist and author of Break Through, Why We Can’t Leave Saving The Planet To Environmentalists.

Mark Lynas – author of The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, also a frequent speaker around the world on climate change science and policy. “Let me be very clear. Without nuclear, the battle against global warming is as good as lost.”

Tom Blees – author of Prescription for the Planet (the seemingly “intractable” problem of nuclear waste is “nothing of the kind”) has “probably done more than anybody to move people to the cause of nuclear power.” Tom also heads the Science Council for Global Initiatives.

Professor Gerry Thomas – of the Imperial College, London, “I am very pro-nuclear as I realise that we have an unwarranted fear of radiation.”

James Lovelock – celebrated father of the Gaia principle.

Fred Pearce – an environment writer with The Guardian newspaper in the UK, and author of The Last Generation: How nature will take her revenge for climate change.

Stewart Brand – a prominent pro-nuclear “environmentalist” and author of Whole Earth Discipline: Why dense cities, nuclear power, transgenic crops, restored wildlands and geoengineering are necessary.

Ken Caldiera – with the Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, recently co-authored an open letter to the environmental movement urging them to bring their support behind the development of new nuclear power.

Kerry Emmanuel – with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is known for his work on attribution of climate change to hurricane events.

Rachel Pritzker – is the founder and president of the Pritzker Innovation Fund. Rachel currently chairs the advisory board of the Breakthrough Institute.

Suzanne Hobbs-Baker – the brain behind Pop Atomic Studios, an organisation which uses the power of visual and liberal arts to “enrich” the public discussion on atomic energy.

Ed Davey – UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, “When I have listened to the arguments of pro-nuclear Liberal Democrats in recent years, the one argument I found increasingly difficult to answer is the climate-change argument, because climate change poses a real and massive danger to our planet. Not keeping a genuinely low-carbon source of electricity as an option looks reckless when we don’t know the future.”

November 14, 2014 - Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Environmentalism, Nuclear Power, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video |


  1. Like

    Comment by Bad-Clown | November 15, 2014 | Reply

  2. “The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.” That makes a whole lot of sense!


    Comment by Guy Saperstein | November 15, 2014 | Reply

  3. So, truth will out!  The proponents and beneficiaries of nuclear renaissance are ready to collect dividends from their investments in PR, fear and their rentable experts promoting faith in fossil fuel driven climate collapse.  We have been herded and climate terrified into supporting nuclear to maintain the current rate of industrial economic growth, not to defend the climate from unsequesterable CO2.  Now, can we please stop pretending we the people really want to industrially develop our way out of a many fronted dead-end environmental crisis which results from growth of expansive industrial development? The solution is rational, humane and ecologically aware prioritized contraction of exploitative industrial activity involving a shift from personal security derived from financial capital to human security derived from investment in sustainable local community. We need to cap and reverse exploitation and harvest the now concentrated financial capital to create community economies which secure themselves against growth and against failure and protect the environment. Can there be anything more ridiculous that the idea of nuclear powered growth being life supporting sustainable? M\\


    Comment by Michael | November 18, 2014 | Reply

    • Nuclear power is a component of the “fuel cycle,” the ultimate objective being nuclear weapons not industrial growth.

      Industrial growth can get along just fine with oil and gas.


      Comment by aletho | November 18, 2014 | Reply

  4. I agree with Stephen Tindale’s arguments for a return to commercial nuclear power and would like to suggest that it be accomplished using Thorium 232 NOT Uranium or Plutonium (MOX) The Chinese have an up and running commercial Thorium232 plant and it would be in that country’s best interests, to launch an advertizing campaign across third world countries, many of them cannot develop alternate energy resources. Poorer nations have no avenue except nuclear power as is the case for North Korea. Further, it has been demonstrated that both nuclear waste processing and permanent burial are very expensive however I know of no effort to experiment with the detonation old atomic weaponry (past the shelf life) as a source for the transmutation of high level wastes. After a close proximity underground explosion/detonation, the wastes would be converted into far more manageable isotope(s) via (high velocity neutron fragmentation)…in effect, eliminating two birds with one stone.


    Comment by elmerfudzie | August 22, 2016 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.