So, he's an environmental activist, right? That isn't a scientist.
Warmers on here claim that 95% of legitimate CLIMATE scientists agree with the theory, not just any scientist who has no clue about global warming. I work on 20,000 HP diesel engines; I wouldn't have a clue about how to fix a 49cc gas moped engine.
Unsupported theory? If it was unsupported it would be a hypothesis, not a theory.
First off, you need to reread his interview (found here: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/n... ), you are taking a sentence fragment out of context. What he said was that, according to him, there was no evidence that humans were the SOLE cause of climate change, not that it wasn't happening or that humans weren't a factor in it.
Secondly, he is not a climate scientist and had been in the international development field, not the environmental or science fields, since the early 1980s. Reading through his article reveals that he is both a little out of touch with the current climate understanding and, like any one else, has an agenda to push. His current agenda is international development projects.
The issue of climate change is less one of the actual temperature rise, but one of how e have carved up the world so drastically that we inhibit other species from adapting to what would otherwise be a relatively minor change. In times of climate change most species move to new habitats, this includes plants as well as animals... whole forests gradually move great distances. That sort of thing is inconvenient to us, but if we don't allow everything else to adapt to changes in climate many of them will die. That's the primary environmental issue with climate change.
Hi Donald K,
I don’t want to get into all the debate, I just want to point out the Michael Moore is not saying that global warming doesn’t exist, he is just questioning whether or not mankind is contributing to it. I am including a reference of an interview with him where he states he feels his mission now is “sustainable development”, meaning he is interested on how as a species we can continue to exist with the others problems that we as “humans” seem to be producing for ourselves.
And keep in mind we cannot look at what happens in a decade or even a century as a measure of what is going on a geological time scale.
Given our intelligence and the fact we can get to the moon, it is interesting we cannot solve our own population growth.
I would say that our population growth is the key. We know where babies come from and we know if we do nothing things like famine (more specifically lack of fresh, and clean water), disease, or war will do it for us. We control other populations for their own good; such as, deer, waterfowl, mosquitoes, etc. etc. But for ourselves…??? Maybe we are not as intelligent as we might think….
I am less worried about temperature change than about CO2 in the air. And there is no argument from anybody that CO2 has risen sharply and the rate of increase is increasing. Too much CO2 is just bad, regardless of temperature. It causes the ocean to be more acidic, which is not good for life in the sea. And contrary to what you always hear, that oxygen comes from trees which remove CO2, in reality it is sea life that really does that, not trees.
Take your pick:
1) He's not qualified to have an opinion.
2) He's paid off by big oil
3) He's part of the kook fringe.
I guess the consensus is #3. When there is no other valid reason, a detractor can always be painted as part of an insignificant minority.
Edit: I stand corrected. Some are actually claiming he was paid off by big oil/Koch Brothers. The founder of Greenpeace shilling for Big Oil. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.
Edit 2: I see #1: "Not qualfied (not a scientist) was also chosen. Keep this short list handy. You will see these same three reasons come up over and over and over.
"If global warming is real, why is the founder of Greenpeace saying that it is a fraud?"
If apples are really red, why does Obama always give his speeches in Yiddish?
Because a large international committee of scientist reviewing hundreds of comprehensive environmental studies indicate that global warming is a real and present danger. That's how science works. Science always works by consensus but there will always be outliers who disagree. We have people who insist that man walked with dinosaurs even though all evidence says otherwise. That doesn't make them right. There is a word for people who believe things against all evidence to the contrary, delusional.
There is more money in lying about science than in working with tree-hugging druid dudes panhandling with clipboards. Google Koch Brothers.
Edit: Before looking to see if the next full moon is blue, I would point out the Ottawa Mike's Wattsup-Keyboard copy-pasted a non-relevant quote. The relevant one
here http://www.rtcc.org/2013/10/22/un-climat... is:
"Global investment in climate change stalled at USD $359 billion in 2012, a 1% drop on 2011, according to a new study by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), a San Francisco-based analysis firm. Around $135 billion of that came from public sources, a figure that is dwarfed by government support for fossil fuel consumption and production, in developing economies, estimated at $523 billion."
Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobil did not become financial successes by hiring incompetent tricksters. Any one looking for the big bucks would first notice the ACTUAL flow of money, not (as Ottawa pretends) the flow of money which the Exec. Secretary of IPCC would LIKE to see.
While Gryph suggests you are conspiratorial nut, alarmists like him always bring up big oil and Koch brothers. It is pretty hard to talk sense to actual conspiratorial nuts. You talk about the founder of Greenpeace whistleblowing that they are little more than a political group and they bring up a petroleum corporation and libertarian billionaires. You just have to scratch your head and say WTF?
Patrick Moore, who was an environmental activist long before it was cool, says that there is absolutely "no scientific evidence" to support the claim that humanity is destroying the planet's climate.
Warmers in this section always so arrogantly claim that every scientist who doubts anthropogenic global warming is some sort of industry stooge, only cares about money, does not care about the planet. So tell me, warmers: What motivation does a life-long environmental activist have in denying global warming? Are you going to throw one of the men that built the environmental movement under the bus too?
I put myself in the same camp as Patrick Moore. I care about the environment, but that doesn't mean that we should throw logic to the wind and surrender our liberties for some unsupported theory. There are many motives for pushing the global warming scam - money and attention for scientists, another excuse to grow government, and another way for liberals to feel pious. Fortunately environmentalists that have been fighting for mother earth longer than most of you have been alive are still fighting to protect the integrity of the environmental movement from the insanity of global warming hysteria.
Although Moore had some part as an early member of Greenpeace, he IS NOT a founder. Nor is he a climatologist. he is however a long time GW denier
"surrender our liberties" I see you are a political conspiracy enthusiast Sorry you have been deluded on multiple fronts Sad indeed
BTW AGW is a reality, not a theory as you DA deniers have been duped into believing
Plus many denier scientists are supported in some way by big oil. But not to worry, they aren't climatologists anyway
Well, the entire FIASCO that is "global warming" has fallen apart at the seams. The people at east anglica (IPCC) were in a panic BEFORE their email server was hacked that people would NOW start watching the REAL data come in and see that NO WARMING had occurred in the last 7 years at that point.
Its now 17 years and NO rise in global temps - but the reverse.. a lowering has started. Mainly because the sun went into an unexpected MINIMUM Sun spot activity cycle.
These CLOWNS that wont let go of global warming will have to stop and assess what they believe when they have to LIE to prove points or CHERRY pick what little FALSE data is out there. A SANE person usually comes to his/her senses after time and realizes that they have indeed defended a falsehood for Far too long.
Arctic AND Antarctic Sea ice are at levels not seen in half a century - yet global warming supporters keep showing pictures of polar bears stranded on ice floating by. Nothing but hoax. Even the IPCC has "quietly" acknowledged there has been NO RISE in temps. These are the people that Started the whole thing..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
He's entitles to his opinion, he just happens to be wrong. just like you
"Are you going to throw one of the men that built the environmental movement under the bus too?"
That's exactly what fanatics do.
_______________________________________...
Edit: Hey Dook says: "There is more money in lying about science..."
I usually ignore this person but I happen to agree fully with his above statement. Google: "Financial pledges made by developed countries must be used to drive greater financial investment of $1 trillion, says chief of UN climate body"
I don't get my science from Greenpeace.
Donald K.....good question/post......BUT be prepared for the wrath of the Alarmists.....I'm guessing that many of 'them' are Googling for dirt on Patrick Moore, in keeping with their tradition of Ad Hom attacks on anyone not a member of their AGW church.
