Volume One -
1980-
Originally published in paperback as "Getting
The Shaft, The Radioactive Waste Controversy in Manitoba."
Volume Two -
update: 1984-
The growing prospect of nuclear waste dumps on both sides of the U.S.-
Volume Three -
update:1988-
Federal Environmental Panel concludes that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s permanent underground nuclear waste burial concept lacks public acceptability.
Volume Four -
update:1998-
Mixed Oxide plutonium transport and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and
nuclear waste issue grinds on
Nuclear Waste Saga
However, regardless of what one may think or believe about the issue itself, the most scary thing for me is the mounting evidence of a large measure of “groupthink” among the global warming advocates of the scientific community and the distortion of the meaning of science itself.
Irving Janis, professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, who did
extensive work on the subject of groupthink, defined it as “a mode of thinking that
people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-
Groupthink is particular nasty when found in science. In ancient times, scientific
skeptics were sometimes even dispatched to oblivion for their heresies. Today, such
skeptics who do not fully embrace the global warming theory are marginalized and
even ridiculed by the self-
My understanding of what science is supposed to be all about may be deemed quaint by some. But here it is:
Science is at its best when it openly projects a high degree of skepticism about its’ own findings and conclusions and freely admits that "all is tentative." It is at its best when it deals in a respectful and reasonable manner with those who disagree or have doubts. It is at its best when it serves as an independent arm of society and does not tie itself to special interest groups or to those who have personal or organizational agendas.
Humility is also a virtue for science. For example, the earth and environmental sciences are chronologically in their infancy. Yet, they frequently do not behave that way. It is important to acknowledge this fact and that it is possible that many predictions and computer model forecasts, etc. may not be much more accurate than a coin flip and may turn out to be simply wrong.
Caution and prudence are needed when issuing public statements about potential consequences of scientific findings and conclusions. The very reputation of science is at stake when it takes on the aura of a "new priesthood."
The nuclear establishment itself, also contains many of the classic ingredients of “group think.” As a retired organization development consultant, I have witnessed this phenomenon from the perspective of both the inside and the outside of the establishment.
But I was particularly pleased to discover an item written by a former employee
of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., a nuclear energy advocate, who has some misgivings
about the global warming-
Resources would be better spent combating true pollution of air, water and land, that is harming and killing real people who are alive today. I am concerned that when the public realizes that they have been misled they will distrust all scientists ("They told us..."), and not just Kyoto proponents. For the same reason we nuclear advocates should not rely on nuclear energy's lack of GHGs (greenhouse gasses): it has plenty of advantages without having to rely on a dubious one.”
Although I surely do not subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy has “plenty of advantages,” and lacks GHGs, (see my article on downsides), I do completely agree with him that the main priority today is to address the big, immediate killers; air, water and land pollution.
But would nuclear energy make much of a difference in the event that the predictions of the climate change movement materialize? Many observers have pointed out that for a variety of reasons, it is totally unrealistic to believe that nuclear energy, even in massive doses, could make a dent in solving the problem as presented by its advocates.
My own personal view of the climate change issue is: of course the climate is changing; it has ever since the earth was formed and is likely to continue doing so until the “end of time.” As Mr. Robertson indicates, the real issue is, to what extent does human activity affect the climate and, if it does, what might be the consequences?
On that point, I am agnostic.
The “fine hand” of the nuclear establishment in the creation of this global warming movement is far too much in evidence not to raise considerable suspicion in my mind about its legitimacy. My agnosticism also extends to the philosophical position that it is the height of arrogance to suggest that we puny humans really have the power to savage Mother Earth to such a degree (and in such a short time) as predicted by Al Gore and his followers.
For me, the jury is still out!
A free web site dedicated to the well being of future generations
Spring-