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.

Comments

News?

[pipingguy]

Patrick Moore has had this view for quite some time, but I'm not surprised that it's only now that some people are noticing. Let the demonizing of Mr. Moore at Slashdot begin!

Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985

[Anonymous Coward]

Right want the weak to suffer.

Left want the strong to suffer no less than the weak.

The left may be over-optimistic, but the right are evil.

Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985

[camg188]

On the other hand, the wallets of people working for IPCC are dependent on global warming. If global warming is not a problem, the IPCC goes away and they are all looking for new jobs.

The rest of your post is pure speculation.

Re:This is interesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

except that is not what is happening.

Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985

[blue trane]

Can we talk about how the right endlessly defended slavery?

Take John C. Calhoun: "he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade".

I ran across this quotation the other day:

"I do not belong to the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is the opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those who act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in particular, I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we concede an inch, concession would follow concession--compromise would follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance would be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed determination of maintaining our position at every hazard. . .
. . . We of the South will not, cannot surrender our institutions. Too maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the county in blood, and extirpating one or the other of the races. Be it good or bad, it has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them, that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: - far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to probe so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. It came among us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions, reviled as they have been, to its present comparatively civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase of numbers, is conclusive proof of the general happiness of the race, in spite of all the exaggerated tales to the contrary. . .
. . . Be assured that emancipation itself would not satisfy these fanatics: -that gained, the next step would be to raise the negroes to a social and political equality with the whites; and that being effected, we would soon find the present condition of the two races reversed. They and their northern allies would be the masters, and we the slaves; the condition of the white race in the British West India Islands, bad as it is, would be happiness to ours."

The left doesn't uphold Stalin, but the right sticks to most of that still. Originalists!

Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985

[blue trane]

Lincoln learned. He supported compensated emancipation, which the right-wingers of the day rejected for budgetary reasons, mainly; and ended up spending at least as much on the Civil War.

Calhoun's point of view is pretty much the same as the righties running today. The same rhetoric about "appeasement", the same paranoia about their way of life being destroyed. That is the essence of the right, and it is hopelessly backwards, on the wrong side of history.

Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985

[dryeo]

Perhaps you should join ISIS, a government as far right as you can get. There's also Saudi Arabia, a shining right wing paradise. Me, I'd rather live in the evil left wing Scandinavian countries.