UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

41,432 Views | 502 Replies | Last: 8 hrs ago by bearister
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You would be talking about members of the Democratic Party, so wrong answer. They are not climate change deniers.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Ursine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

You would be talking about members of the Democratic Party, so wrong answer. They are not climate deniers.
There's no such thing as a climate denier. Everybody agrees that the climate exists.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ursine said:

bearister said:

You would be talking about members of the Democratic Party, so wrong answer. They are not climate change deniers.
There's no such thing as a climate denier. Everybody agrees that the climate exists.


Your comment makes no sense.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Ursine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Ursine said:

bearister said:

You would be talking about members of the Democratic Party, so wrong answer. They are not climate change deniers.
There's no such thing as a climate denier. Everybody agrees that the climate exists.
Your comment makes no sense.
Now that we've gotten past the point where you admitted your comment made no sense and edited it, let's move on to your original question again, since you punted on it previously.







While the above results do show that Democrats overall are much more likely to believe in climate change than Republicans, it's not actually true to say that all climate change deniers belong to one party as 10% of Democrats oppose efforts to fight climate change. Moreover, the gap shrinks significantly again when asked if they want climate change to be a top priority of their government as only 64% think that something described as an existential crisis is something that should be a top priority of the government. This suggests that while they may believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, they only really care about it as a way to own Republicans, rather than something they actually want to do anything about. And the real results over the last two years bear this out. Democrats have had complete control over the federal government in the last two years and have passed no serious climate change legislation in that time. Even the Washington Post agrees.



But the bigger issue here is not an issue of party, as the above poll results show. The problem is that we have a bunch of selfish old people who don't mind the effects on the climate as they'll be long gone by the time resources become scarce. It's the young people in both parties who are concerned about what future is left for them while their government continues to prioritize defense spending over nearly everything else.

Moreover, I doubt how strong those 90% actually believe in climate change. Just 20 short years ago, Democrats were against war. Now they are pro-war. 6 years ago, they were against babies in cages, but not in the last two years. If Joe Biden held a press conference tomorrow and said that climate change was nonsense, I fully expect that they would fall in line and say he was right. They have on everything else Biden has done that was like Trump. Why wouldn't it be the same with climate change?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Business drives climate change denial because complying with environmental regulations eats into profitability. Why doesn't the media ever connect the dots for people?

" Just 20 short years ago, Democrats were against war. Now they are pro-war."

….and Republican's used to call Russia the Evil Empire but now they are Putin fanboys and cheerleaders for his unlawful invasion of the Ukraine.

Why Some U.S. Conservatives Are Finding Common Cause With Russia


https://www.newsweek.com/why-some-us-conservatives-are-finding-common-cause-russia-1751115
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The biggest business of them all, Wall Street, is 100% behind the decarbonisation program, trillions are to be made from carbon trading and in the green agenda. That's why these programs are actively pushed across all western governments.



So apparently it costs the US taxpayer $50 trillion for the country to go carbon neutral in 25 years, and for this we might get a fraction of a tenth of a degree lower global temperature, maybe...

There is no serious cost-benefit analysis being done here.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Patrick Moore was a founding member of Greenpeace.

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Patrick Moore was a founding member of Greenpeace.


What's your evidence that Moore founded Greenpeace? As far as I can tell, he's a complete fraud who worked for Greenpeace in Canada for a few years in the 80's (GP was formed in 1970 by 3 other people). He's leveraged that fraudulent claim (among others) to act as a paid shill for a number of high polluting industries like timber and mining. He's also apparently claimed to have a PhD in ecology when it's really in forestry.

And, of course, he's a pro-insurrection, pro-COVID, election fraud, ANTIFA/BLM obsessed textbook right wing conspiracy theorist.

Sounds like George Santos with white hair and to no surprise, ML is more than happy to play the useful idiot to amplify Moore's lies. The only thing that would make it better is if Moore was a Russian troll factory who purchased a blue check, like most of what ML posts in the Russia thread.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He was a cofounder.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

From Greenpeace's site:

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

But you know what… if he did found Greenpeace… so what?

He's a corporate shill now.

Also from Greenpeace:

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.

AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

He was a cofounder.


Just add this to the list of fake news, shills and scams that ML had fallen for.

It wasn't so long ago that ML claimed to be able to evaluate the credibility of sources he uses to stay informed.

