Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Earth Science Politics

Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic 573

New submitter PensacolaSlick writes that [Patrick Moore a], co-founder of Greenpeace, and seven-year director of Greenpeace International, with other very pro-environmental credentials, has come out with a brief rationale for why he is "skeptical that humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future." He argues instead that in a historical context, human activity has saved the planet, declaring that "at 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide." (Consider the source, which according to the New York Times is "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.") Moore breaks with what might be expected of a Greenpeace founder as well in that he is currently chair of Allow Golden Rice.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Comments Filter:
  • by casings ( 257363 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @04:47PM (#49309967)

    But of course that fact won't get people to click on your article.

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @05:05PM (#49310037)

      Modern Greenpeace is doing things like defacing ancient monuments thousands of years old [] to spread propaganda. If this guy WERE with Greenpeace any time recently I would have cause to question his sanity and/or motives... instead he seems like a guy that actually cares about the environment instead of money or publicity.

      • by ciaran2014 ( 3815793 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:44PM (#49310495) Homepage

        "One strike, you're out Greenpeace!"

        Thanks for the 45 years of environmental activism, it was nice knowin' ye.

        (I assume you hold companies to the same standard.)

        • Absolutley (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:58PM (#49310589)

          "One strike, you're out Greenpeace!"

          If that strike is destroying monuments thousands of years old and causing irreparable damage to a very fragile desert ecosystem - yes, absolutely I would be strongly against ANY entity that did that, but more importantly didn't even consider it to be a problem.

          Thanks for the 45 years of environmental activism, it was nice knowin' ye.

          Greenpeace has not helped the environment in any meaningful way for at least two decades now. I consider helping them to be morally as questionable as supporting human trafficking, especially since you are taking away funds to help groups that actually help the environment instead of themselves (like the Nature Conservancy).

          • Conveniently ignore that greenpeace apologized and acknowledged it made a mistake.

          • Re:Absolutley (Score:4, Interesting)

            by epine ( 68316 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @10:40PM (#49311411)

            If that strike is destroying monuments thousands of years old and causing irreparable damage to a very fragile desert ecosystem - yes, absolutely I would be strongly against ANY entity that did that, but more importantly didn't even consider it to be a problem.

            I take it then that you'll be pretty negative toward the American administration who oversaw the destruction or loss of a substantial slice of cultural artifacts held in trust on behalf of the entire Iraqi civilization.

            "The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over and over and over. And it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase. And you see it 20 times. And you think, my goodness, were there that many vases?" Rumsfeld told reporters. "Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?"

            This from the man who likely repeated the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" times beyond measure. My goodness, is it possible that there were any WMD in the whole country?

            the true figure was around 15,000 items, including 5,000 extremely valuable cylinder seals

            Perhaps Rumsfeld hates all museums with the same uniform, searing passion, but I suspect he might have summarized the matter differently if 15,000 items walked out of the Smithsonian, including personal artifacts brought over to American on the Mayflower that were already so venerable they predated Constantine.

            Now to deal with the article at hand:

            If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth.

            If he thinks this trend could have continued deep into the extirpation of the chlorophyllosphere, he's badly in need of that new ultrasound treatment used to cure Alzheimer's disease in the mice model.

            Epic fail. Crank dismissed.

        • by potpie ( 706881 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @10:09AM (#49313257) Journal
          Perpetuating famine in Zambia by spreading rumors about the dangers of GMOs was a pretty big strike. I'd like to believe that Greenpeace's role in it was exaggerated, that their position isn't really so offensive to famine-stricken countries planting corn that's modified to grow quicker and more dense, so I searched their website for "Zambia." This came up: [].

          Some gems from the article:

          Disgracefully, hunger and desperation have become the Genetic Engineering industry's best tools to penetrate the developing world's food supply.

          Starving people still deserve the dignity of choice.

      • by ciaran2014 ( 3815793 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:57PM (#49310583) Homepage

        And the article you link to doesn't mention that the Peruvian government lets the Dakar Rally use said monument as part of its route.

        Is it possible there's politics involved in approving race cars but criticising environmental activists who wear normal shoes instead of special shoes?

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @05:08PM (#49310051) Homepage Journal

      And apparently he's a "founder" of Greenpeace in the same sense that Willie Soon is a Harvare-Smithsonian astrophysicist -- which is to say he's worked with them.

      So the headline should read, "Oil industry funded think tank announces that a guy who used to belong to Greenpeace is a climate denialist."

