Co-founder of Greenpeace: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Welcome and thanks for posting. I believe that the earth has its own natural cycles of warming and cooling as well,but I do believe that we have 'helped' things along with our abuse of the planet. And the toxins we put in the air and water etc.most certainly aren't healthy for anyone.

However, instead of blaming the real toxins what has been happening is the blame on a gas that is actually needed for life to exist on this planet.

The majority of the GCMs have got it wrong for one reason, and that reason is that CO2 is not the cause of the climate change.

I agree.

It is plant food.

More co2 more bigger faster growing plants.

We aren't very far above the minimum co2 needed for plants to conduct photo synthesis.

It is all alarmism.

Admittedly I do not pay much attention to alleged ( man made ) climate change . As I recall the initial data was fudged.
Much like a court, If caught in a lie, anything that follows is highly suspect.
The expression "follow the money " favors those who believe in the theory of man induced climate change.
Carbon Credits
Carbon Footprint

look mommy our heating bill has increased four dollars per month. It says something about our Carbon Footprint ?

www.cbsnews.com...

CO2 Credits hit $30 Billion World wide in 2006. $60 Billion in 2007. 2015 ? You can bet your ass eventually money will
be coming out of YOUR / OUR pockets.

This may offend some but I am rather tired of all the whining over Climate Change.

"Contempt prior to investigation will leave one in everlasting ignorance" My current philosophy. I don't care to
investigate issues that do not effect my life or the things I care about. Cheers.

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980


I am not surprised that Greenpeace has bashed someone who contradicts them.

And what about the letter from 1971 in the first link that clearly shows he was not a founding member (and is therefore lying)?


I like your overall reasoning though:

"I prefer to believe a bunch of industry funded shills rather than the world's scientists because I like their politics better"

originally posted by: mc_squared
And what about the letter from 1971 in the first link that clearly shows he was not a founding member (and is therefore lying)?

From wikipedia:

Moore joined the committee in 1971 and, as Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation (as an environmental activist), and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions.”

Seems legit. In the inner-circle from the early days, and clearly winning their lavish praise until he disagreed with them. Are you getting hung up on a technicality that is detracting from the original intent of the thread?



We could focus instead on the concept that the earth is billions of years old, and the IPCC thinks they know for certain that man is causing the climate to change despite lacking any credible scientific evidence.

You see, they certainly have evidence that the climate of our planet changes over time. They just don't have any evidence that man is causing it. There's much more credible evidence that the sun causes the most significant variations in our climate, and we are just beginning to understand how.

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

It's not a technicality - he was not a founder. Here's the letter he wrote to Greenpeace asking to join them:





If I put something like this on my resume and got caught lying over it, it would bring all my credibility into serious question. If someone like Hilary Clinton did it you would all be demanding her head on a pole around here.

He's a proven liar and he takes money from chemical companies to talk about how great flame retardants are, nuclear front groups to promote nuclear energy, mining companies to espouse the wonderful benefits of mining.

You can go visit his website and see for yourself:

greenspiritstrategies.com...


This man is a shill plain and simple. And this pattern is absolute par for the course on EVERY single one of these climate skeptic threads.

originally posted by: mc_squared

It's not a technicality - he was not a founder. Here's the letter he wrote to Greenpeace asking to join them:

If I put something like this on my resume and got caught lying over it, it would bring all my credibility into serious question. If someone like Hilary Clinton did it you would all be demanding her head on a pole around here.

I understand your point... and yes, I would question anyone who falsifies something. Would you?

His article was an opinion piece, but it pointed out that the sole purpose of the IPCC is to prove that AGW is true. If it's not true, then there is no more need for the IPCC (as in, they are out of a job). The IPCC and members therein have been caught numerous times falsifying information. So who are you going to believe?

