Climate Change According to the Co-Founder of Greenpeace

EdmondMember said:

This sort of thing is pretty easy for most people. Very very few adults adopt beliefs or positions from critical thinking or by weighing evidence. Virtually all of us come to our beliefs by adopting the beliefs of someone they admire (parents, a spouse, a TV idol, a professor, etc.). Then, for the rest of their lives, they just filter out any facts that don't align with their adopted beliefs.

Click to expand...

Allow me to be the monkey wrench as I actually do have a degree in Ecology. No one respects Patrick Moore; that is, anyone in the scientific community. He's flip flopped more times than Ben Carson and has quite literally become the antithesis of what he originally set out against. There isn't even a debate about what he's saying, It's political nonsense. For every 100,000 people saying the sky is blue, there will always be one who says it's red and swears they have good evidence on why everyone else is wrong. It is always wise to lend an ear and see what they have to say, but if you can filter it out pretty quickly, it's best not to waste too much time listening and that is the case with Dr. Moore. He makes more in just endorsements than most of us do in 5 years at our jobs.

josh_s said:

Allow me to be the monkey wrench as I actually do have a degree in Ecology. No one respects Patrick Moore; that is, anyone in the scientific community. He's flip flopped more times than Ben Carson and has quite literally become the antithesis of what he originally set out against. There isn't even a debate about what he's saying, It's political nonsense. For every 100,000 people saying the sky is blue, there will always be one who says it's red and swears they have good evidence on why everyone else is wrong. It is always wise to lend an ear and see what they have to say, but if you can filter it out pretty quickly, it's best not to waste too much time listening and that is the case with Dr. Moore. He makes more in just endorsements than most of us do in 5 years at our jobs.

Click to expand...

So, do you refute the information he was presenting about the always changing climate and human impact on the cycle?

josh_s said:

Allow me to be the monkey wrench as I actually do have a degree in Ecology. No one respects Patrick Moore; that is, anyone in the scientific community. He's flip flopped more times than Ben Carson and has quite literally become the antithesis of what he originally set out against. There isn't even a debate about what he's saying, It's political nonsense. For every 100,000 people saying the sky is blue, there will always be one who says it's red and swears they have good evidence on why everyone else is wrong. It is always wise to lend an ear and see what they have to say, but if you can filter it out pretty quickly, it's best not to waste too much time listening and that is the case with Dr. Moore. He makes more in just endorsements than most of us do in 5 years at our jobs.

Click to expand...

Didn't Patric Moore abandon Greenpeace after the organization was taken over by communists, socialists, Leftists and other crazies?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380895/posts

It all started with cavemen.
The found fire and ended the ice age.

josh_s said:

Allow me to be the monkey wrench as I actually do have a degree in Ecology. No one respects Patrick Moore; that is, anyone in the scientific community. He's flip flopped more times than Ben Carson and has quite literally become the antithesis of what he originally set out against. There isn't even a debate about what he's saying, It's political nonsense. For every 100,000 people saying the sky is blue, there will always be one who says it's red and swears they have good evidence on why everyone else is wrong. It is always wise to lend an ear and see what they have to say, but if you can filter it out pretty quickly, it's best not to waste too much time listening and that is the case with Dr. Moore. He makes more in just endorsements than most of us do in 5 years at our jobs.

Click to expand...

What about folks like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Phil Stott, Nils Axel-Morner, Freeman Dyson, among many others?

It's not like there are one or two crazies running around with conspiracy theories. There are many well credentialed, peer-reviewed, respected (at least before their questioning of the orthodoxy) scientists who think the status of man-made climate change is inconclusive based on available data.

And, please, don't do the ad hom thing against these people. Nothing they've done deserves that, and there's plenty of that out there already by advocacy operatives.

Regardless of position on the credibility of Michael Moore, I'm still looking for any arguments against the information that he presented in the video.

OKCHunter said:

Regardless of position on the credibility of Michael Moore, I'm still looking for any arguments against the information that he presented in the video.

Click to expand...

You can google almost anything if you're genuinely curious, there are literally hundreds of thousands of journals and videos rebuking or commenting on the overly elementary statements he made in the video. It's nothing ground breaking or new mentioned in the video.

rbstern said:

What about folks like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Phil Stott, Nils Axel-Morner, Freeman Dyson, among many others?

It's not like there are one or two crazies running around with conspiracy theories. There are many well credentialed, peer-reviewed, respected (at least before their questioning of the orthodoxy) scientists who think the status of man-made climate change is inconclusive based on available data.

And, please, don't do the ad hom thing against these people. Nothing they've done deserves that, and there's plenty of that out there already by advocacy operatives.