      Not exactly prime clickbait.

  • by plazman30 ( 531348 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @04:49PM (#49309973) Homepage

    Though I do believe humans are doing a good job of trashing the environment, I have always felt like Global Warming was being used as a scare tactic, much like those "Repent and be saved!" guys that stand on street corners and preach about the end of days.

    Is Global Warming happening now? Yep, it appears it is. Is mankind the only cause of this phenomenon? I'm not 100% sure on that, and if we don't keep looking to see what's really going on, we may be in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future. when though our best efforts at curbing carbon emmisions, we still end up screwed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Pretty much my veiw point. Does human activity cause some manifestations in the weather that are excacerbated by current climate change, I'm sure it does. Is "global warming" 100% human caused, I doubt it very much. To many conflicting arguments as far as I can tell.

    • by west ( 39918 )

      There's nothing stopping (and in fact, it seems almost a certainty) that Man-made Global Warming is real *and* is being used as a scare tactic by some people.

      When billions are presented with the same crisis, you can expect there to be a multitude of different responses, including those who seek to capitalize upon it by denying its existence, and those seeking to capitalize upon it by promoting its existence.

      In the last Ebola crisis, I'm certain there were people recruiting for their Church as a cure ("it's

    • by u38cg ( 607297 )
      Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No. This stuff isn't up for debate; it's as established science as evolution and planetary motion. Unlike evolution, though, there are a lot of people with a financial interest in the status quo and therefore strive (often honestly) to show that AGW is not true.
    • by toejam13 ( 958243 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @05:57PM (#49310293)

      You've hit on one of the main issues with Global Warming. How much of it is a man made issue and how much of it is due to natural causes? There are a few reports that suggest that the ice caps on Mars are slowly receding too, so it may be in part due to changing solar activity. I see the next battle being exactly how much human activities are to blame.

      Having said that, the debate over Global Warming is distracting in how it steers the conversation away from all of the other problems man-made pollution are causing. CO2 emissions appear to be the main factor in ocean acidification. Particulate pollution is a main factor in changing evaporation rates, rainfall frequency and lung disease. Nitrogen oxides contribute to acid rain. Heavy metals and radioactive metals from coal have a number of adverse health effects. Improper fracking installations can contaminate ground water. Tailing ponds can leak and contaminate surface water.

      All of this seems to have taken a back seat. To be honest, I wonder if energy companies are quietly happy about this. Global Warming has so many shades of gray that it is easy for energy interests to dismiss it and for people to believe them. Traditional pollution is a lot more black and white, making it hard to wave away as quack science. Changing the conversation is a fantastic way to stop talking about it.

      Because if we were talking about how 40-year old coal and oil fired power plants skirt modern pollution controls by doing upgrades under the guise of "repairs", allowing them to keep their grandfathered pollution limits, I think people would be really pissed. What's the point of companies like GE and Hitachi advertising their modern cleaner power plants during the nightly news when nobody is forced to buy them? If that was the center of topic, there would be a better chance of it changing.

      • by itzly ( 3699663 )

        There are a few reports that suggest that the ice caps on Mars are slowly receding too, so it may be in part due to changing solar activity.

        If you're curious about possible solar activity, wouldn't it be smarter to look directly at the sun ? []

      • by plazman30 ( 531348 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:34PM (#49310443) Homepage

        I read the study on the Martian polar ice caps. I also read that all the planets in the inner solar system are heating up at the same rate. When you mention stuff like this, the Global Warming guys flip and jump down your throat that you can't use data from other planets to predict what's happening on Earth.

        There was also a great article on how the polar ice caps are refreezing at the fastest rate ever.

        The problem here is that the people on the side of man-made global warming think every mention of the fact that this may be a natural phenomenon or just temporary automatically makes you some kind of industry shill. That is far from the case. I think it's the job of every scientist to continuously question and test. No one should assume man-made global warming is 100% truth at this point.

        And I do agree that is distracting poeple from many other problems. I hear combating global warming all the time, but no one EVER talks about cleaning up the Great Pacific Garage Patch []. The average Global Warming advocate that would call you an industry shill, doesn't even know what the Garbage Patch is. Or they don't know that Wind Turbines for electricity production kill bats by the thousands. Or that the Toyota Prius battery factory in Canada is slowly destroying the environment around it.

