• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC said:
greenpeacers mostly don't understand nor care for science. no argument there.
and everyone that says things like "killing the earth" does not understand science.

but it would have mattered alot if he used evidence instead of proof. because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Click to expand...

Greenpeace exists so that eco-hippies can get laid. Not that that is a bad thing.
 
DC said:
but it actually doesn't matter. Moore was surely a very early member.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Early member is not the same as co-founder and even as an early member he’s been an advocate for industries Greenpeace opposes far longer than he we a member of Greenpeace. Whatever you think of Greenpeace, claiming to be a “co-founder” or even citing a relationship with them that ended nearly 3 decades ago in order to make money as an advocate for environmentally destructive industries is dishonest, and citing him as some sort of environmentalist is dishonest.
DC said:
but also that changes absolutely nothing about how extremely wrong he is today with his Claims about AGW.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Nonetheless the storyline of “Greenpeace co-founder says AGW isn’t real still resonates” with some which is why he can sell his services as an industry advocate. While it’s important to point out his lack of real standing regardless of this claim it’s equally important to point out that even this limited claim to credibility is false. Marketing doesn’t have to be honest to be effective, and one of the most effective ways to refute dishonest marking is to shed light on the misrepresentations.
 
lomiller said:
...Agreed. Nonetheless the storyline of “Greenpeace co-founder says AGW isn’t real still resonates” with some which is why he can sell his services as an industry advocate. While it’s important to point out his lack of real standing regardless of this claim it’s equally important to point out that even this limited claim to credibility is false. Marketing doesn’t have to be honest to be effective, and one of the most effective ways to refute dishonest marking is to shed light on the misrepresentations.
Click to expand...

True, but the only people that his Greenpeace cred really has any influence upon are those who are impressed by having a supposed iconic "green" spreading the word of capitalism. Those aren't the ones that are open and thoughtfully considerate of climate change issues to begin with. In general, those individuals are not uncommitted with regards to the science and evidences.
 
Do Moore's assertions carry more weight because his "greenpeaceness" or lack thereof?

Why don't you all better explain this congressional hearings of whatever they are called. It seems many people believe that nothing unimportant or untrue can be said in those hearings. I have here as a simple citizen the right to be heard in the National Congress in any project debated in committees and I can contribute any number of material in support of my opinion. I suppose it is the same there, but you better explain it to everyone that is not in orbit around the United States.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Do Moore's assertions carry more weight because his "greenpeaceness" or lack thereof?
Click to expand...
Rhetorical.

Do they carry less weight because he's a preening scumbag? Also rhetorical.

Do they carry any weight at all? Well, there's the question. Can't honestly say I care what the answer is.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Do Moore's assertions carry more weight because his "greenpeaceness" or lack thereof?
Click to expand...
With some, unfortunately yes. It shouldn’t, but in some cases it does.
Trakar said:
True, but the only people that his Greenpeace cred really has any influence upon are those who are impressed by having a supposed iconic "green" spreading the word of capitalism. Those aren't the ones that are open and thoughtfully considerate of climate change issues to begin with. In general, those individuals are not uncommitted with regards to the science and evidences.
Click to expand...

These will certainly be the ones jumping on it, but I think it’s still something that helps spread doubt in the relatively uninformed but relatively undecided group in the middle. Remember, this isn’t a debate on the evidence it’s a sell the controversy campaign, and IMO this is the type of tool these use, unfortunately with at least some success.
 
greybeard said:
You keep telling us you are a sceptic r-j but you swallow anything that suits your agenda.
Click to expand...
I see your opinion there as the opposite of skepticism, or even science. You just make something up, and act as if it's truth, rather than showing any evidence, or even reasoning for your claim.
greybeard said:
It would have only taken a few minutes for you to find that Greenpeace have proved that he wasn't a founder or even a co-founder.
Click to expand...
As I see in the topic, it doesn't seem to be that simple. Even if I find some claim online, it's often impossible to find a trusted source t prove anything. Does it even matter if he was a founder or not? That is an error, to think the person has much to do with the information. The people reporting the story, and congress, who put up the testimony, shouldn't they do the background to see if it's true or not? Before they put out the information?

Wikipedia (hardly a trusted source at times) doesn't dispute his Greenpeace history. "In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Patrick Moore was elected president. "
greybeard said:
Isn't it ironic that many of these "sceptics" who claim to be exposing some great fraud keep getting caught out lying.
Click to expand...
There you go again. Instead of using evidence to educate about what you consider a lie, you just make a claim, with no evidence.
 
The Canadian ecologist has a long history of disagreeing with many others in the environmental field. For 15 years, he was a leader in the environmental group, until the group took what he described as "a sharp turn to the political left." Moore claims this shift began around 1985. At that point, he claims findings made by the organization were not scientifically sound.

Moore told the committee the IPCC conclusion blaming humans for increasing global temperatures was flawed. He also stated the collaboration between emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and rising temperatures is not proven.
Click to expand...
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...l-in-climate-change-global-warming-debate.htm

Debating if that is true or not, that is the topic at hand. Declaring it all lies might make you feel good, and fellow believers might rejoice, but that doesn't actually advance anything. Just like if somebody claims "that is all true!", it doesn't mean much. It's just an opinion.

It's not science. It's not even a good debate strategy.
 
r-j said:
Wikipedia (hardly a trusted source at times) doesn't dispute his Greenpeace history. "In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Patrick Moore was elected president. "
Click to expand...