You choose to believe a certain subset of "paid shills". I don't believe what I believe because Dr. Patrick Moore happens to have some opinions that coincide with mine. I believe what I do because there isn't any definitive scientific evidence that changes in our planet's climate are being caused by the activities of mankind.

Environmental changes caused by mankind? Yes. Global climate change? No. Too big. To draw that scientific conclusion is to have a predisposed agenda, much like the mission statement of the IPCC.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: jrod

Did you just try to discredit the Heartland Institute and then provide a link to 'Think Progress' as a legitimate news source?

I am still doubled over laughing.

This is always the conversation.

No source against AGW is "respectable" every source for is great!!!!

The fact that there is no proof out of control warming or higher co2 concentrations in the atmosphere can even lead to it doesn't matter.

The fact there have been way higher co2 concentrations and it didn't happen doesn't matter.

I always feel like AGW threads belong in the religious forums.

I agree on some arguments that man could be contributing, albeit in a very minor, like less than a fraction of a percent.

And I do agree we should be investing in clean energy that is actually cost effective.

The problem is hydrocarbons are so dambed good at condensing usable energy.

And green tech is still not even close yet.

But we have to keep at it.

Photovoltaic panels have increased their efficiency dramatically just in my life time.

The potential to launch giant panels into space and microwave beam the energy back down is onlyva couple of generations away.

The space elevator will help immensely.

3d printing now makes minifacturing possible.

So we don't even have to construct on earth and orbit them.

Just send minifacturing plants (this is the next step of the 3d printer) into orbit and feed them raw materials.

Out pops panels, or mirrors to beam either microwave or focussed sunlight back to earth.

Tidal production has also come a long way

Geothermal is working quite well it the moment.

We are getting there...slowly.

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980

His article was an opinion piece, but it pointed out that the sole purpose of the IPCC is to prove that AGW is true. If it's not true, then there is no more need for the IPCC (as in, they are out of a job).

Do you know how many people actually work at the IPCC?

Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group.

IPCC errors: facts and spin

Moore's opinion piece is a very uninformed opinion piece - it's just another float in the propaganda parade. This misinformation gets a constant free pass around here though because these shills sell themselves as "skeptics" and anti-establishment types, when really they are nothing but lying corporate stooges.

The IPCC does not do any original research themselves. All this supposedly powerful political organization does is gather all the latest research being done by scientists on their own time and dime:

The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort.

This whole "conspiracy" is a delusional paranoid farce that distracts from the real conspiracy happening here - the paid shills posing as skeptics trying to convince you the science is all a big lie. Go read up on some history: climate scientists predicted CO2 warming as early as 1896: The Discovery of Global Warming

The science on climate change is extremely robust. The backlash against it is nothing but the same scam tobacco industries pulled "questioning" the science on smoking. I've researched this for years and will bet you virtually ANY skeptical piece you find on climate change I can trace back to some industry lobbyist or political group. There is all sorts of evidence that these shills have been manipulating public understanding on climate science for decades. This leaked memo is from 1991:



Nothing these clowns ever say about the science or the scientists turns out to be true.

Oh and PS:

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
I believe what I do because there isn't any definitive scientific evidence that changes in our planet's climate are being caused by the activities of mankind.

Are you sure?

The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.

Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate


I think you believe there's no evidence because you've been letting shills like Patrick Moore tell you there's no evidence, instead of looking at the actual evidence.

originally posted by: jrod
The thinkprogress link has list is of known corporate donations to the group.

Follow the money....

Indeed o_O
www.washingtonpost.com...

The Center for American Progress site, Think Progress, is getting a face lift over the long holiday weekend.

Center for American Progress? Hmmm... following the money a bit more...

www.americanprogress.org...

CAP Board of Directors

Sen. Tom Daschle, Chair
Neera Tanden, President
Secretary Madeleine Albright
Carol Browner
Glenn Hutchins
Richard Leone
Susan Sandler
Tom Steyer
Jose Villarreal
Hansjörg Wyss

Tom Steyer? Hmm... Ah, there's that money trail again...

www.opensecrets.org...