        When I mention any of this stuff, they get outraged, and continue to call me an industry shill. Which I am not. I'm trying to show them that Global Warming is NOT the greatest crisis to face mankind. Cause before that the greatest crisis was power lines causing cancer. And before that, it was acid rain. And before that was the Ozone Layer. Before that, a new ice age was coming. There's always some crisis out there that the media brings to the forefront. Global Warming is just the latest attempt to sensationalize headlines, use "carbon neutral" as a marketing term to sell products and keep you scared that this crisis is far worse than the last one that was supposed to wipe us out and didn't.

        • by wish bot ( 265150 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @07:37PM (#49310785)

          Part of the reaction you might be getting is that many of these 'counter arguments' have been shown to be:

          - outright fabrication
          - cherry picking of data
          - intentional misleading analysis

          Things like the polar ice is a great example - there is a local phenomena of sea ice generation, but it doesn't refute the bigger picture of constant warming ocean and land temperatures. It is being studied by a number of teams, and will eventually expand our knowledge of the planet and its systems, but it doesn't change any of the argument to date.

          I also want to say that you're not being terribly consistent when you complain others call you 'shill', and you then go on to give the 'sheeple' argument that society is being manipulated into a crisis mentality to simply sell some products. That's being hugely insulting and completely disingenuous to your skepticism. It shows the bias and lack of understanding you're investing into the sceptical position that you've decided to take.

          You could take your ozone issue as an example - it wasn't just some crackpot genius marketing idea to sell new aerosol cans, it was a genuine issue that still effects everything everything in the lower southern hemisphere. It could have been catastrophic, but action was taken and the problem has stabilised (and begun to recover). I would also argue that most environmentalists are fully aware of issues like the Pacific Garbage Patch, and there are plenty of active campaigns to reduce waste in all forms. However, there is an element of relative urgency in all things, and just like you wouldn't complain to the doctor about the scratch on your arm when you need to be discussing your cancer treatment, plenty of people are naturally focusing on the perceived bigger environmental threat of global warming,

      • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:46PM (#49310523)

        It's somewhat important to know how much is man-made vs natural (a question we are not very close to answering).

        I think a way more important question though is, how much warming is too much? We know from historical temperature data that the warming we are supposed to see now in about 200 years, will be still a bit below the medieval warm period.

        But if it continued beyond that, is there some point ay which we should consider drastic measures like climate engineering? I don't see a lot of studies that seem to be able to predict at all what happens as the climate gets slowly warmer over time (at least they have done a terrible job at predicting that so far).

        We should not forget that the most dangerous thing of all would be to have the climate cooling, so to whatever degree man affects the climate, we should try to err on the side of warming. Energy is life, a frozen Earth is death for many.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pitchpipe ( 708843 )
      I don't fucking get it: you believe that global warming is happening, yet you reject the theory that scientists have put forth to explain the phenomenon. A theory well grounded in science, that makes predictions that we see coming true every day, and that the vast majority of experts actually working in the field subscribe to. A phenomenon for which no other plausible (at this juncture) theory has been put forth.

      Do you ever feel the need to examine why you so strongly want to disbelieve the theory?

      • by plazman30 ( 531348 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @07:04PM (#49310615) Homepage

        I don't need to examine anytihng.

        The theory, as put forth, does a relatively good job of explaining MOST of the things we are seeing at present. The model has some issues with the Mideval mini ice-age and the peroid of significantly reduced polar ice that happened after that. It did a horrible job of predicitng the polar ice refreezing that happened 2 or 3 years ago.

        And right now, the theory is being used as an excuse for everything. We had a record hurrincane year 2 years ago. We actually went through the whole alphabet and then some. Scinetists were all over the news telling us this is a result of global warming, since the oceans are now warmer. They said it fit the model to a tee, and that it's just going to get worse from year out. Last year was the mildest hurricane season they had seen in a long time. Global Warming was being used by meteorologists as the cause for the polar vortexes that dropped temperatures down into the single and negative digits.

        So, yeah, global warming has been well studied, but it's not the damn be-all, end-all for how this planet does shit. Everythig bad that happens on the planet is not the result of the CO2 levels in the air. And all the work you do to try and save our asses from rising temparatures will be meaningless when the Yellowstone Supervolcanoe erupts and takes out half the country, which "well established science" said should have erupted close to 20 years ago.