Wiki is a great source, but the most important thing you have to do is check if the sources actually support the claim on Wiki. and in this case, 10 and 11 do NOT support the claim at all.

there is no evidence that he was a co founder and there is no evidence that he is not a co founder , it is word (moore) vs word (greenpeace)

try scepticism. it helps getting rid of delusions. i speak of experiance here.
 
r-j said:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...l-in-climate-change-global-warming-debate.htm

Debating if that is true or not, that is the topic at hand. Declaring it all lies might make you feel good, and fellow believers might rejoice, but that doesn't actually advance anything. Just like if somebody claims "that is all true!", it doesn't mean much. It's just an opinion. It's not science. It's not even a good debate strategy.
Click to expand...

indeed its just Moore's opinion, not science. And there are 1000's upon 1000's of scientific studies showing Moore's opinion wrong. with actual science and data.
the IPCC merely presents a summary of our current understanding of AGW.
so Moore would have to explain what about the evidence showing the causal relation of CO2 and rising average global temperatures is wrong. but he doesn't, he jsut voices his opinion. his opinion is not worth more than greenpeace's opinion.
why do you even bring him up? you once claimed to only make scientific posts, yet here you are making opinion posts.
 
lomiller said:
I disagree. Early member is not the same as co-founder and even as an early member he’s been an advocate for industries Greenpeace opposes far longer than he we a member of Greenpeace. Whatever you think of Greenpeace, claiming to be a “co-founder” or even citing a relationship with them that ended nearly 3 decades ago in order to make money as an advocate for environmentally destructive industries is dishonest, and citing him as some sort of environmentalist is dishonest.

Agreed. Nonetheless the storyline of “Greenpeace co-founder says AGW isn’t real still resonates” with some which is why he can sell his services as an industry advocate. While it’s important to point out his lack of real standing regardless of this claim it’s equally important to point out that even this limited claim to credibility is false. Marketing doesn’t have to be honest to be effective, and one of the most effective ways to refute dishonest marking is to shed light on the misrepresentations.
Click to expand...

i didn't want to imply that early member is the same as co founder. but i find it impossible to find out exactly who founded greenpeace. and to me it doesn't matter.
nor does it really matter to anyone else, yes it resonates with deniers, but everything resonates aslong it denies AGW.
 
r-j said:
I see your opinion there as the opposite of skepticism, or even science. You just make something up, and act as if it's truth, rather than showing any evidence, or even reasoning for your claim.
Click to expand...
We see the lack of scepticism all the time in your posts r-j, for instance accepting that the Oregon petition contains the names of over 30,000 scientists.
r-j said:
As I see in the topic, it doesn't seem to be that simple. Even if I find some claim online, it's often impossible to find a trusted source t prove anything. Does it even matter if he was a founder or not? That is an error, to think the person has much to do with the information. The people reporting the story, and congress, who put up the testimony, shouldn't they do the background to see if it's true or not? Before they put out the information?

Wikipedia (hardly a trusted source at times) doesn't dispute his Greenpeace history. "In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Patrick Moore was elected president. "
Click to expand...
No it doesn't matter to me at all but I wasn't the one who highlighted the claim here. That was you.
r-j said:
There you go again. Instead of using evidence to educate about what you consider a lie, you just make a claim, with no evidence.
Click to expand...
Where do we start. Well you could start here
or here
or here. Climate change denialism can't really exist without untruths or conspiracy theories. How else can they explain that the vast majority of peer reviewed science points to AGW being a fact.
 
lomiller said:
With some, unfortunately yes. It shouldn’t, but in some cases it does.
Click to expand...

I fail to see a reason. Maybe there's a need for new threads about the politics in global warming and the social scape and global warming. I suppose this thread to be about global warming happening, if it's happening and why it's happening, if it's happening. I fail to see how focusing in Moore's credentials and not in Moore's sayings -which are not that important nor interesting- have to do with this thread's topic.
 
aleCcowaN said:
The Oregon petition? Are people still talking about it?
Click to expand...

oh yes, just a few days ago someone debunked the 97% consensus by telling me that 32 000 scientists from the US signed the petition.... those 0.5% of US scientist totally debunks the consensus :D
 
DC said:
oh yes, just a few days ago someone debunked the 97% consensus by telling me that 32 000 scientists from the US signed the petition.... those 0.5% of US scientist totally debunks the consensus :D
Click to expand...

This certainly reinforces my perception that funding has been detoured from anti-AGW science towards political campaigns to elevate politicians of any ideology that still can believe the old memes.

And your definition of scientist may be extremely broad, as 32,000 are the 0.5% of 6.4 million, and I find difficult to believe that in the USA there might be 6.4 million people with actual scientific education and background -with a scientific varnish, there are endless millions, there and everywhere-. Your dentist is not a scientist. An expert in a trial may be sometimes a scientist, but it is not expected to be that.
 
aleCcowaN said:
This certainly reinforces my perception that funding has been detoured from anti-AGW science towards political campaigns to elevate politicians of any ideology that still can believe the old memes.

And your definition of scientist may be extremely broad, as 32,000 are the 0.5% of 6.4 million, and I find difficult to believe that in the USA there might be 6.4 million people with actual scientific education and background -with a scientific varnish, there are endless millions, there and everywhere-. Your dentist is not a scientist. An expert in a trial may be sometimes a scientist, but it is not expected to be that.
Click to expand...

According to the Oregon petition, as long as you checked the "scientist" (or "engineer") box you were pretty much counted as such. Even if the degree you claimed was an ASc in programming. I may be exaggerating a little bit,
...but, just a little bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom