Greenpeace co-founder says ‘no scientific proof’ humans cause climate change

Apr 2011
37,967
12,803
Under your skin
#5
Obviously you aren't an american liberal or a european or you'd know it's not a scientific theory but fact.


I wil ltake that as a compliment. Thank you.

It is the height of hubris to think that our ever changing weather patterns can be so easily explained.
 
Jul 2013
51,537
54,795
Nashville, TN
#6
No surprise:

Moore's views and change of stance (see above) have evoked controversy in environmentalist arenas. He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter".[22][46] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[22] 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 such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[39] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."

In 2007 The Guardian reported on his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[32] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website.[33] In 2010, Moore was commissioned by forestry giant Asia Pulp and Paper to report on its logging activity in Indonesia's rainforests, resulting in a glowing review.[34]
Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just another corporate whore.
 

metheron

Former Staff
Nov 2006
14,266
4,164
MI
#9
wow and it only took 6 posts before someone accused him of being a shill for big business.....
Thats the m.o. right? If they waiver try to discredit them and kick them out of the club without even acknowledging their point?

Pretty typical all the way around, from all sides.
 
Likes: 2 people
Nov 2010
23,156
14,833
#10
The entire argument is dishonest as for "proof" that man is causing global warming.

If one wants to refute it, then argue the scientific reasoning scientist believe that emissions are causing global warming. instead, they do the "you can't prove it" which for one, bastardizes what science actually does, and also by their standards is impossible. They will go "how do you know this wouldn't happen if humans were here".

If one really wanted to argue against it being man made, they would provide evidence and data and scientific rationale to counter the valid scientific reasons as to how increase CO2 and other emissions work to increase warming.
 
Likes: 3 people