The Greenpeace antinuclear blog “Nuclear Reaction” has disabled comments. Why on Earth would they do that?
Personally, I have left numerous comments on their pseudo-scientific website. I’ve also used the Nuclear Fissionary Page on Facebook to direct our readers to the Greenpeace site to make sure their antinuclear rants don’t go unanswered.
Well, it would appear that Greenpeace no longer has the stomach for debate.
While visiting the site the other day I noticed that my comments were gone. Every blogger knows that deleting comments is unethical, so I thought that GP had just decided to silence me. But then I noticed that there were no other comments either. What’s more, there was no box where readers could add to the ‘dialogue’ of the nuclear debate. The comments were just gone.
Greenpeace is no longer interested in the opinions of its readership. Could this have something to do with recent growth in pronuclear sentiment on the internet? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that now 62% of Americans, including the president GP thought would support them, are now in favor of nuclear energy? Were they sick and tired of getting only pronuclear comments?
Whatever the reason, Greenpeace removing comments from their blog can serve only to discredit an organization that already suffers from a reputation of ignoring science and preying on fears. Lucky for everyone, this will inevitably hurt the GP website and those wishing to discuss the issue can get the right information from the Nukes of the Net instead of the activists.
So let’s all let Greenpeace know that we’re not impressed with their attempt to silence their critics. Send an email to
supporter.services.int@greenpeace.org
and tell them what you think. Or you can copy and paste the message we’re sending below:
Dear Greenpeace
Unless your issue is a technical reason, I am disappointed in your decision to disable comments on your antinuclear blog, Nuclear Reaction. Unless otherwise clearly stated on your blog, this is seen as an attempt to silence your critics and serves only to discredit your organization. If you value the views of your readers then you will enable comments so the discussion can move forward.
Thank you,
Nuclear Fissionary has no such fear of our readers’ opinions. As a matter of fact, we value and encourage them. Comments on a post tell us that we’ve struck a chord with the readers (be it good or bad). We will always welcome the input of our readers; even our antinuclear readers. After all, we have so much fun proving them wrong. Maybe that’s what Greenpeace is so afraid of.
Image Credit
Innocent’s silence courtesy of Flickr user circo de invierno under the CC license.
24 Comments
My e-mail has been sent. I’m curious to see if there will be a response.
Mine is en route.
I sent mine in as well.
Mail sent – Greenpeace and science are not even remotely connected are they?
They are more along the Evil Knivel (motor cycle stunt rider) lines.
When has Greenpeace ever been interested in the opinions of its readership?
Greenpeace is an organization that lives off of stupid publicity stunts designed to garner income from donations. Its blog is simply a “value added” product with the purpose of keeping those dollars flowing between stunts. Why should they jeopardize their revenue flow by allowing some inconvenient comments to be posted on their site that invalidate their ridiculous nonsense?
Greenpeace distorts the truth in the same way as the climate skeptics they hate, and they’ve been doing it for a longer time. They are as responsible for today’s disfunctional political climate as the Tea Baggers. The Greenpeace idea is that they are right, therefore their lies are justified. Everyone else is wrong, and their lies are evil.
Every site on the “blogroll” listed on Nuclear Reaction allows comments.
That’s correct David, regarding the comments. I went through several of their other blogs yesterday in order to see if the comments were active and working, which as you say, they were. I then took it one step further on their Nuclear Reaction blog by viewing their source code. It was there that I noticed a
.comments-closeddiv class which indicates they have the ability to disable comments as they see fit.Considering the evidence it is highly unlikely that there is some technical issue occurring that is exclusive only to the Nuclear Reaction blog. What makes matters worse is that there was no explanation or reason provided behind what we can only assume is a knee-jerk decision until otherwise informed.
Political climate was dysfunctional long before the Tea Party. Tea Party just made it obvious that something’s wrong. The fact of the matter is that they’re upset about government dysfunction and massive debt with an inclining deficit (a debt acceleration, not just increase). The problem is when people try to attribute them to certain political ideals.
Both sides of the aisle are forever bleeped. All we do as a nation (as a nation) is switch sides whenever we rediscover the side we put up is totally dysfunctional.
Honestly, I think representatives are obsolete. We don’t need representing anymore, we can vote. There’s no technical impossibility in voting (even those there’s a political difficulty).
I say we remove representing from the legislative agenda. Their job should be to simply write laws, not vote on them. I also say we make it so they cannot receive any other form of income in their household. Too many of them are invested on either side of the energy line, that they’ll never find a true feasible “green” option (nuclear), because none of them are invested in nuclear. Yes that would mean they can’t invest in the market, and their spouse would be jobless. Maybe then we’d get people who are serious about writing functional law, rather than being a tool for the lobbyists.
Greenpeace has never allowed comments to appear that don’t agree with their brain-dead viewpoint. Contrast that with the open and robust discussion on pro-nuke websites. The more people learn about the potential of nuclear power, the more they like it. Greenpeace thrives on ignorance, lies, and the half-truths it feeds its gullible followers.
You know, it’s funny that the AGW sensationalists have produced such a overstated climate disaster that someone’s draining one of the central plains aquifers thinking water is going to be more costly than oil one day, thus making water more costly than oil for farmers today.
Not to mention that in order to ensure solar power could sustain the US, they’d have to fill the central plains with solar panel farms. These farms need water to cool and would drain the local aquifers to do so. Farmers are afraid that such a thing would create another Dust Bowl and destroy large sections of central plains.
So in short, Greenpeace would destroy 1/4 of the North American environment to save the world.
Now, the ironic thing is that these solar panel farms would desertificate surrounding areas, which would create more heat absorption, thus enhancing a feedback loop that would raise the global temperature, according to pro-AGW scientific beliefs.
