Posted on 01/20/2011 1:39:27 PM PST by dalight
Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental organization Greenpeace, isn’t too hot about global warming. Appearing on Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney on Thursday, he said global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that “alarmism” is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies. He also said he’s not the only environmentalist that believes like him:
Moore is the author of the book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist,” in which he exposes the green movement and explains why he left the organization.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
This reminds me of Candy Lightner, the women who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. She quit after MADD’s mission changed from raising awareness about the dangers of drunk driving to advocating a return of Prohibition.
Hush! You will upset the greatest global scam since the dawn of recorded history.... =.=
Yea, I understand where you are coming from. Now. What do you say you watch the video and post a comment based on what the guy actually has to say.
Greenpeace questions global warming.
HORRORS
I've cleaned the whipped cream off his suit. He's hated.
Still, he mixes with the wrong people and thinks that "sensible regulation" is politically possible. Last I checked, he's still on board with the Gaia hypothesis.
If you are someone who believes that man does have an obligation to husband this planet's resources and that this can be done in a way that is sensible and places the value of human life first, then this is your guy.
No, he's not. There are a host of decent scientists out there doing real work in habitat management, including me. ;-) Really, I've done more hands-on research in native plant habitat restoration and management in the last few years than Mr. Moore has done in a lifetime.
You will upset the greatest global scam since the dawn of recorded history.... =.=
You don’t think those global scammers are going to give up the $$$ without a fight do you?:)
After reading this again, it sounds overly harsh. I mean, sure, but its not the point. He still is very much an environmentalist, much like the ones I grew up with that loved nature and thought there was a place for people in it.
Yes, he quit because Greenpeace had been hijacked by the left for its own purposes and these began to result in the deaths of humans and imposing solutions which had nothing to do with making this world a better place to live.
He also quotes in a greater context just what is happening on the long time scale. That we are in the midst of a 2 million year ice age at this very moment that has only relented in the last 8000 years. However, normally, in all of the Earths history, the temperature has been much higher because the poles were mostly not covered with Ice over the last 5 Billion years.
He also points out that each degree of additional warmth is a blessing, as it makes it possible to grow more food! If it starts cooling again, starvation and suffering will be the norm and there are some who think this is desirable.
He also points out how the left is blocking the introduction of life saving grains into the third world in its efforts to resist "Capitalism."
Still, he mixes with the wrong people and thinks that "sensible regulation" is politically possible. Last I checked, he's still on board with the Gaia hypothesis.
So is Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, et al. He is definitely a moderate but not a leftie. He is hated because he resists their political goals on the left. He would be hated on the right because he still believes in what brought him to GreenPeace in the first place. But, we all come from different places.
I think perhaps you are showing a bit of professional jealousy. I judge his words by my own knowledge of the subject and he is spot on with what he says. I just started looking at his further writings. But, you are welcome to your opinion. I guess you like being a minority of one though.
Sorry, forgot to include the standard disclaimer ‘Slightly off topic’ ... it just struck me as an interesting parallel.
If you check out that second clip, Varney asks him about this and he calls it just like it is, a scam to bilk foundations and taxpayers out of money while pushing leftist policies via dire threats made out of whole cloth prognostications of the future without any regard to what we already know from science and history.
Good to see you here — I saw the article and was about to ping you.
I like that statement of yours: I’ve cleaned the whipped cream off his suit. He’s hated.
There is probably a very good non-fiction short story in that short couplet.
Its ok. This is why I stopped in shock because it almost looked like a flame when I read it after posting. I was irritated at Varney stopping him, he was on a roll, but actually Varney was right on time and the questions that were asked were very helpful, even though the one was pretty lame in assuming CO2 was still a problem when the guy just said it wasn't, at least not for the reason the Global Warming people propose.
I will let you know that most of us that have been around here 10 or 12 years know that if Carry_Okie says it, you can take it to the bank. I would stack his bona fides up against about anyone you can call on from the conservative side nationwide.
“he quit because Greenpeace had been hijacked by the left”
John Coleman says the same thing about The Weather Channel, except he didn’t name the hijackers.
And David Horowitz says that about the Democrat Party in his book
“The Shadow Party: How the Democrat Party Was Hijacked by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the Sixties Leftists (Amazon - co-authored by Richard Poe)
Letting land lay fallow is a practice that has been part of "the knowledge" of how farming is done for the 50+ years I have been on the planet. The basic idea of a Sabbath for the land is sound but this cannot be done all at one time for a number of reasons so the Biblical prescription never seriously has been implemented over any large area as it seems to imply that this is to be done all at once just like humans observe the Sabbath. I am sure this is not what you are recommending in your book, and I am sure you are a contributor in you specific field
I just don't see your point for attacking someone who is telling the truth because you feel that you have a better version of the truth. When lies are all people know, then folks need to find the truth in ways they can understand it.
Your suggestions may be very successful, but you are first insisting that they accept your frame of reference before considering your ideas. This is a sure ticket to staying marginalized.
Because he is willing to name names and call these people out, he is hated I am sure, just as Carry_Oki says.
I'm not fond of the people with whom he associates. I've read two of his books. We disagree on a number of issues, particularly as regards how to re-establish native post disturbance forbs.
I just started looking at his further writings. But, you are welcome to your opinion. I guess you like being a minority of one though.
No, but thanks anyway.
Pingaro.
Although all of the translations of the Bible say that the land is to "rest and lie fallow" (including Jewish translations, that is not what Exodus 23:11 says in Hebrew. It says "release and abandon" which is not even close to the same. It is a social prescription with an environmental outcome far more sophisticated than anything you can imagine.
The basic idea of a Sabbath for the land is sound but this cannot be done all at one time for a number of reasons so the Biblical prescription never seriously has been implemented over any large area as it seems to imply that this is to be done all at once just like humans observe the Sabbath.
If I told you that the principal reason for the Sabbath for the Land was military, would you believe it? I don't think so, but it is the truth. That is because until Shemitta was written, NOBODY understood what it was truly about for a number of truly tragic historical reasons. There is an excellent rationale for why everyone was to perform it the same year. So, why don't you try reading the material on the site instead of making such a supposition?
I just don't see your point for attacking someone who is telling the truth because you feel that you have a better version of the truth.
I am not "attacking" Mr. Moore. What I said was true. He associates with a claque of globalists and believes in "reasonable" regulation. Whatever that means is necessarily subjective. I am not a fan of politically derived subjective solutions.
Your suggestions may be very successful, but you are first insisting that they accept your frame of reference before considering your ideas. This is a sure ticket to staying marginalized.
I don't think my post insisted on anything. It did criticize regulation as a means of socialization, which is what it is, control being equivalent to ownership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.