Why I Left Greenpeace: By PATRICK MOORE co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by ProfJohn, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. ProfJohn

    ProfJohn Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    18,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article doesn't touch on global warming, but when he says "none of my fellow directors had any formal science education." he reminds me of the GW debate where many of the leading proponents of it aren't scientists, but are politicians and activists.

    If I recall correctly the big UN paper on GW was written by bureaucrats instead of scientists.

    Either way, greenpeace has been a mess for years. Focused more on generating publicity than making a real difference in the world it seems.
    link
     
  2. LumbergTech

    LumbergTech Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,624
    Likes Received:
    0
    so are you advocating a better version of greenpeace that actually helps to keep the environment safe and cleaned up...or are you just trying to insult environmentalists?
     
  3. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,665
    Likes Received:
    46
    This is not correct.
     
  4. ZebuluniteV

    ZebuluniteV Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's right on the first point. The leading proponents of the "debate" (i.e. those who claim that there is a scientific debate) aren't scientists - they're activists working for big business and politicians receiving campaign contributions and etc from them.

    Of course, something tells me that's not what ProfJohn meant...



    Edit: that's not to say that every single scientist is in agreement, or that there aren't any in support of global warming who aren't scientists, but rather that its fairly onesided.
     
  5. ProfJohn

    ProfJohn Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    18,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it is the summary reports that are not written by scientists.
     
  6. ProfJohn

    ProfJohn Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    18,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean people like Al Gore?
     
  7. ZebuluniteV

    ZebuluniteV Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just edited my post while you were writing that. I'm not claiming that every single scientist is in agreement, or that everyone who supports global warming is a scientist, but rather that its fairly one-sided (e.g. the pro-global warming side of the largely-manufactured scientific "debate" has much more scientific supporters than the anti-global warming side).
     
  8. shrumpage

    shrumpage Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sort of.... Bureaucrats wrote the summary and then selected the individual reports to include.

    They wrote the summary first, then selected the studies that fit the summary. This was published on the ipcc site, in an instructional PDF.

     
  9. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,665
    Likes Received:
    46
    What report are you referring to?

    All I can say is that the leading proponents of man made global warming are scientists. They have always been scientists. As mentioned above, this does not mean all people that are trying to do something about it are scientists, but the implication in ProJo's statement is that those pushing global warming are not scientists, nor do they have sufficient education to understand this issue. This is obviously false.
     
  10. Rainsford

    Rainsford Super Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    17,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a pretty silly point, if you think about it. Sure, there are plenty of Al Gore's on the side arguing that man-made global warming is fact...but there are plenty of Al Gore types on the OTHER side as well, and only one side has the majority of the world's climate scientists.

    But I think the Greenpeace guy makes a good point, although probably not the one he was trying to make. Whatever science says, it's important to remember that lots of people are more interested in the political aspects of the debate than the facts. Those people damage scientific arguments because they allow folks on the other side to argue that it's not really science being discussed.

    Of course the point is ridiculous, but it sounds like a convincing argument if you don't think too hard. You bring up Al Gore all the time, but I have yet to see you make a really solid argument that Al Gore's "side" must be wrong because Al Gore himself is kind of a tool.
     
  11. shrumpage

    shrumpage Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um, the IPCC report. Remember how they released the summary first before the actually report? The span was i think 3 months. During that time they had specific instructions to make sure they included 'reports' that fit the already written summary.

    Found link from earlier post by me concerning this issue:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ab=arc&highlight_key=y
     
  12. ProfJohn

    ProfJohn Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    18,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Adding to what shrumpage said...

    There have been several scientists who have come out and made the point that all the research dollars are going to people who are trying to prove GW exists or that it is man made.

    When you have all the money going one way then of course most of the research is going to go that way as well.
     
  13. Robor

    Robor Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    16,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. So you're saying that it's possible a group of people could be influencing or manipulating information to influence a preconceived plan. Hmm.... ;)

    Edit: clarification
     
  14. Rainsford

    Rainsford Super Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    17,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what makes those "several scientists" more trustworthy than the many orders of magnitude greater number of climate scientists who have said that the evidence supporting man made global warming is extremely solid?

    You're cherry picking your evidence, searching for the exception that "disproves" the rule. Search long enough and you'll find at least SOME support for almost any idea you can think of. The problem is that you're limiting your sample size to ONLY that evidence, completely disregarding the far greater amount of contradictory evidence you had to wade through first.

    Your basic approach is like searching through an entire flock of white sheep, finding one that's black, and declaring that this proves all sheep are black.
     
  15. CycloWizard

    CycloWizard Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article is true in that a lot of the climate boogey-man that appears in the media (and, therefore, this forum) is hocus pocus put out by ignorant people with a lot of money who stand to make more money from their bogus crap. Al Gore is certainly high on that list. However, this doesn't mean that the climate is not changing, nor does it mean that man isn't contributing. It's just a shame that people are profiteering at the expense of the credibility of the cause they supposedly champion.