Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic
New submitter PensacolaSlick writes that [Patrick Moore a], co-founder of Greenpeace, and seven-year director of Greenpeace International, with other very pro-environmental credentials, has come out with a brief rationale for why he is "skeptical that humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future." He argues instead that in a historical context, human activity has saved the planet, declaring that "at 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide."
(Consider the source, which according to the New York Times is "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.") Moore breaks with what might be expected of a Greenpeace founder as well in that he is currently chair of Allow Golden Rice.
Though I do believe humans are doing a good job of trashing the environment, I have always felt like Global Warming was being used as a scare tactic, much like those "Repent and be saved!" guys that stand on street corners and preach about the end of days.
Is Global Warming happening now? Yep, it appears it is. Is mankind the only cause of this phenomenon? I'm not 100% sure on that, and if we don't keep looking to see what's really going on, we may be in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future. when though our best efforts at curbing carbon emmisions, we still end up screwed.
More like his wallet took a sharp turn to the right https://en.wikipedia.org/ "Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... So why was he in Greenpeace in the first place, likely pursuing the opposite sex. Caring sharing community activities often have a preponderance of the fairer sex (they are referred to as the 'fairer sex' for a reason) http://siteresources.worldbank....
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
And apparently he's a "founder" of Greenpeace in the same sense that Willie Soon is a Harvare-Smithsonian astrophysicist -- which is to say he's worked with them.
So the headline should read, "Oil industry funded think tank announces that a guy who used to belong to Greenpeace is a climate denialist."
Not exactly prime clickbait.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And the article you link to doesn't mention that the Peruvian government lets the Dakar Rally use said monument as part of its route.
Is it possible there's politics involved in approving race cars but criticising environmental activists who wear normal shoes instead of special shoes?
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
Can we talk about how the right endlessly defended slavery?
Take John C. Calhoun [wikipedia.org]: "he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade".
What does this have to do with today's right? John C Calhoun was part of the same party that Obama is now part of. And no, the parties didn't switch spectrum, rather all of them have changed their stances on certain subjects. Remember it was still the Democrats that were largely opposed to civil rights during the 50's and 60's (for example, it was a Democrat governor who called in the national guard to keep black students out of Central High School in Arkansas.)
The biggest change a lot of people refer to happened during the 80's under the Raegan. Prior to Raegan, Democrats were staunchly opposed to communism (Kennedy and Johnson for example) and somehow the modern Democrat party moved away from that hard line stance (Greenpeace is an example of that, and Patrick Moore cited the organization as looking favorably upon communism as an environmental solution as part of his reasoning for leaving.) At the same time, a huge portion of the US population shifted to the right, which was mainly those that were still hard-line opposed to communism and were disillusioned by the Jane Fonda types of that era.
And yes, during the 80's, communism was still a pretty serious threat to the west, it only stopped being so after its biggest backer (the USSR) decided they have had enough of it and finally dropped the Iron Curtain. And now to this day, several major Democratic figureheads like to claim that the Red Scare was just a big farce, communism really isn't so bad and just needs to be done right, etc.
However neither party has been in favor of either discrimination or slavery since at least the late 70's. But prior to then, Democrats were the pro-discrimination party, and prior to at least the 1900's they were still the pro-slavery party.
Some gems from the article:
Disgracefully, hunger and desperation have become the Genetic Engineering industry's best tools to penetrate the developing world's food supply.
Starving people still deserve the dignity of choice.
Esoteric reference.