Co-founder and 15 year leader of Greenpeace now a climate skeptic

[Dakine10 5,452]

These usual left wing leaning suspects can't help it. It is something in their blood. Or congenital. Can't win the arguments on the merits, so they always resort to character assassination or discrediting the source.

He posted the link to Greenpeace's website. Greenpeace lists their 3 founding members from 1970, and Moore isn't one of them. He joined 1 year later. You may not have bothered to read it, but it's just the facts, simply stated.

He was an important contributor to Greenpeace then, just as he is a (paid) spokesman for the nuclear industry now and has been for the last 20 years. Nothing wrong with disclosing the facts.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

He posted the link to Greenpeace's website. Greenpeace lists their 3 founding members from 1970, and Moore isn't one of them. He joined 1 year later. You may not have bothered to read it, but it's just the facts, simply stated.

He was an important contributor to Greenpeace then, just as he is a (paid) spokesman for the nuclear industry now and has been for the last 20 years. Nothing wrong with disclosing the facts.

No.. There was no greanpeace at that time. There was an original group of seven that was put together to protest the detonation of a nuclear bomb that formed a group of a different name - Moore joined while they were still just a committee and was there when they did their first protest before they were greanpeace - he was then one of the four people that was part of the decision to change the group into greanpeace.

He was the president from 1977 to 1986...

He was on the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French while protesting their nuclear tests.

Virtually anything Greanpeace did form the 70's through 1986 that made the news he was part of as one of the leaders.

Lets not demonize the man because we don't like his message - lets look at the message. There are a couple of ideas expressed that I found interesting and a few glaring flaws as well..

[Dakine10 5,452]

No.. There was no greanpeace at that time. There was an original group of seven that was put together to protest the detonation of a nuclear bomb that formed a group of a different name - Moore joined while they were still just a committee and was there when they did their first protest before they were greanpeace - he was then one of the four people that was part of the decision to change the group into greanpeace.

He was the president from 1977 to 1986...

He was on the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French while protesting their nuclear tests.

Virtually anything Greanpeace did form the 70's through 1986 that made the news he was part of as one of the leaders.

Lets not demonize the man because we don't like his message - lets look at the message. There are a couple of ideas expressed that I found interesting and a few glaring flaws as well..

I didn't say anything that demonizes him. Just saying what Greenpeace says. They don't consider him a founding member, but they do consider him an important early contributer. He calls himself a founding member. They can work it out in court if they need to. I'm not sure it's that important. He's entitled to his opinion, as we all are.

I find it ironic that he's so pro nuclear now given his history but people do change I guess. As far as believing in anthropogenic climate change, I don't think that's a prerequisite for joining Greenpeace. Some friends of mine growing up just wanted to save baby seals by spray painting them green.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Here's a neat chart that shows CO2 and temperature. Going further back in time, CO2 levels were much higher, as high as 250,000 PPM in the precambrian age.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Here's the snowball earth. Runaway global cooling at it's worst. Pretty cool image though.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Mid precambrian period. As far as geological time goes, nature does climate change better than man. Although it should not be used as an excuse for burying our heads in the sand. The changes humans are enabling to climate and ecosystems are minor and will make little difference to the earth in the long run, but it could be devasting to ourselves as a species.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He was a co-founder and leader in it for 15 years.. In the end he left when he disagreed with the direction they were heading. Re-framing him as a corporate shill because you don't like his politics now is just avoiding the argument. How about looking at his claims in this article? There is plenty to comment there without going to the attack-the-source tactic.

Incorrect. I provided the relevant information earlier. Your ignoring it doesn't make it invalid. Your claim remains invalid, however.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Greenpeace has gotten very rich from ther Green industry. It is laughable that they are trying to paint him as a industry shill when they are the masters at it themselves.

As if being linked to Greenpeace is any claim to green credentials, these days.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Climate change is the least of our worries right now. Overpopulation is. We are throwing our money away in order to make new Billionaires.

Mid precambrian period. As far as geological time goes, nature does climate change better than man. Although it should not be used as an excuse for burying our heads in the sand. The changes humans are enabling to climate and ecosystems are minor and will make little difference to the earth in the long run, but it could be devasting to ourselves as a species.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Overpopulation is bad too. It's a double whammy really - each makes the other worse. If there weren't so many people then climate change wouldn't be as much of an issue.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Climate change would still be here even if there were no humans at all.

Overpopulation is bad too. It's a double whammy really - each makes the other worse. If there weren't so many people then climate change wouldn't be as much of an issue.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Climate change would still be here even if there were no humans at all.

Yeah but then it wouldn't really matter. At least as far as humans are concerned.

I agree though, climate change or not, were going to hit critical mass with population, and then were going to crash. Consider that the earths population took until 1800 to reach 1 billion, then hit 2 billion in 1927, now we are looking at estimates of 16 billion by 2042. It's not sustainable, and I don't think we should be trying to make it sustainable. But I also don't think we should be making it worse.

[luckytxn 2,264]

That is a lot of people for a dwindling resource and unless we change this somehow our future is bleak. Climate change is a red herring and we need to stop wasting time on it and look to fix the real problem. Not one candidate from any party will deviate from the road we are on because of the money involved.

Yeah but then it wouldn't really matter. At least as far as humans are concerned.

I agree though, climate change or not, were going to hit critical mass with population, and then were going to crash. Consider that the earths population took until 1800 to reach 1 billion, then hit 2 billion in 1927, now we are looking at estimates of 16 billion by 2042. It's not sustainable, and I don't think we should be trying to make it sustainable. But I also don't think we should be making it worse.

[Dakine10 5,452]

That is a lot of people for a dwindling resource and unless we change this somehow our future is bleak. Climate change is a red herring and we need to stop wasting time on it and look to fix the real problem. Not one candidate from any party will deviate from the road we are on because of the money involved.

It's not looking good. There's is a solution though. Go green!!!

[GandD 5,966]

Climate change would still be here even if there were no humans at all.

Says you, who's not a scientist.