Since then, he's had a number of whoppers including the fake news claiming Obama walked through a chemical weapons factory in Ukraine, falling for Putin's propaganda on Minsk (which ML can't even stay an opinion on because he's so twisted up by propaganda he doesn't know which way is up), regularly quoting known Russian shills (as I pointed out recently - researchers determined a number of these Twitter blue check sources are just straight Russian propaganda and ML follows and cites them), and now claiming that a dude was a co-founder of Greenpeace.

ML has never been able to verify anything he claims and has been called out for, but still decides to double down before moving onto the next shill who dupes him.

If I didn't know better, I would think he is some right wing bot, but I think seeing in real time how fake news and shills has radicalized ML to take so many obviously counter factual positions has made it clear he's just a victim of his media diet.

Maybe he will prove me wrong and provide evidence no one has ever seen to prove that clown is a founder of greenpeace or even that ML has a legitimate view on Minsk that folds in Putin's propaganda with objective reality but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

He was a cofounder.
"This one goes to 11."
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


But you know what… if he did found Greenpeace… so what?

He's a corporate shill now.

Also from Greenpeace:

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.




And...

"the very first Greenpeace voyage, which departed Vancouver on the 15th September 1971. The aim of the trip was to halt nuclear tests in Amchitka Island by sailing into the restricted area. Crew on-board the ship Phyllis Cormack (also called "The Greenpeace"), are the pioneers of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace."

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

movielover said:

He was a cofounder.


Just add this to the list of fake news, shills and scams that ML had fallen for.

It wasn't so long ago that ML claimed to be able to evaluate the credibility of sources he uses to stay informed.

Since then, he's had a number of whoppers including the fake news claiming Obama walked through a chemical weapons factory in Ukraine, falling for Putin's propaganda on Minsk (which ML can't even stay an opinion on because he's so twisted up by propaganda he doesn't know which way is up), regularly quoting known Russian shills (as I pointed out recently - researchers determined a number of these Twitter blue check sources are just straight Russian propaganda and ML follows and cites them), and now claiming that a dude was a co-founder of Greenpeace.

ML has never been able to verify anything he claims and has been called out for, but still decides to double down before moving onto the next shill who dupes him.

If I didn't know better, I would think he is some right wing bot, but I think seeing in real time how fake news and shills has radicalized ML to take so many obviously counter factual positions has made it clear he's just a victim of his media diet.

Maybe he will prove me wrong and provide evidence no one has ever seen to prove that clown is a founder of greenpeace or even that ML has a legitimate view on Minsk that folds in Putin's propaganda with objective reality but I wouldn't hold my breath.


Lol. I admire the passion in the efforts here to make someone look bad because you don't like what they say. You are good at what you do.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

He was a cofounder.
"This one goes to 11."


Again, Lol.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


But you know what… if he did found Greenpeace… so what?

He's a corporate shill now.

Also from Greenpeace:

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.




He would ocassionally be a rare guest on Dr. Bill Wattenburg's program on KGO radio years ago. ("Dr. Bill" did his freshman year and graduate studies at Cal, getting his PhD in physics and becoming a well-known inventor and problem solver, as well as colleague of Dr. Glenn Seaborg. Worked on one or more of the Apollo missions, founded Berkeley Scientific, invented the Chain Matrix countermine system for one of our Middle Eastern wars. Dr. Bill fought to save the Tongas National Forest.)

He was deeply involved with Greenpeace, but then said it changed from an environmental organization to a political organization. Yes, his common sense stances on issues like nuclear power rattles GP.

He covers his early days and GP here in the first few minutes.

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wired: "Greenpeace was born in 1971 when an aging fishing boat steamed out of Vancouver, British Columbia, to disrupt an American nuclear test at the far end of the Aleutian Islands. Halfway there, the boat was intercepted by the US Coast Guard and the crew arrested. But the mission proved successful: The subsequent global show of support for the band of plucky environauts caused President Nixon to cancel the remaining tests. When the crew returned to shore, it adopted the name of the boat, Greenpeace, and turned its mediagenic activism into a global institution. By the mid-1980s, the organization had offices in 21 countries and an annual income of more than $100 million in donations and grants."

