Swampgator
Active Member
The guy is a PHD who gets paid to give speeches all over the world. You think he needs your click money?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
The guy is a PHD who gets paid to give speeches all over the world. You think he needs your click money?
Maybe not "need" but that doesn't mean he doesn't want more money
. I mean travel all over the world probably gets tiring.Most PhDs aren't wealthy and would be happy to have more money.
This is a guy that stated that you could drink a quart of glyphosate and it wouldn't cause any harm. He has called a 16yo activist "evil" and compared her to Nazis. He stated in 2014 that the earth has not warmed.
And his PhD is in Forest Biology I believe. Not exactly physics....
So yeah - not getting my penny in click fees.
Last edited:
@brur
Or even better,
Google his name, get his bona fides over the last 30-40 years, look whom he supports, what he has said.
He doesn’t need to be “right or wrong”, he’s just incorrect (wrong)
To paraphrase his words, “he’s a sanctimonious old twat”, festering, insidious cancers upon the body politic, to be heard, identified and excised
To @brur's point, can people who have differing views be heard and taken seriously?
I'm fine with hearing one or two dissenting opinions for every 100 supporting opinions. Is this bias? No.Just an accurate representation of the scientific community. One issue is that people present two sides as if they're both of equal weight. I don't want to see a debate with one anti-vaccination advocate vs one mainstream doctor. I don't what to see one flat-earther vs one geologist. That doesn't represent the actual community of scientific thought.
I can't understand why people hold up the "unicorns" as proof there is...what...a conspiracy?? Against whom? For what end?
I'm fine with hearing one or two dissenting opinions for every 100 supporting opinions. Is this bias? No.Just an accurate representation of the scientific community. One issue is that people present two sides as if they're both of equal weight. I don't want to see a debate with one anti-vaccination advocate vs one mainstream doctor. I don't what to see one flat-earther vs one geologist. That doesn't represent the actual community of scientific thought.
I can't understand why people hold up the "unicorns" as proof there is...what...a conspiracy?? Against whom? For what end?
Swampgator
Active Member
He founded Greenpeace, but OK.
You like to dismiss outright anyone with a contrary view. Rather than consider the arguments themselves.
Keeps your life all nice and tidy, eh?
@Swampgator
And Greenpeace has disavowed him, possibly because “industry” co-opted him 30+ years ago
“He does not represent us”
Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore
I have heard the tiresome arguments of climate deniers far too much to waste further time upon them.
Your “arguments” are weak at best.
My life by the way is far from neat and tidy.
gentleman, I didn't ask you to change religions, I asked you to try to understand a man's opinion. Now I don' wish to call your stance a religion. I'm saying it is a point of view with which both sides have strong feelings and those feelings have become walls that won't allow the mind the possibility that the other side might have a reasonable point. No matter how inconsequential. That is irrational.
What I am suggesting is you allow yourself to hear and see what he has to say, it won't change your mind, it won't make you a bad person. In fact, it will make you a better person for trying to know someone else's view.
I have to say it is a little like a priest and a heretic and neither one is willing to hear the other one out. Because they already know. But over a beer at the pub they might be friends
Don't look at it as an argument against AGW, because it really isn't if you pay attention.
hearing what he says will not make your world smaller it will make it bigger. Granted there is a bias in what he has presented, nevertheless, it deserves knowing about.
It doesn't change my understanding of the worth of CO2 reduction. But it does show a little of the background of climate.
What I am suggesting is you allow yourself to hear and see what he has to say, it won't change your mind, it won't make you a bad person. In fact, it will make you a better person for trying to know someone else's view.
I have to say it is a little like a priest and a heretic and neither one is willing to hear the other one out. Because they already know. But over a beer at the pub they might be friends
Don't look at it as an argument against AGW, because it really isn't if you pay attention.
hearing what he says will not make your world smaller it will make it bigger. Granted there is a bias in what he has presented, nevertheless, it deserves knowing about.
It doesn't change my understanding of the worth of CO2 reduction. But it does show a little of the background of climate.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Practice what you preach
Spend your time over at the flat Earth Society, the vaccines cause Autism sites, and the ISIS sites.
Every time you think you have heard and read enough, realize that there may be another viewpoint or perspective you have not heard or fully grasped, and stay right where you are.
Bye bye
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I've spent far too much time listening to this nonsense. I know all of these arguments and they are rubbish.
Nothing to learn here except how stupid some people are and how easily deceived.
Merrill
Merrill
@brur
I have heard his opinions often enough from “know nothings” that they would be a tiresome repetition of others, justifying their ignorance in various ways.
My in-laws are climate change deniers, even when getting 2-3 ft floods on their property and moving to higher ground that is 500 year flood safe.
