Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change

Don't question the gov'ment and don't question those that support the gov'ments position.

"Off to the re-education camps with you."

 

One of less than 3% that denies climate change.

 

Ya know... conservatives spout this sort of baseless tripe all day on this forum. I'm glad I don't get my worldview from tabloids.

 

Cough, cough.

Who's denying "Climate Change"? Certainly not I. The Earth, the Sun, the Solar System IS going to do what it does....

Just recommend begin questioning...ALL positions.

 

A LOT of conservatives not only deny man caused climate change, they deny climate change is happening period.

My sister is one of them. In the decade I grew up in Nashville, the city got a hundred total inches of snow. In the last ten its gotten a collective 25 inches. the decades in between show a downward slope all the way to the present. She still lives in Nashville, but she won't believe her own eyes.

She also sends me crap via email about Obama not being born in America and (*)(*)(*)(*) like that. She once sent me a freaking Onion article because she thought it was real.

 

OK, let's reverse it abit, K?

"A LOT of liberals/progs/statists do not even question. They just take their lil walking orders, bow and obey...never mind there ARE/IS a whole lot of gaps and inclusive determined proof that mankind is the cause. Actually, there is None.

Dude, the earth has been climate changing since its inception...and, at times severely so. Don't become so arrogant to think we silly humans can govern the universe, yet alone the climate.

Mother nature will smack you down otherwise in a moment.

Guess, you may not be very open minded or questioning.

 

He's not a climate scientist and he has no credibility.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-at-the-former-green/198266

He also didn't even co-found Greenpeace.

He's a corporate shill

 

How much cred to climate "scientists" have?

Corp shrill?

Gov shrill?

Some other agenda shrill?

 

Your the one discounting the innumerable peer reviewed papers and articles that show current rapid climate change is in fact partially, or wholly due to human activity. This isn't even the first time human have influenced the climate. The Mongols killed so many people in the thirteenth century (upwards of 15% of world population) that so much land was able to return to wilderness that the human race actually went carbon negative for the first and only time in recorded human history and we entered a short period of global cooling in part because of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hard data that can be corroborated and experiments that if repeated, will yield the same results. The same as any other type of scientists.

 

"A short period of global cooling" around the same time the Little Ice Age was starting was because of the Mongols?

That's gotta be true!!

Khan!!!!!

 

You didn't read the information presented on the site, did you?? It uses foundational meteorlogical science, backed by DOE reports, geologists, meteoroligists and oddly enough no one making projections, just reporting on what IS. It's what ALL climate research should be starting with and if a projection fails to match these numbers, then the projection is incorrect. AGAIN, if you were told by someone that 2+4=9, you wouldn't accept that as fact, no matter who told it to you. What this site is showing is the foundations of climate research. Take the time to read it with an open mind. Don't start with an attitude of "This is a bunch of garbage.", try to look at it openly and objectively. Check the references, check the numbers and see if you can accept that just maybe what you've been told is true really isn't.

 

If the Liberals don't like this scientist... then they are going to hate one of the original Global Warming Scientist who has turned away from the flawed claims.

Meet... Liberal Socialist... Claude Allegre'

Of course the "Progressives" began their regular attack campaign on old Socialist Claude as soon as his scientific mind turned on their bull crap.

 

Peer review: Really? And you just say...yes? I know today's school system is delivering below results (go figure) but do you just take what they tell you as gospel? Do you even question? Or even attempt too?

Carbon so? Mongols so?

CO2 is plant food



Hard data that can be corroborated and experiments that if repeated, will yield the same results. The same as any other type of scientists.[/QUOTE]

 

Sorry, but I am in favor with having a "political agenda" of PRESSING THE DAMN BRAKES when science indicates we are approaching a brick wall at 100 MPH, relative to normal geological temperature changes.

 

[/QUOTE]

And you say no? Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you to discount over 97% of the scientific community, all of which have more knowledge on the subject than you?

I can see it happening with my own eyes. The decade I grew up in Nashville there was a hundred total inches of snow. In the last decade there has only been twenty five, and its been a steady downward slope all the way to now.

 

Yep, the climate changes right before your eyes. BTW, the 97% was a poll of buds of a cartoonists website that read papers and "decided" if they were for CAGW or not. Many of the papers authors objected so that has been debunked a long time ago.

 

Plenty of doubt about that as the climate models have missed the mark. We have oversimplified both the problem and solution, and that the climate model command-and-control strategy for climate policy is dangerous.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art31/

 

Where do deniers get this silly idea that climate models have not been accurate or are somehow unreliable?


https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

 

You are repeating a lie, but then it's not surprising given the track record of the Watts high priest.

 

MIT and the IPCC and the actual temperatures missing the mark.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not my problem that you don't know the history behind the 97% figure.

 

BTW the 97% statistic has been reconfirmed numerous times. This is from last year: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

Sorry, but the guy that came out with the 97% can hardly be the guy that would be relied upon to confirm his own work. It is funny that Cook narrows it down to get the 97% instead of the actual number. If you take the original number and follow his percentages, only 21% endorsed the consensus. A far cry from 97%. The 97% comes from the papers that were weeded out of those that did not support AGW so the 97% is very misleading.

On top of that, they did not canvas all of the writers of the papers since many of the papers were co-written and many of those that have responded to the 97% said that Cook misrepresented their work. A better poll would be to actually poll the scientists instead of interpreting their papers.

That is how Cook, the cartoonist, works and his propaganda site is his experiment in "communications".

 

Climate change is real and is man made this is now established fact. The debate is over your voices are no longer to be heard. If you don't want to address the problem we will simply close the door in your face and act without you people.

 

Then why is it the models have proven to be in error.

Always makes chuckle at people who refer to those who disagree with them as "you people".

 

Sigh...another misleading title. He is not the co-founder of Greenpeace, he joined about a year after it started and left in the 80s to become a corporate lobbyist. He's been called a "traitor" by environmentalists for a long time, and runs his own PR firm for which the fossil fuel industry is a prime client. I'm not sure which is sadder; the fact that these stories can be dismantled with a simple Google search, or that so many would rather take everything they read at face value.