OT: Former President of Greenpeace scientifically rips climate change to shreds

I thought he was dead! ;-)

It's interesting how the older members of these eco-organisations take a much more sane view of things than the younger more-extreme members. I'm thinking of James Lovelock of Gaia fame, who would be happy to have a lump of nuclear waste in his back garden for his C/H, and this guy Moore who was president of Greenpeace, dismembering AGW.

You are perhaps thinking of Patrick Moore the astronomer.

Lovelock was always irritated by the mystical interpretations of his ideas, as proposed by some dopey people. He merely meant to highlight that simplistic views of how life and our planet interact are foolish, and that the actual interactions are much more complex.

I doubt harry is capable of doing much else than paste a link.

His nurse has likely designed a search engine for him to find all the sites that confirm his views. Makes her life quieter.

In message snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

I read it. Mostly seemed sensible although he gets a bit vague on water vapour.

Thanks for posting, I don't think I had seen that before. Very interesting to see his perspective on how Greenpeace leadership got taken over by non-scientists.

However do I really need to know how a blinkered old fool and a blinkered new broom arrgue while we all sink?

Truth is that were coming out of the last Ice age, but we are not making things better, we are making them worse, by how much and how fast seems to be the only quarrel when you cancel it all out. I was always told that when digging a hole and you hit something metallic that might be a bomb, you should stop digging and get the hell out. Brian

You have been suckered by the "post truth" generation. It's simply not true that things are getting worse, or that CC is the greatest threat ever.

For all that someone on the radio was saying today about wind being the cheapest generation, that's only if you don't bother doing anything about intermittency.

The bottom line is that if taken to the limit we won't be able to sustain population levels and standards of living, or raise the third world to something like ours. Now that is fine if it is what people chose. I chose not to fly to Colorado to go skiing, I rescue dogs and equines instead. But, there is a totalitarian movement that is trying to set the agenda. As Patrick Moore found in Greenpeace.

He was not the president of Greenpeace, he was president of a local group. Strange how the global warming deniers always have to exaggerate their credibility.

It is five years old, that article. Probably not worth reading now

TW

Even then it's a complete lie.

He was one with the founder members and canada is hardly a 'local group'

Strange how the global warming deniers (Greenpeace as it is today) always have to exaggerate their credibility. >

Has its validity (or lack of it) changed?

So how has that changed the science?

No, that's untrue as well. He joined Greenpeace a year after it was founded. No matter how big Canada is, being president of Greenpeace Canada does not make you president of Greenpeace.

In article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com writes

Amazing how the greens can't understand plain English

"Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore"

Read what it says not what you want it to say.

I don't know what you are reading but it isn't the linked article.That text doesn't appear in it. The headline calls him "Former President of Greenpeace". It the goes on to describe him as "President of Greenpeace Int?l,"

In article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com writes

FFS "Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada...."