Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling?

Bishop Hill finds something interesting

Greenpeace are fond of telling us that the planet is going to fry because of our evil addiction to fossil fuels. How then to explain their submission to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which maintains a register of issues and potential problems with the nation’s nuclear waste repositories?

The long-term effects of glaciation on repository safety could be very serious, potentially involving a large release of radionuclides due to glacial flushing from a damaged repository zone. Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface and/or saline waters to the repository depth.

Obviously, this is all do to anthropogenic climate change, which not only makes it planet scalding hot, but, super cold at the same time.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling?”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    We need more tax exempt money and/or government grants now.


  2. Jeffery says:

    Are you really that stupid or are you pretending? Since some of the radionuclides present in spent fuel have a half-life of greater than 100,000 years, it’s the responsible thing for us to consider where we deposit the materials.

    Just because we’re currently hurtling out of the Holocene because of anthropogenic warming, doesn’t mean we’ll never have another glacial period. Maybe in 10,000 years, maybe in 50,000. It’s possible our species will still be around then. And so will our spent fuels.

  3. Jeffery says:


    How much funding does Greenpeace receive from the US government? Other governments? (Hint: none)

  4. david7134 says:

    So you are against the Iran deal on the basis that they should not further develop nuclear trash. You are breaking away from the party line, comrade, they will be looking at you.

  5. Jeffery says:


    Even a white supremacist such as yourself should learn to read. The Iran nuclear agreement stops their nuclear weapons program. Further, I didn’t agree that we stop all nuclear power programs, I agreed that we must be careful about how and where we store nuclear wastes since they have long t1/2s and we’ll likely have another glaciation 10s of thousands of years from now.

    You exemplify the problem of a powerful minority who believes in magic and ideologies rather than evidence. Plus, you’re a white supremacist.

  6. The Iran nuclear agreement stops their nuclear weapons program

    No, Jeff, it doesn’t, and that’s one of the major contentions. It only kicks the can down the road, anywhere from 8-15 years. Provided Iran abides by the deal. It would be better, and more honest, if you wrote that it temporarily puts somewhat of a stop on their nuclear weapons program, which they still haven’t admitted to.

  7. Hank_M says:

    “The Iran nuclear agreement stops their nuclear weapons program.”

    if there’s anything we can count on, it’s that Obama never lies and Iran never violates international agreements.

  8. Jeffery says:

    OK. The agreement stops their nuclear weapons program for 10-15 years. Not bad at all. The alternative is a nuclear weapon next year. Or another invasion.

    STOP signs only stop cars for a moment but still prevent chaos. And some drivers cheat.

    Anyway, there’s nothing inconsistent with Greenpeace’s concern with nuclear waste storage 10,000 years from now.

Pirate's Cove