"Patrick Moore was on board for that inaugural voyage, and he went on to serve as president of Greenpeace from 1977 to 1979 and as a member of the international board for seven years after that. He was a natural activist, impassioned and articulate, and his PhD from the University of British Columbia gave him a mantle of scientific legitimacy. Greenpeace veteran Rex Weyler recalls that "you could put Moore in front to talk to the media on scientific issues, and you could always rely on him. He'd get his facts straight, and he was tough as nails in any debate." "

Since he left, Greenpeace has always tried to downplay his role.

https://www.wired.com/2004/03/moore/


dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Wired: "Greenpeace was born in 1971 when an aging fishing boat steamed out of Vancouver, British Columbia, to disrupt an American nuclear test at the far end of the Aleutian Islands. Halfway there, the boat was intercepted by the US Coast Guard and the crew arrested. But the mission proved successful: The subsequent global show of support for the band of plucky environauts caused President Nixon to cancel the remaining tests. When the crew returned to shore, it adopted the name of the boat, Greenpeace, and turned its mediagenic activism into a global institution. By the mid-1980s, the organization had offices in 21 countries and an annual income of more than $100 million in donations and grants."

"Patrick Moore was on board for that inaugural voyage, and he went on to serve as president of Greenpeace from 1977 to 1979 and as a member of the international board for seven years after that. He was a natural activist, impassioned and articulate, and his PhD from the University of British Columbia gave him a mantle of scientific legitimacy. Greenpeace veteran Rex Weyler recalls that "you could put Moore in front to talk to the media on scientific issues, and you could always rely on him. He'd get his facts straight, and he was tough as nails in any debate." "

Since he left, Greenpeace has always tried to downplay his role.

https://www.wired.com/2004/03/moore/





The reality is that the original name of the group which chartered the boat and named it Greenpeace was "Don't Make A Wave Committee" and Moore was not a founding member of that group. You can find his letter asking to go on the inaugural voyage which outlines his credentials and the response from Paul Cote (who actually did not sail on the inaugural voyage but is still considered a founder) which was basically "We'll get back to you with more details." That response was written on paper with Greenpeace letterhead proving that Greenpeace predated Moore's joining the group.

It is pretty clear that Moore was not a founder but was in fact one of the first members. Is there a practical difference? I don't think so but Moore must think it is an important distinction because he keeps making that false claim.



Source: https://www.desmog.com/2014/07/12/greenpeace-co-founder-patrick-moore-not-co-founder-all/
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He was undoubtedly a top official for 15 years, during the original birth and growth of GP, and was on the first historic voyage with a handful of crew. Sounds like a founding member to me.

Was he there week 1, 26, or 40, I don't really care. I do know that Greenpeace has tried to distance themselves from him, after he departed their organization.

He's an intelligent man, well spoken and persuasive. Their argument appears to be hair splitting as a way to denigrate him as a critic.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whether or not Moore has been officially recognized as a founding member of Greenpeace is the kind of trivial matter that isn't worth wasting your time on. It's the kind of useless debates that certain posters here love to engage in on their weekends.

We do know that the guy was part of the original group, and that the other original members who probably regard him as a pariah to their Cult of Gaia will disavow him, that much is fairly certain.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


But you know what… if he did found Greenpeace… so what?

He's a corporate shill now.

Also from Greenpeace:

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.




And...

"the very first Greenpeace voyage, which departed Vancouver on the 15th September 1971. The aim of the trip was to halt nuclear tests in Amchitka Island by sailing into the restricted area. Crew on-board the ship Phyllis Cormack (also called "The Greenpeace"), are the pioneers of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace."




Fyi, the information above is from Greenpeace' website. This is all a bit funny.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

He was undoubtedly a top official for 15 years, during the original birth and growth of GP, and was on the first historic voyage with a handful of crew. Sounds like a founding member to me.

Was he there week 1, 26, or 40, I don't really care. I do know that Greenpeace has tried to distance themselves from him, after he departed their organization.

He's an intelligent man, well spoken and persuasive. Their argument appears to be hair splitting as a way to denigrate him as a critic.
He's a grifter plain and simple. He's trading off his fake claim to have founded GP in order to sell his greenwashing services to corporate polluters.

If he had been just another MAGA shill that you quoted, it wouldn't have been a big deal but you called him out as a founder of GP and his entire personal brand seems to be built upon the false claim.

If being a founder of GP isn't a big deal, why would you have mentioned it and why does he trade so heavily off of it? We all know the answer, but you're pretending it doesn't matter because you think his fake credibility helps justify his BS positions.