        I was a research biologist for a number of years, and it sickens me how many people these days make the data fit the theory, rather than making the theory fit the data

        Like I said in a previous post, infra-red imaging of the inner planets in our solar system shows them heating up at a rate similar to Earth. But, say that out loud and people like you friggin flip out.

        • It did a horrible job of predicitng the polar ice refreezing that happened 2 or 3 years ago.

          Good, because if the models predicted events that did not happen, that would be a bad sign for them. The "polar ice refreezing" that you are refering to didn't happen. Polar ice did rebound from a record low, which it was widely expected to do. In fact, every record low polar ice year is followed by a few years that are higher than the record low before until we reach the next record low. However, the overall trend is still downward.

          Global Warming was being used by meteorologists as the cause for the polar vortexes that dropped temperatures down into the single and negative digits.

          From my understanding, that is correct. Warming in the arctic is chang

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @04:51PM (#49309981)

    ... follow the money.

  • by zwede ( 1478355 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @04:52PM (#49309989)
    1) Was the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm a historic low?
    2) Was the level decreasing before the industrial revolution?
    3) Is there a minimum level of CO2 plants need to grow and if so, what is it?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21, 2015 @05:43PM (#49310215)

      1. Yep, the historic low was about 150 to 200 thousand yeas ago (the lowest was around 300 million years ago...give or take).

      2. Yep, its been trending "down" that way for the last 600 million years. Nifty chart from the University of California []

      3. They do, but it varies from plant to plant. During the late Pleistocene, CO2 concentrations were 25% to 50% lower than at present, declining to values of 180 ppm during glacial periods. Studies have been done on plants growing with less then 50ppm (to find fast growing breeds). I would say under 30ppm would be the breaking point but could be as low as 25ppm...or even 15 on some high altitude/slow growing tree strains like firs and redwoods (some plants can go much lower but only like 5% of the ones we know of).

      • by ptudor ( 22537 )

        Yay UCSD and Roger Revelle! More charts [] of the Keeling Curve, which passed 400 three months ago. "1700 to Present" is my favorite.

        I'm still totally amazed people can't look at a before and after of the summer ice in the Arctic or glaciers in Patagonia and Glacier National Park and make the leap that, "Okay, releasing carbon from long-dead dinosaurs in the form of petroleum and coal results in atmospheric carbon dioxide which warms and expands oceans and makes ice melt."

        Okay, fine, here's a link to pictures []

    • Not historic (read on about low levels in the Wisconsin), but probably low in the Holocene. Part of the issue (and the reason for "probably") is that plant stoma give a different answer than ice cores. Both methods of determining Holocene CO_2 levels have their problems, but arguably the ice cores have more. Since it is low in the Holocene, yes, they were slowly descending. The climate was cooling, culminating in the Little Ice Age, which is still recorded as being very likely the coldest stretch in the last 11,000 years post the Younger Dryas. Since the ocean takes up more CO_2 as it cools, it is not implausible that CO_2 was as low as it had been for order of 12,000 years, BUT plant stoma show CO_2 level varying by almost an order of magnitude more than ice cores, and with a somewhat different mean behavior. So it is possible that it actually varies naturally on a century timescale by at least 30 or 40 ppm and it wasn't an actual low. Still, both are plausible and supported by evidence.

      Plants get very sad (IIRC) at around 160 ppm, which is the level at which mass extinction of at least some kinds of plants becomes possible. During the last glaciation (the Wisconsin) the low-water CO_2 level was around 180 ppm, which is, in fact, really, really close to the critical point. Since carbon tends to be systematically removed from the environment by a variety of processes (such as shellfish growing their carbonate shells and a colder ocean absorbing more) we (the planetary ecosystem) might or might not have been in serious trouble in the next glacial episode. More than the trouble caused by the fact that there are all of these kilometer thick glaciers where things like New York and Montreal are today and the pretty serious effect of global cooling by 5 to 10 C in a stretch of time as short as a century, if we can believe parts of the fossil record and icepack cores from places like Greenland.

      Finally, there is absolutely no doubt that plants are much happier with 400 ppm than they were at 280 or 300 or 320 ppm. Plants grow faster, are healthier, and are more productive at higher CO_2 levels. This is known both from lab work (greenhouses with controlled CO_2) and from observations of crop yields and tree growth rates in the real world. Plants would be happier still with 1000 ppm. Over almost all of the last 600 million years, atmospheric CO_2 has been anywhere from 1000 ppm to 7000 ppm. Levels as low as 300 ppm are extremely rare and yes, probably dangerous to the biosphere.