So, what about wind. Well wind turbines take a lot of oil to build, and a lot of oil to lubricate. Giant farms of them would simply switch us over from burning oil to lubricating with it. So even with wind power, we’d still be drilling for oil, and we’d still be fracking for oil and gas as well.
So, we’re back to the nuclear option. Metal pipes for coolant, concrete for meltdown prevention. No desertification, no draining aquifers (coolant is cycled), no mass amounts of oil to lubricate.
Seems like Greenpeace has very little education on the topic of green energy!
Hi, Jack
Thank you for showing Greenpeace for what it is!
I moderate comments on my blog Yes Vermont Yankee. Antis have posted plenty of comments, but I have never yet had to turn down a comment for being rude or uncivil. It could happen though. If I did that, I wouldn’t consider that “deleting” a comment, just not-posting it because it doesn’t add to the discussion. I make it clear in a box above the comment box that rude comments will not be posted.
As I said, though, in three months, with plenty of anti-s weighing in, I have never prevented a comment from being posted. So far, so good!
When talking to anti-s, their tactic is to change the subject as soon as you get them to a place where they have no rational answer. Or they begin saying that you are killing the next generation and so forth. In other words, they move to accusations.
Best,
Meredith
If you go to Facebook, there’s a Group with over 1000 members, Save Vermont Yankee. Any member of the Group can post on its Wall. There’s also a Fan page, on the opposite side of things Shut Down Vermont Yankee Today, with 250 fans. As far as I can tell, posting discussions is disabled on that page. At least, there are no discussions.
I just want back to the Greenpeace blog, comments are still disabled for Nuclear Reaction, still enabled for all of their other blogs, and there is still not post announcing the reason for the cessation of comments.
Unsurprisingly, I have still not received a response to my e-mail.
I received an e-mail from Greenpeace last night regarding the disabled comments. It reads as follows:
Yep, I received the same e-mail.
There is now a post stating what some people have already received by email, and comments are back online..
Gotta wonder if they consider differing opinions a spam attack though.
Reminds me of an interesting article in New Humanist a couple of months back, check it out if you fancy a read
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1949/power-struggle
While it would apear that they have reinstated comments, they are still deleting them. I’ve left several in the past few days and none of them showed up on the site.
Why do you think that they were switching to a “new commenting system”? They wanted to make it easier for them to delete your “spam.”
Same old Greenpeace.
Same old angry conceited conservative moderate.
Durn, that is correct. I am an angry conceited conservative moderate. Although in my experience the descriptor moderate precedes political affiliation.
You don’t need to be a conservative to be pronuclear, you just need to be a reasonable person who bothers looking at the numbers. We have plenty of liberal nukes here.
Perhaps Durn meant “angry conceited conservative moderation,” which appears to be Greenpeace’s new comment policy. That is, don’t let anything through unless it agrees with your personal biases; otherwise, reject with extreme prejudice.
I’m conceited for recognizing that wind and solar power as-is is a technical IMPOSSIBILITY as well as just as damaging to the environment or worse than any other form of energy. So far with oil and coal it cannot be proven that the environment will be forever changed due to human interaction. Of the supposed increase in temperature due to AGW, carbon dioxide accounts for a VERY small portion. The rest is an unmeasurable, totally hypothetical, varying amount of feedback loops of which the sum cannot actually be tallied (to the point where the actual sum of the feedback could be a temperate loss….. *gasp*… that’s right, conceited conservative here actually researched the AGW scientific arguments and found out there’s a big gaping hole in the “undisputed” science).
However, switching to full solar/wind power is guaranteed to destroy the environment ala my other comments on this article. The vast amount of space and water used would consume natural habitats. To avoid making apparent changes to “wilderness”, they almost certainly choose the central plains as a staging area (once again putting the south under the liberal north great thumb), which would drain aquifers and potentially see wide desertification, and most surely decrease the supply of food and increase the cost of groceries, thus creating an undue hardship on the poor!!!
Wow, liberals once again unwittingly destroying everything they stand for, simply by being unreasonable uneducated. This from the enlightened ones?
I’m a still conceited?
I’m starting to wonder if the Areva USA blog doesn’t have the same policy as GP.
They have a new article called “Nod Your Head for U.S. Offshore Wind Power”.
Well, not only did I not nod my head, I critiqued it as follows:
“I know Areva has gotten themselves into the Industrial Wind business, probably for the good PR from the mainstream media and the tax incentives and outright grants from various government agencies, but when this bubble bursts, as it is starting to do in Denmark, Germany, and the US, it will make the company look like its engineers never really understood the concepts of energy density or capacity factor.
If Areva wants to ride the wave of the future, design and promote fast-spectrum SMRs that turn unprocessed spent LWR fuel into power.”
Three hours later, they still don’t seem to want to post it. Am I just being antsy?
As Japan struggles to contain massive amounts of radiation a year after several reactors fail, pro-nuclear zombies give themselves hugs and claim their is a “growing” pro-nuclear movement on the web. You are insane and the Japan situation is far, far, from over. Nuclear energy will wipe out Japan and may containment the entire world. Ypu played with fire and we all got burned.
3 Trackbacks
[...] Contact « Greenpeace Disables Comments on Antinuclear Blog [...]
[...] big thanks to “Nuclear Fissionary,” another grassroots pro-nuclear blog for pointing this one [...]
[...] completion by then. As of 2010, virtually nothing has been done. Thanks to the interventions of environmental groups and powerful politicians like Harry Reid (D-NV) every ounce of once-burnt nuclear fuel remains at [...]