I'll give him some credit though, unlike most of the MAGA grifters, he isn't taking in money from dumb MAGAts but instead relying on (dirty) corporate funding. Still an opportunist but at least he's not committing elder abuse like the rest of them by taking money from addled dotards who fall for the scam.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
said:

movielover said:

He was undoubtedly a top official for 15 years, during the original birth and growth of GP, and was on the first historic voyage with a handful of crew. Sounds like a founding member to me.

Was he there week 1, 26, or 40, I don't really care. I do know that Greenpeace has tried to distance themselves from him, after he departed their organization.

He's an intelligent man, well spoken and persuasive. Their argument appears to be hair splitting as a way to denigrate him as a critic.
He's a grifter plain and simple. He's trading off his fake claim to have founded GP in order to sell his greenwashing services to corporate polluters.

If he had been just another MAGA shill that you quoted, it wouldn't have been a big deal but you called him out as a founder of GP and his entire personal brand seems to be built upon the false claim.

If being a founder of GP isn't a big deal, why would you have mentioned it and why does he trade so heavily off of it? We all know the answer, but you're pretending it doesn't matter because you think his fake credibility helps justify his BS positions.

I'll give him some credit though, unlike most of the MAGA grifters, he isn't taking in money from dumb MAGAts but instead relying on (dirty) corporate funding. Still an opportunist but at least he's not committing elder abuse like the rest of them by taking money from addled dotards who fall for the scam.

Ok. Let's assume you're right and he's a grifter/bad dude/whatever. That doesn't mean what he said or claim is wrong. You're not making an argument - just attacking a person.

It seems to me he has a a point about green peace not defending whales which is the current argument he's making.




movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

We have been hearing these doomsday reports for 30+ years and the IPCC's track record is just awful. Now they are at least smart enough to couch their predictions by the "end of the century" so that no one alive today will ever actually be able to point out how absurd their conclusions and projections are. Pure genius..

Conveniently a new report comes out just as "Leaders in the U.S. and European Union are seeking to enact strict new measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions"

My esteemed friends of the left, I am willing to assume arguendo the reports are correct. What are the US and EU going to do about Chinese and Indian emissions? Because the US is actually doing a great job cutting its emissions. But its a drop in the bucket compared to the new emissions created by those (and other countries).
And China & India are saying, "Why should we cut greenhouse gas emissions if the Americans aren't?"

Meanwhile, U.S. Taxpayers continue to subsidize the U.S. oil industry with $16 billion per year, while the industry refuses to stop destroying the planet.

I just spent $6000 repairing storm damage, and there's still a lot more repairs to be done. Yesterday was the third time in the last 3 months that we've had 50+ mph winds. The 9-1-1 system in San Mateo County was absolutely flooded with calls -- so many that they sent an alert to use 9-1-1 for *only* life-threatening emergencies.

More frequent & more intense storms were predicted by oil company scientists back in the 1970s. They knew their product would do this. But instead of developing alternatives, they continue to aggressively fight against any alternative energy, and against any accountability.

The oil industry started in the U.S., and the U.S. oil industry is the world's leader.

Leaders lead. Leaders don't wait for others to step up, or point to them & say, "But they're not doing it!"

By sitting on their hands while the world burns, the oil companies are proving Greta more right every day. They're proving that they don't give a rat's ass what happens to the Earth that sustains us, and they don't care if the human race survives the century.

They should be paying for much of the storm damage throughout the country that their product is causing.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:




Steven Milloy - Wikipedia


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

" While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to attack the scientific consensus[29][23][30][31][32][33] that second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer.
… In 2000 and 2001, for example, Milloy received a total of $180,000 in payments from Philip Morris for consulting services.[38] A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."[5]

*It is always a good idea to find a credible advocate to support your position on an issue. He is not a credible advocate.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Berkeley Earth satellite data show definite cooling trend in the US this century:



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/01/is-america-burning/

(PS to Philip Morris execs: pls do not try to wire the funds to my SVB account, send a truckload of Marlboros instead)
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facts are important, and since we have substantially reduced our CO2 emissions, the rest of your missive is dreck.

We could always go back to slaughtering whales or living in caves. BTW, the morally self righteous EU hasn't accomplished this feat - but no, no, our Left wants to shut down clean Natural Gas so we can incinerate and mangle more bird populations.

2016
Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-us-carbon-emissions-have-fallen-14-since-2005/

EPA
"In 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 5,981 million metric tons (13.2 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents. This total represents a 7 percent decrease since 1990 and a 20 percent decrease since 2005 (see Figure 1)."
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Isn't it weird how the same posters are on the wrong side of just about every issue?



 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.