Steyer, Thomas & F. & Kathryn Ann
Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer
San Francisco, CA
$74,019,834 (in Federal Election contributions)

Wow! There's a large sum of money... all going towards a very specific agenda. Does the trail end here, though?

blogcritics.org...

AH!

Billionaire Tom Steyer, another Obama bundler, who, like most prominent Obama fundraisers, has enjoyed relatively easy access to the White House, and has met with senior White House officials in the West Wing on at least four occasions.
...
The Beacon goes on to give more interesting tidbits about Steyer being a Goldman Sachs protegé of Robert Rubin, but what caught my attention is that while Mr. Styers’ alternative energy investments are quite impressive, he also “owns millions of dollars worth of shares in Big Oil companies such as BP.”

Speaking of quick-and-dirty bucks.

According to Politico in 2010, Obama is the biggest recipient of BP donations over the past twenty years, and BP has invested big in clean energy. BP Alternative Energy includes BrightSource Energy, the recipient of $1.6 billion in DOE loans, a shady transaction that involves other high-profile political connections to the White House as well as a DOE insider.

BP? Bayou Polluters is now tied into this chain? WOW! Surely the trail will go cold here, right?

greencorruption.blogspot.com...

Even though he made a fortune in oil and coal, he's aligned himself with the president's "war on coal." As John Hinderaker at Power Line appropriately puts it: "Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it."

Additionally, his former mega-firm Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. (“Farallon”) has an invested interest in a rival pipeline that would compete with Keystone.

(You know, Keystone, right? That huge pipeline project that would be a financial boon to the heartland of America which CAP and Thinkprogress have portrayed as the devil incarnate for no scientifically supportable reason?)

Follow the Money is sound advice always. The trouble with it is it sometimes forces people to question what they previously believed and what they were previously duped by. I'm sorry to break this to you, but AWG is a HUGE manufactured money maker for the oil companies (more regulations and less drilling equals much higher sale point prices... it is why oil companies were among the largest donors to pro-green liberal campaigns in the past decade.) It is a scam and, unbelievably, it is a scam which the majority has blindly fallen for.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Indeed!
Follow the money!
Well done.

I agree.

It is plant food.

More co2 more bigger faster growing plants.

We aren't very far above the minimum co2 needed for plants to conduct photo synthesis.

a reply to: johnwick

I've heard the exact same argument before and i'll provide a similar answer.

It is only plant food if there are trees to absorb it, and the rate of deferstation vastly outweighs the rate of reforestation. The less trees, the less Co2 is absorbed. Eventually all that excess Co2 has to go somewhere.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You know, Keystone, right? That huge pipeline project that would be a financial boon to the heartland of America which CAP and Thinkprogress have portrayed as the devil incarnate for no scientifically supportable reason?)

No wonder this thread got moved to "Deconstructing Disinformation" Though I am surprised some are adding even more disinformation to the thread such as the above quote.

I wonder did you find any scandals such as Heartlands with tobacco?

If you did I would be inclined to think they are just would be dirty lying filth that can't be trusted to be truthful on any level just like Heartland. So that is where I set the bar at can it be met?

Started by a US politician named Al Gore. Started shortly after his loss in the Presidential election . So he could not take this country for millions , lets try another approach . Remember this man single-handily designed and built the internet. Since he was this talented , he moved his platform to taking the world for billions.And as far as the IPCC goes , it is ran by an ex locomotive engineer . No , not an engineering degree in trains , an actual engineer. And we all know (I hope) what the IPCC is . It is a UN group to study climate change. And those guys are the most trustworthy group in the known Universe , correct ? I mean everything they have been associated with since their inception has turned out beautiful and a blessing to the world , yes ? No way these guys could put out information "adjusted" to justify what they were saying , right ? In summation you actually have to look at the organization that disperses the actions before you make up your mind.
Of course the coming Ice age of the 70s happened , right ? (put out by UN)
And the hole in the Ionosphere of the 80s that would doom life on Earth happened , right ? (put out by the UN)