      We will now return to your regularly scheduled rants about "warmists" and "deniers" and hatin' "C-AGW" without questioning the "C".


    • No CO2 has gone down to as low as 150ppm, 120ppm is considered a point of no return where sufficient amounts of plants die to trigger a mass extinction.

  • Climate Engineering (Score:4, Informative)

    by BECoole ( 558920 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @04:56PM (#49310003)

    If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do.
    It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.

    • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @05:18PM (#49310111) Homepage

      However, at our stage of understanding the system, climate engineering is probably not such a good thing to be doing. The planet isn't an experiment that we can easily clean up after we make a mess. We can't 'nuke it from orbit' just to make sure.

      That is a major issue with the carbon sequesters and everybody else. We're really running in the dark. We need to put quite a bit more energy (pun intended) into understanding the system before we blithely go and tinker with it (like we are doing at present).

    • by itzly ( 3699663 )

      It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.

      There was no imminent threat of an ice age. These things take thousands of years. And at the current rate of CO2 production, we can prevent an ice age in decades.

    • by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:06PM (#49310335) Journal

      It would increase the range of latitudes for food production
      It would not. northern and southern latitudes unusable for food production have the dreaded polar day and polar night cycle.
      It is irrelevant as it leaves a band of deserts closer to the equator anyway.
      and mitigate future ice ages
      Wow ... a thing that might destroy your own property or that of your children - and where you have full control about by reducing CO2 production - is less important than a thing that will happen in 100,000 years and you have no control about?

  • They try to debate us because they can't answer the experts.
  • by Layzej ( 1976930 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @04:56PM (#49310007)
    Needless to say, scientists disagree. Patrick Moore shows he knows little of science when he says "There is no scientific proof." There is very compelling evidence, but there is no such thing as "Scientific proof".

    He laughably accuses scientists of being in the pay of vested interests all the while being a PR front for fossil fuel interests such as the Heartland Institute that published this very piece.

    His 'argument' amounts to long debunked talking points.

    He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.

    He shows he hasn't looked at paleoclimate reconstructions which show that the Earth has been generally cooling for the last 8000 years and that the current temperatures are likely higher than at least the last couple thousand.

    The rest of his argument boils down to simple incredulity, which is not very compelling.

    • by Layzej ( 1976930 )

      He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.

      Honestly, there's a whole chapter on it []. He could have figured this just by reading the headers.

    • Patrick Moore shows he knows little of science when he says "There is no scientific proof

      there is no such thing as "Scientific proof".

      so, ummm yeah?

      • by Layzej ( 1976930 )
        He doesn't believe in physics because something that cannot exist does not exist? Not very compelling.
  • Gazzilions of years ago or whenever it was, when the oil we use now was floating around in the form of giant mats of algae, some belching deadly hydrogen sulfide as they decompose, there was a lot more life on the planet. But do we really want to live on a world choked with so much scum? Over time, that algae turned to oil and the carbon really was sequestered -- but now we're putting it all back into circulation -- I suppose it could become more animals, more corn, more people, but it could also become m

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The biggest danger to science is not the US GOP. It's not even the states of Kansas or Texas. Or even Arkansas. It is Greenpeace.

    Greenpeace vs. Biology: Species are static in their description vs. species change over time.
    Greenpeace vs. Physics: Long half-life is more dangerous vs. short half-life emits more radiation over time.
    Greenpeace vs. Chemistry: Chemicals are bad vs. Everything you eat is a chemical.
    Greenpeace vs. Environmentalism: Spotted Owls only nest in old growth forests vs. they nest anywhere

  • Golden Rice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChromeAeonium ( 1026952 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @05:52PM (#49310267)

    Moore breaks with what might be expected of a Greenpeace founder as well in that he is currently chair of Allow Golden Rice.

    Well, while he is wrong about climate change, his stance on Golden Rice is pretty well on. We know it works, we know it is safe, Greenpeace still opposes it because they know damned well that their cries of genetic engineering being a dangerous horrible thing that you should totally give them loads of cash to fight are going to look a bit silly when it is saving the lives of thousands of children. It's despicable that they are willing to allow unnecessary death and human suffering in developing countries just to further their careers as professional activists. They're no different than anti-vaxxers who bring back vaccine preventable disease, not in my book. I don't agree with Moore's stance on climate change, but at least he's doing good on this front to bring attention to the harm Greenpeace and other anti-science groups are doing.