Click to expand...

A fallacy is a fallacy, whether it be an "ad hom thing" or not. I don't know any of the names on that list you gathered from google, but I don't doubt that they are all accredited scientists, I was specifically talking about the man that is the subject of the video, and he is very much a controversial figure who will always be questioned because of his track record.
The problem with a scientific theory, is that rarely does it ever move to become a scientific fact. Until then, there will always be people who have come up with their own theories on trying to figure the problem out. General consensus, "more than 97% of the world's climate scientists agree" is that humans are directly responsible for the warming trend over the last few hundred years through c02 emissions. These people are part of that 3%, so while a small handful literally, no, but in context to the hundreds of thousands who say otherwise, yes, a small handful.. and you have to recognize that it is suspicious when among this small handful, there are many like Dr. Moore who are now politically backed naysayers, but once stood for something else entirely.

A point Dr. Moore was urging is that our climate is dynamic and that fluctuations have happened constantly since the inception of existence. He is absolutely correct, there have been observable periods of cooling and warming throughout all history. However, it is a non sequitur as it does nothing to dismiss that we are also a contributing cog in the machine. He said that even before our industrial revolution, we were on a warming trend, and again, despite that also being true, it does nothing to refute the sudden boom that happened immediately following that revolution and may have even proved the theory he is arguing against to be correct. Our population boomed right around this same time and the added methane could very easily explain the small warming trend he was referring to.

Before the IR, emissions were just trace amounts found in the atmosphere, mainly from methane produced by animals and humans. However after the IR, these numbers went from under 10,000 to well over 1,000,000,000,000 tons in under 200 years. And it has been during this drastic increase in emissions that the warming trend has taken off with peaks every time a major invention has taken hold in energy production with a net warmth of nearly 1 degrees Celsius being observed.

Without a large background in thermodynamics it is hard to relate just how important that change is, but for an easy example, look at the difference of water from 211 degrees to 212 F or from 33 to 32 degrees F and you will understand why it matters so dearly to our ecosystem. This is troubling too when you factor that for the last 500,000 years the temperature has never fluctuated more than a total of 10 degrees Celsius and nowhere close to this rate of change. We are seeing several millenniums worth of change in just under 200 years and it has all been an increase. The warming and cooling trends caused by other factors will still happen, but not anywhere close to the rate that our carbon production is making it go up. The scare is that this is only the beginning, if we continue down the same path we are on right now, and that number continues to climb at such a high rate, life will simply no longer be sustainable. It won't happen today or tomorrow, but it's really hard to ignore the changes that are already taking place.

It is unfortunate that because of all the money that shifts hands from major energy and like companies to outspoken leaders that this has become a political argument because in the end we all have to suffer the consequences. And that is why people like Dr. Moore deserve the shame they receive. They sold out, but they didn't just sell themselves out, they sold all of us.

And before anyone asks.. here are some great places you can search and find where I gathered not only my stats, but many other informative stats and facts as well!
Again, unfortunately this has become an emotional and political argument for most naysayers, so I know this won't change anyone's mind for some reason.. but you wanted the facts, so here they are.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
http://www.globalissues.org/article/231/climate-justice-and-equity
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

josh_s said:

The problem with a scientific theory, is that rarely does it ever move to become a scientific fact. Until then, there will always be people who have come up with their own theories on trying to figure the problem out. General consensus, "more than 97% of the world's climate scientists agree" is that humans are directly responsible for the warming trend over the last few hundred years through c02 emissions. These people are part of that 3%, so while a small handful literally, no, but in context to the hundreds of thousands who say otherwise, yes, a small handful.. and you have to recognize that it is suspicious when among this small handful, there are many like Dr. Moore who are now politically backed naysayers, but once stood for something else entirely.

Click to expand...

You don't actually buy that 97% stat? The Oreskes, et. al., study that came up with that nonsense has been very reasonably shown to have been biased and, in some cases, downright irrational, in study selection and attribution. You don't have to roll around in the mud with "deniers" to understand this. The study methodology has been widely dissected.

josh_s said:

And before anyone asks.. here are some great places you can search and find where I gathered not only my stats, but many other informative stats and facts as well!
Again, unfortunately this has become an emotional and political argument for most naysayers, so I know this won't change anyone's mind for some reason.. but you wanted the facts, so here they are.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
http://www.globalissues.org/article/231/climate-justice-and-equity
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Click to expand...

skepticalscience.com? Really? What should I do? Retort with wattsupwiththat.com?

Come on. Stick with the science, rather than the spin.