What this boils down to , there are much better options to control CO2 emissions (and other things) than taxes . Taxes = someone making free money.The US EPA (even though I do not agree with them every time they are in to the regulation = taxes =free money deal as well) they have made serious changes to the US pollution levels , etc over the past 40 years . Why cant each country do their own thing to curtail this ? As an example , Denmark leads the world in wind generated power. Is it not France (correct me if I am incorrect) that has more nuclear generated power ? Both these are clean or near clean methods .

a reply to: here4this

You have got wrong.

Carl Sagan warned about the warming in the 1960's.

Only a handful of scientists jumped on the global cooling bandwagon in the 70's, though the climate change deniers like to pretend that all the scientists said global cooling was happening.

Given the you had to mentioned Al Gore just shows that you really have no argument, it appears you are just trying to throw mud and see what sticks.

It is very interesting how the same people who ran with the Heartland story, were so quick to bash a thinkprogress. Neither group has a good reputation.

a reply to: jrod

Please read my post before you comment and not just the first line or 2. Each decade has brought about a new fear mongering that faded over time.

a reply to: here4this

I read all of your post, please if you post contribute some to the thread, NOT some rant that is barely coherent where you claim things are FACT that is clearly not the case.

I suppose I messed up when I found the thinkprogress link, I should have done a little more research on them, however the hypocrisy that is shown here is amazing.

The same people who blindly ran with the Heartland opinion piece, were the same ones to quickly bash thinkprogress.

Pot meet Kettle.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

I agree.

It is plant food.

More co2 more bigger faster growing plants.

We aren't very far above the minimum co2 needed for plants to conduct photo synthesis.

a reply to: johnwick

I've heard the exact same argument before and i'll provide a similar answer.

It is only plant food if there are trees to absorb it, and the rate of deferstation vastly outweighs the rate of reforestation. The less trees, the less Co2 is absorbed. Eventually all that excess Co2 has to go somewhere.

Yes because trees are the only plants on earth....

Um no.

Phytoplankton absorb more co2 in a day than all the trees on earth in a year.


Yes magically no trees means the co2 had to go somewhere, the green agendas pocketbook?

It is just co2.

It has literally had hundreds of times higher concentrations in the past than we have now.

Guess what happened...

The most out of control explosion of life in the geological history of the planet.

Ever heard of the dinosaurs?

You know giant creatures that ate tons of plants per day. But the plants grew so big so fast it didn't matter.

Nvm, you won't even care about facts, or know historical evidence....you are just another greeny..

a reply to: johnwick

Again with a bunch of BS that you are trying to pass as fact.

Are you familiar with radiative forcing? Resident time calculations?

Do you realize that CO2 and CH4 levels are spiking as a result of the human industrial age, or are you just going to ignore the observations?

The CO2 is plant food and therefore good is actually a logic fallacy: Appeal to Nature.

a reply to: here4this

Started by a US politician named Al Gore. Started shortly after his loss in the Presidential election .

Can you elaborate? What was it that started?

Of course the coming Ice age of the 70s happened , right ? (put out by UN)

You mean the 7 papers three of which were written by the same person who till this day is still calling for an ice age and has been a paid speaker for Heartland?

Yeah, that was some sensational news that was in the minority even back then, the scientific community even then was calling for warming. It made some headlines being reprinted in several sources, but it was still just a few papers while the hundreds if not thousands of others said otherwise.

Not much has changed we still have a few crackpots calling for cooling they were wrong then and wrong now and just like then there are people who buy into their BS.

And the hole in the Ionosphere of the 80s that would doom life on Earth happened , right ? (put out by the UN)

And with sanctions and the removal of aerosols as a global effort we avoided a worst-case or did you forget?