Dream Spa
Toronto Escorts

ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Published on May 1, 2017
In a very special #LwC, for one full hour, we sat down with Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology and founder of Greenpeace, and dissected the scam that is modern "climate change".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
10,848
2,078
113
Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology and founder of Greenpeace, and dissected the scam that is modern "climate change".
Statement from Greenpeace:

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media – especially conservative media – give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.
Link: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

So obviously Patric Moore is not an environmentalist but a paid industry spokesman which I understand is much more lucrative than Greenpeace. There are always desperate people in search of anyone who goes against the grain and support loony tune theories. I feel like it's the Scopes Darwin monkey trials with a new cause for old people vs scientists (version two).

I could give you a source that reviewed 12,000 scientific papers (https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ies-finds-strong-agreement-on-climate-change/) or the NASA link but I guess you just like looking past consensus to the fringe area for validation.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
So obviously Patric Moore is not an environmentalist but a paid industry spokesman which I understand is much more lucrative than Greenpeace. There are always desperate people in search of anyone who goes against the grain and support loony tune theories. I feel like it's the Scopes Darwin monkey trials with a new cause for old people vs scientists (version two).
this claim climate skeptics of being paid by industry is debunked in the interview. Greenpeace is currently facing growing criticism and opposition


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace

https://www.biggreenradicals.com/group/greenpeace/


they are kicked out of india for fraud and having charity status revoked
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,344
113
Room 112
Greenpeace are anti humanity radicals which is where Moore diverged from them back in the 1980's. In various interviews he's exposed their hypocrisies. What he did was brave because he received a lot of backlash and even death threats.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
10,848
2,078
113
Greenpeace are anti humanity radicals which is where Moore diverged from them back in the 1980's. In various interviews he's exposed their hypocrisies. What he did was brave because he received a lot of backlash and even death threats.
Yes, being a paid spokesperson for major corporations requires tremendous courage. I bet his hands tremble counting money from all the lucrative contracts and speaking engagements with audiences desperately trying to finding someone to support their views. Much better than floating in a boat - seasick- taunting whaling ships.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Greenpeace are anti humanity radicals which is where Moore diverged from them back in the 1980's. In various interviews he's exposed their hypocrisies. What he did was brave because he received a lot of backlash and even death threats.
Greenpeace is overestimated as an environmental advocacy organization and underestimated as a lifestyle choice. It is a pretty inexpensive way to travel the globe on the cheap, have sex with your fellow travellers (especially handy if you're married to someone who isn't part of the cause), and comfort yourself about all your lollygagging with the abundant internal and external propaganda and hype.

Why pay for vacations to Thailand when you could just join Greenpeace? Well, I guess there is the smelly hippy consideration.....
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,910
68,405
113
Yes, being a paid spokesperson for major corporations requires tremendous courage. I bet his hands tremble counting money from all the lucrative contracts and speaking engagements with audiences desperately trying to finding someone to support their views. Much better than floating in a boat - seasick- taunting whaling ships.
Well said. If one only looks at the list of the guy's clients, it is clear that he is a sell out and a traitor to his ideals.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Its obvious,...

If he's an ACTUAL SCIENTIST why isn't the a link to a high quality peer reviewed journal?
If you don't know the answer to that question,...you shouldn't be debating here,...!!!

Do you even understand what "peer" means,...???
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
If you don't know the answer to that question,...you shouldn't be debating here,...!!!

Do you even understand what "peer" means,...???
Here's the answer: it's not published in a quality peer reviewed journal because it's kooky bullshit.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,910
68,405
113
If he's an ACTUAL SCIENTIST why isn't the a link to a high quality peer reviewed journal?
You mean a thread on TERB with C-M, Fast, Soupie and their friends ISN'T a high quality peer reviewed journal??!! :05.18-flustered:
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,193
113
97% of scientists believe climate change is real and man-made. Most of the remaining 3% believe climate change is happening, but is not significantly impacted by human behaviour. In what world does the other fraction of that 3% who believe it's a scam qualify as proof?
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
97% of scientists believe climate change is real and man-made. Most of the remaining 3% believe climate change is happening, but is not significantly impacted by human behaviour. In what world does the other fraction of that 3% who believe it's a scam qualify as proof?
Let me ask you a question? Do you know how many scientists were included in that 97% consensus?

They have 97 articles debunking the 97% consensus joke.

Here's a great article with quotes from the scientist who's papers were part of that survey.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Let me ask you a question? Do you know how many scientists were included in that 97% consensus? Do you know what questions were asked?

They probably have about 97 articles debunking the 97% consensus hoax.

Here's a great article with quotes from the scientist who's papers were part of that survey.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
100% of scientists who are qualified and rigorous enough to get published in top peer reviewed journals think climate change is real and that CO2 emissions are a major cause of it.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
100% of scientists who are qualified and rigorous enough to get published in top peer reviewed journals think climate change is real and that CO2 emissions are a major cause of it.
Oh forget all the scientist who say different lol. I just gave examples of 5 very qualified scientists who were apart of that 97% and they say they were taken out of context.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.



Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."​
And on and on it goes...
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Oh forget all the scientist who say different lol. I just gave examples of 5 very qualified scientists who were apart of that 97% and they say they were taken out of context.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.



Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."​
And on and on it goes...
Again, forget about the 97% number. 100% of scientists whose work is good enough for the top journals like Nature and Science believe global warming is real and that human CO2 emissions are a major cause.

Find one article in a top journal like that which contradicts. Just one.

You can't.
 

SuperCharge

Banned
Jun 11, 2011
2,523
1
0
Again, forget about the 97% number. 100% of scientists whose work is good enough for the top journals like Nature and Science believe global warming is real and that human CO2 emissions are a major cause.

Find one article in a top journal like that which contradicts. Just one.

You can't.
Is this your way of conceding that cook et al 97% consensus was/is hogwash?! Just for clarification of course.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Is this your way of conceding that cook et al 97% consensus was/is hogwash?! Just for clarification of course.
I have no idea about that. I'm satisfied that we've finished the debate about global warming with the winning point that 100% of the scientists worthy of being published in the best journals think global warming is largely human caused.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Non answer,...again

Here's the answer: it's not published in a quality peer reviewed journal because it's kooky bullshit.

Once again,...do even know what "peer" means fuji,...???

And now you have snuck in "fuji quality",...thats kooky bullshit.
 
Toronto Escorts