Green Peace Co-founder say we need more CO2, not less.

Apologies in advance if this has been covered earlier, yet I find the information stunning and deserves further comment.

I didn't place this in the fragile earth forum as religious discussions bore me...

www.breitbart.com...

Amazing stuff!

a reply to: nwtrucker

Amazing stuff!

Especially the part where he lied about being a co-founder.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Hmmm, so some say. Forgive me, but some skepticism is warranted. This guy has the credentials and I'd rather see a rebut on the scientific side rather than the traditional character assassination that is today's politics....

I'm sure you understand...

a reply to: nwtrucker

He was not a founding member of Greenpeace, although he was an early draft into their number. The groups origins were in 1970, when the actual founding members were looking into protesting against nuclear testing. Moore got in on the action in 1971.

a reply to: nwtrucker

How about a hand-written letter from him asking to join Green Peace?

I don't know about you, but when someone stands on fabricated credentials then it is fair to say that's a good indication that what he has to say will be fabricated as well.

It has all been posted in the other thread about his re-released letter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Besides when I click on your Breitbart link I get a phishing attack from the server.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nwtrucker

He was not a founding member of Greenpeace, although he was an early draft into their number. The groups origins were in 1970, when the actual founding members were looking into protesting against nuclear testing. Moore got in on the action in 1971.

Well, that's at least when he requested to join.

The letter could be a clever forgery.

Lots of dirty tricks involved in climate change.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, I had trouble as well. Is that what that was?

He was sufficiently well thought of to be given the forward in this book.

Not something an author or publisher is given to do without cause....

a reply to: xuenchen

Amazing that no one seems willing to address the science of this article....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: xuenchen

Amazing that no one seems willing to address the science of this article....

Of course !!

This will get deflected more ways than a superball in a tennis court.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, if that is what you want to believe even though, he hasn't denied it is his letter go right ahead.

Here is the rest of his signed letter along with his signature and phone number. I am not sure if he still has that number though.

scienceblogs.com...

Looks more like he was a paid shill that infiltrated the group to be a better shill IMHO.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: xuenchen

Amazing that no one seems willing to address the science of this article....

Well sort of, I just don't feel like going over the same thing in multiple threads.

The link I posted takes to a thread on his letter where other links have been posted to threads about his letter when it came out last year I think.

Like I said it is a re-released paper. It may even be a re-re-released letter. It seems to pop up when discoveries are made about AGW.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Frankly, I couldn't care less if he claimed to be the Hunch-back of Notre Dame.

It's the science of it that's the purpose of the thread.

Here's some corroborating data:

www.plantsneedco2.org...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Great all you need to do is plant billions of trees and stop deforestation because obviously there is too much C02 for them to keep up or the oceans and lakes wouldn't be turning acidic.

Don't forget you need to cut down mature forests and bury them because mature forests are carbon Neutral and if you don't bury them then a large portion of them get burned returning that same C02 into the atmosphere.


It is great C02 is good for plants but it isn't that great for the rest of the world.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Explain how CO2 isn't good for the rest of the world. An increase of 25% in CO2 and the temperature have flat-lined over the last 18 years.

Add in we've had period of far higher temperatures fairly recently and without the CO2 emissions we enjoy today.

If, in fact the CO2 is beneficial to the plant-life-FOOD-that increase in growth rates would absorb even more of the CO2.

So I ask again, where the threat?

a reply to: Grimpachi

What? CO2 causes 'acidic lakes'? Your joking of course. Neither carbon nor oxygen converts to acid. The sulfuric acid that was occurring years...not decades ago was cause by coal burning and the diesel emissions. Both have been addressed and those lakes have recovered from my understanding anyways.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Explain how CO2 isn't good for the rest of the world.

Let's start with ocean acidification as previously mentioned.

Add in we've had period of far higher temperatures fairly recently and without the CO2 emissions we enjoy today.

Which one do you want to talk about? The last period in earths history temperatures rose this quickly to the point they are now or the cause of that last shift compared to this one?

If, in fact the CO2 is beneficial to the plant-life-FOOD-that increase in growth rates would absorb even more of the CO2.

I already covered that so let me re-post it with some highlights for you.

Great all you need to do is plant billions of trees and stop deforestation because obviously there is too much C02 for them to keep up or the oceans and lakes wouldn't be turning acidic.

Don't forget you need to cut down mature forests and bury them because mature forests are carbon Neutral and if you don't bury them then a large portion of them get burned returning that same C02 into the atmosphere.

C02 is good for plants but it isn't that great for the rest of the world.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Grimpachi

What? CO2 causes 'acidic lakes'? Your joking of course. Neither carbon nor oxygen converts to acid. The sulfuric acid that was occurring years...not decades ago was cause by coal burning and the diesel emissions. Both have been addressed and those lakes have recovered from my understanding anyways.

This isn't funny at all. You mean to say this is the first time you have been told c02 causes ocean acidification? You must be new to this.

What is Ocean Acidification?

The Chemistry

When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

Acid rain has different causes from the same polluting industries and is still a problem though far less in the US. Please tell me you were just picking on the lake comment to avoid OA.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You called me out about this guy on another thread. I think I'll pass on this one. LOL

Edit: I'll reveal the sources of a little of my research about this guy after you called me on him in another thread.

Watson Vs. Moore in the San Francisco Examiner and the Denver Post
www.seashepherd.org...

Patrick Moore


This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."


This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.


Learn more about the threat drilling for methane gas poses to fresh water.

Patrick Moore is an AGW denier and corporate shill. Moore works for the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defence of biotechnology.

Although Moore was once (1981, 1986) a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and subsequently with Greenpeace International, in 2008 Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes." [1]


www.sourcewatch.org...

a reply to: CharlesT

It's cool.


I am just bored at the moment.

It is a popular paper and I don't blame you for bringing it up some websites release it periodically.


The way you handled it has earned my respect.