←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 3 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
yellowapple ◴[12 Sep 25 18:51 UTC] No.45225313[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(12): >>45225401 #>>45225408 #>>45225486 #>>45225487 #>>45225540 #>>45225582 #>>45225601 #>>45225657 #>>45225689 #>>45225714 #>>45227579 #>>45228776 #
awalsh128 ◴[12 Sep 25 19:10 UTC] No.45225540[source]▶
Whatever people think about Greenpeace I think it's a stretch to say they are a plant. They just lost a lawsuit recently and have to pay $660 mil for defamation against an oil company. It was a pretty ugly case.
replies(1): >>45225623 #
1. Eji1700 ◴[12 Sep 25 19:18 UTC] No.45225623[source]▶
There's this weird dissonance where people don't seem to want to admit that someone championing the same cause as them can be really really dumb about it. Must be a plant, couldn't possibly be that a lot of people take stances on positions due to their emotional reaction and don't always look at the evidence first. That's just them, not *US*.
replies(2): >>45225655 #>>45242114 #
2. throwbigdata ◴[12 Sep 25 19:21 UTC] No.45225655[source]▶
e.g. PETA
3. yellowapple ◴[14 Sep 25 18:28 UTC] No.45242114[source]▶
I'd agree with that in the context of an individual or a small local group or something.

For a well-established organization like Greenpeace, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe it's a matter of them collectively having an emotional reaction. They have the resources to look at the evidence, and have indeed almost surely done so; when it comes to explaining their refusal to accept that evidence, ”their jobs depend on rejecting it” is a much simpler explanation IMO than “they are experiencing a collectively-identical ideological quirk that their organizational bureaucracy somehow has yet to iron out”.