Greenpeace founder thinks climate change is a scam

Damn.... The guy with the P.H.D. in Ecology thinks climate change is B.S.!! He is anti science? Tear this guy apart. Hit me with the knowledge guys. Climate change go. What a quack. Pseudo scientist. How could anyone with a PHD in Ecology and founded Green Peace know anything about climate change?

 

So, climate change stuff starts at around 9 minutes in.

Patrick Moore's main argument is that the earth is warming due to natural processes, and that the warming is normal for the earth and is not caused by human activity (he says that there is a correlation that does not indicate causation). A slight warming would be beneficial, and Moore says that a catastrophe is not coming as a result.

Moore is completely correct when he says that a consensus doesn't guarantee correctness. Arguments for and against different climate change theories are based on long-term predictions. Rigorous scientific and statistical analysis result in predictions, and we won't know for sure who was right until 100 years have passed. Our planet is complicated. Policy decisions should be based on the safest bet, and currently most of the world thinks that siding with consensus is the safest bet.

Moore loses me when he says that human-caused catastrophic climate change scientists are all essentially bribed with public funding to promote fear. This is not how scientific debate works. If these scientists are publishing papers with sound statistical analysis and logical conclusions, then they are producing quality science, regardless of who pays them, and should be respected as such, not subjected to conspiracy theories. If they produce biased papers, withdraw those papers. Moore mentioned that a journal refused to publicize any anti-climate change paper, and I agree that this isn't the best approach. Let scientists debate properly, and may the truest paper win.

I'm of the opinion that this isn't an appropriate subject for debate on youtube interviews or poxnora offtopic forums. Having an opinion or being part of either consensus is worthless. Whoever makes a truly conclusive paper will be the one who is right. All we can do is try to make this planet as livable as possible while we're on it.

 

Only in America is making the earth a better place a scam.


Also, the obsession with token X people in America is stupid. Just because a black guy in a nice suit says he's never had issues with the police, doesn't make the statistics of police vs black relations any different.

The absolute overwhelming majority of the scientific community confirms climate change to have manmade causes. You're simply anti-intellectual if you say otherwise, period.

Im goddamn tired of ignorance somehow being a valid opinion.

 

I don't know if it's really considered a 'scam' besides the fact that fat cats don't want to lose money so they provide false evidence.

 

business and industry leaders in the Netherlands actually would support a green cabinet and a move towards greener and more sustainability because they have grandchildren and stuff.

the willingness of Americans to wait untill it is too late to do anything about it is amazing.
this is why the levies around new orleans sucked, because they wait for things to be too late to prevent greater disaster. anyways seems he disagrees that it is human caused which is fair enough but we should still make efforts to mitigate the effects if it is natural.

are you done throwing your little tantrum @profhulk ?

 

Not all of them are unfortunately. There have been multiple instances of climate research using incomplete or even falsified data, generally picked to support a specific conclusion or model. This generally came out through leaks from people working on the projects (and presumably weren't happy with the science); and more climatologists have become disenchanted with consensus over time.

While true scientific research doesn't bend to the whims of expectation or funding bias, scientists themselves are still in the end people; and as such may end up sucked into such things.

Agreed, mostly. I don't think there's a problem with people expressing their views even on such media. In that spirit:

My "worthless" opinion: Even if CO2 human-based climate change is not a thing I don't see any problems at all with pursuing renewable energy production such as Solar and probably Wind*. Or, for that matter, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953415300052


However, I do not necessarily agree with all the proposed "solutions" to climate change being something that inherently improves the planet's livability or long-term quality of life for those on it. I would not be surprised at all if a lot of people took on the "there's no human climate change anyway" side of things simply to oppose those "solutions"; though if so I think that's a flawed way to go about it.



*(There's actually quite a few problems with Wind energy compared to Solar, though I believe much of this can be resolved with continued advances and innovation.)

 

Why do you hate Galileo so much?

 

Exactly, this subject should never have been politicised in the first place. It distorts everything.

I wonder if this politicisation - by which I mean making it become a tribal left/right issue - is intentional. It does seem to benefit fossil fuel companies (and others that like cheap energy) that it becomes something that half of people will unthinkingly dismiss.

If politicians were not worrying about the politics, they would surely weigh up the economics, but they would also take the sciencentific consensus as writ.

That politicians can see their hostility to climate change, and their cosy relationship to gigantic oil companies as a vote winner (or their opposition to this effect) just shows how distorted it is.

 

policy should be based on the safest bet? does that apply to what immigrants you let into your country?

that aside, what if your goal is to increase the quality of life for your citizens? what is the safest bet then? tell them to live in the dark? its always going to be a tradeoff. so if you want to claim that increasing my quality of life in some way isn't worth the trade off, you have to PROVE it. not say, well I MIGHT be right and we should play it safe so.... nope. doesn't fly.

 

oh put a sock in it Ragic, take your idiocy elsewhere, we get it by now, you're proud to be ignorant

 

iow, you cant prove ****. sell your snake oil to the Indians mate.

 

it is, what drugs you on?

 

At this point we're just waiting for Trump to pass his "tremendous" health care bill so we can go back to killing off 44k Americans per year. Good riddance.

 

And if it is an area where absolute proof is impossible?

 

We call it "religion."

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

Just love bringing up a touchy subject like climate change. Get to see who is truly going to educate me on it and who is going to rage out and call people names. I was not surprised. All my prediction on how each of you would respond have come true, and rewarding. Burn's head exploded LOL. I love you guys. Never change. Pox forums are so much fun.

 

pretend you were opening a discussion all you want mr puppetmaster defense. climate change has been discussed to death in this forum and you have never been open to reasonable discussion about it.

you are so transparent people are confused which bathroom you are allowed to use.

 

I don't use bathrooms. I dig a hole or pee on trees.

 

*hah I was just pretending to be my usual stupid self, got 'em*


Only morons take pride in ignorance.