  • The science behind what he's saying isn't really adding up. While there's naturally studies on both sides, this study indicates greater CO2 levels can inhibit growth []

    Moreover, methane is significantly more responsible for global climate change because it traps 100 times more heat than CO2. []

  • " He argues instead that in a historical context, human activity has saved the planet, declaring that "at 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide."

    Our crop are starved from other stuff than carbon. if carbon was the problem only, we would put carbon in our fertilizer. But we don't what provocated an explosion of food production was not the CO2 increase during industrial revolution up to today, but NPK fertilizer (nitroge
  • by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Saturday March 21, 2015 @06:37PM (#49310457)

    I'm still of the opinion that we're dumping too much CO2 in to the air. Although I know that scientists make mistakes, scientific knowledge is never 100% perfect, and that science is a system of incrementally improving our knowledge, I'm not a science skeptic. Climate scientsts are better experts on this topic than I am, science is highly competitive (remember, they all compete for a very limited supply of grant money, so one scientists's failure is another's success, so they want to overturn each other's ideas), and peer-review is effective much more than it is ineffective.

    That all being said, a perhaps a more accessible issue people should be talking about is all the other crap we're dumping into the air *besides* the CO2. We're poisoning ourselves. And besides the air, what about junk we're putting into our bodies from other sources, like pesticides, BPA, and all manner of other harmful chemicals?

    Ok, so maybe global warming is something that will only kill our great-great-great-grandkids, and we don't care about them. What about the stuff that's killing us right now?

  • by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Sunday March 22, 2015 @01:02AM (#49311817)
    I'm sure there are people here far more knowledgeable about politics, science and other topics than I. I however am moderately versed in all these things and I specialize in cause and effect both mathematically as well as sociologically as a hobby.

    1) I'm glad he came forward as a "semi-credible" skeptic. It's time we get someone "on the other side" who will attempt to use gray matter to ponder the mysteries of global warming. Of course, he's a political activist and therefore probably has burned up most of his gray matter and left holes by now, but he poses questions that need to be addressed.

    2) Has anyone noticed that there's probably twice as many global warming skeptics that don't even know what it means, but side with the "Right" because they would die before siding with the "Left". I know people who believe strongly that it's Jesus's will that we have this issue and therefore when eggheaded lefties contradict that, it must be gods will to disagree. There need to be people trying to actually ask and answer questions who don't think in terms of "If we evolved from the monkeys why are there still monkey then?".

    3) People will side with this guy. He's an egghead they agree with. Let's raise him up as a major scientific leader. Let's not bash him or attack him. Let's reason with him and show his new groupies that we don't have to make this a political left and right thing. It can be more reasonable than that. This is something that should rise above political interests and be delt with.

    4) I am not a climate change skeptic.... I believe that since the beginning of time, there has never been a constant climate. I believe it's always changing. I believe we're hellbent on proving that we were right all along and that this chemical or that one must be the specific reason for the climate change. I am inclined to agree with the research I've read in the direction that suggests that CO2 is in fact the primary cause. I however also believe that it seems a little too easy and too obvious. I'm thinking ... somehow when there's just that much CO2 rushing up to suffocate us, it feels like a reaction to something we're not looking for. I don't like the idea of trying to scrub the CO2 down without first checking to see, do we need to CO2 to protect us against something else? Was CO2 the lesser of two evils?

    5) We have far bigger problems than CO2 right now. We have things like fracking. Don't get me wrong... global warming is very very very dangerous... but I see drinking water as being far more important short term. Do I think we should stop working on climate change? NO!!! We need to address this. We should have trillions of dollars of tax money going into fixing this. But we need to get the damn research done to prove that intentionally attacking the Earth's mantle and intentionally destabilizing it by intentionally cracking it to force it to bleed oil has to stop. I have never in my life dreamed of anything that sounds so impressively stupid as this. The U.S. is in a damn near perpetual clean water shortage in areas where 50+ million people live and now we're destroying even more clean water reserves. This is clearly a problem we can address and we don't. Why the hell isn't fracking a major item on the presidential election agenda?

    I think I love this guy. I am so happy he's there and now let's use him for all he's worth. Let's stop attacking him and instead talk with him. Maybe his believers who have raised him to messianic status will follow him because they finally have "a credible scientist" to listen to. Let's educate him so he can educate his people.

    Let's lead by example, not by insult.

New systems generate new problems.