A single data point yes
There is a great body of data, easily accessible but he is retirement age, unlikely to change because he would be denying what he has spouted for 30-40 years
I think what you're expressing is a common question for those either new to the debate, or not as deeply knowledgable as people who spend their life involved with the science. Why can't we simply intellectually consider the contrary view, right?
The problem is, for those involved with this for a long time, that there are only a few similar arguments that keep coming up again and again. It gets frustrating for those who keep having to deal with the same thing over and over - having them labeled as "in an echo chamber" or otherwise insulated from outside thought. As if they are the ones who have to prove themselves (or the science) against the allegations or false studies. It gets tiring, especially when people continue to label the majority as "cult-like" or part of the "deep state" of science bureaucracy. It becomes political gamesmanship. I continue to say one of the worst things to happen to the climate debate is Al Gore! He unwittingly made it into a "left vs right" argument.
In the end, for me, I often come away from most debates always asking the same question: what is the point of not acting? What is the point of denial? Why try to argue away the majority of the best of science thinking right now?
I am still waiting for a valid reason.
Swampgator
Active Member
Well, Dr Moore was shielding baby seals from the hunters club while you were smoking dope listening to Hendrix. So I probably believe you that your life is far from neat and tidy
And back out the airlock you goWell, Dr Moore was shielding baby seals from the hunters club while you were smoking dope listening to Hendrix. So I probably believe you that your life is far from neat and tidy
Tata
Swampgator
Active Member
I have an answer for you, you just don't like it. I have stated it several time on this very thread.
The exact same reasoning was used to advance the US DGA back in the 1970s. They said, well , even if we are wrong about this dietary fat/heart disease hypothesis, why not just act now? What could happen? Result is explosion of obesity and diabetes due to replacement of meat with sugar, refined flour, and industrial seed oils.
Everything comes with a cost. As I said several days ago, I'm all for solar, EVs, and battery storage. I think these are great technologies that are already disrupting oil/gas, and traditional auto OEMs.
What you are really advocating when you say "what is the point of not acting" is we should use governments to act by force to accelerate this transition. That is really the reason the CAGW gets push-back from "conservatives"
While I am libertarian, I am more aligned with conservatives than socialists for sure. I still don't like nasty diesel trucks spewing out pollution any more than the average Bernie supporter. But the constant doom and Greta admonishments cause a blow-back effect from most center/right minded people.
And when a scientist like Dr Curry (who agrees with the AGW premise) voices disagreements with the CAGW crowd, the folks on the "consensus" side immediately try and dismiss and discredit (shut her up) as Winfield showed so well upthread.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
All of us were ignorant at one time. All of us started out with a website or a monograph or a book that covered the basics.
The problem @brur is facing is that he wants to debate and discuss as if he has brought new ideas and data and arguments. In that he is wrong, and it is why no one can be bothered with him.
The AGW denialist arguments are well covered and debunked at realclimate.org
End of discussion
Exactly my point. The politics of it all has polarized what is absolutely scientific consensus (interesting use of quotes from you on that btw...)
All know that as the science changes, models and reactions change. Same in medicine. Advancements are made with the best we know at the time. Meat is STILL not considered good for you. Neither are cigarettes which were, as you know, promoted as healthy. But you could easily hold up a 90yo who has smoked their whole life and not gotten cancer to say, "see"?? Why get the government involved? They still don't really KNOW and it's directly related to lung cancer. It just raises the risk, perhaps, but correlation doesn't equal causation.
So the option is what? Wait and see what happens? Wait for industries to monitor themselves? We've seen how that turns out time and time and time again. No thanks. Forget the political - embrace the science.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Both are actually possible. The Gulf Stream is weakening as Greenland melts interfering with the flow. But most others are speeding up.Thanks for the link.
They measured increased ocean current speeds and describe that prior studies predicted AGW would decrease ocean circulation. They go on to state the increased ocean current speeds are a result of increased wind speeds. They then do some model runs and decide that the models show increased wind speeds under the RCP8.5 scenario. Then that make the conclusion that the current speeds have increased due to global warming (most likely) with some help from the PDO. The conclusion in the article and the authors thoughts are nothing more than conjecture.
Most climate researchers will admit that our understanding of the multidecadal cycles of PDO and AMO is poor. Michael Mann just dropped a paper actually arguing these multidecadal oscillations do not exist naturally and are most likely AGW related. Using model runs of course to prove his point.
Still, it's interesting that these 2 papers hit at the same time. Overall this is what passes as climate science these days, and it's pretty poor IMO.
I particularly liked this sentence in the paper: The reason for the discrepancy between CMIP5 historical run and reanalysis products is not well understood.
dhrivnak
Active Member
He did not found it but yes he did help. He also states that how could a gas that is only .04% of the atmosphere have any effect yet when sick takes medication at half that level and yet get well.
Similar threads
