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

41,417 Views | 502 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by bearister
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


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





It's a feature, not a bug, of modern American conservatism.

Liars, hypocrites, and morons.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
…taxes and complying with environmental regulations take shekels out of rich guys' pockets. When you raise those issues in a manner they consider adverse to their financial interest, they make the same sound a monkey does when you pour hot oil on it.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

…taxes and complying with environmental regulations take shekels out of rich guys' pockets. When you raise those issues in a manner they consider adverse to their financial interest, they make the same sound a monkey does when you pour hot oil on it.


Most of them aren't rich

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're really putting shekels and a monkey analogy together?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edit.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

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.



No - India and China are saying - "We're going to do what's best for our country, which includes continuing to use fossil fuels. Look at those stupid Americans disabling their energy grid and punishing their economy, all in in a futile attempt to effect real change. Isn't it great that the stupid Americans are becoming even more reliant on us [China] for solar panels and batteries - we really have them now." And to be clear, China and India have both rejected operating under the standards the Obama/Biden want(ed) to implement. Not because the US refused - the US in fact agreed and has implemented beyond the stated goals - but because they realize the standards are bad for them.

There have been windstorms, floods, tornados and other adverse weather events for years. Your pointing to weather events is - as a matter of science - patently unscientific. For years people like you have wrongly tried to conflate weather events with climate. Those are different things. Yet here you are pointing to storm damage as if people in the past didn't have storm damage. Of course they did and, candidly, it was much worse. And let's not forget that humans have done a lot of things that make events worse irrespective of climate - like building more housing in flood and fire zones.

The science on whether humans are causing more intense events is mixed. Here is an article that explains how difficult it is to measure. Even this article, which is generally pro-human impacts, specifically details how "attribution" methodology is flawed and based on incomplete data. It also describes how the studies are mixed.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/

Let's assume you're correct - that humans are making weather events more severe. That doesn't mean the correct response is to cripple the energy grid and make other extreme and expensive changes that have little real positive impact and come with their own set of environmental impacts (e.g., mining for batteries). .

You seem to have a real vendetta against "oil companies". I can assure you that if oil production stopped today, you'd be spending a lot more than $6,000 on your energy (to offset your storm losses) AND you will still have storm losses. But you do you.

There are common sense things we can do to reduce carbon emissions. Those measures should be adopted OVER TIME and should not contemplate the complete elimination of fossil fuels. It is literally insane that CA and other places are (too) rapidly shifting away from nuclear and clean burning gas power plants in favor of renewables that are not as stable and will ultimately require massive battery storage. CA (and Texas as another example) started to implement these massive shifts and have crippled their grid. Gavin tells me to not run my AC during heat waves (like a third world country) but he wants to make all cars electric by 2035? What is his plan? He has none. And of course, the cost of energy continues to skyrocket, putting CA (and really the USA) at a competitive disadvantage.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

cbbass1 said:

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.



No - India and China are saying - "We're going to do what's best for our country, which includes continuing to use fossil fuels. Look at those stupid Americans disabling their energy grid and punishing their economy, all in in a futile attempt to effect real change. Isn't it great that the stupid Americans are becoming even more reliant on us [China] for solar panels and batteries - we really have them now." And to be clear, China and India have both rejected operating under the standards the Obama/Biden want(ed) to implement. Not because the US refused - the US in fact agreed and has implemented beyond the stated goals - but because they realize the standards are bad for them.

There have been windstorms, floods, tornados and other adverse weather events for years. Your pointing to weather events is - as a matter of science - patently unscientific. For years people like you have wrongly tried to conflate weather events with climate. Those are different things. Yet here you are pointing to storm damage as if people in the past didn't have storm damage. Of course they did and, candidly, it was much worse. And let's not forget that humans have done a lot of things that make events worse irrespective of climate - like building more housing in flood and fire zones.

The science on whether humans are causing more intense events is mixed. Here is an article that explains how difficult it is to measure. Even this article, which is generally pro-human impacts, specifically details how "attribution" methodology is flawed and based on incomplete data. It also describes how the studies are mixed.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/

Let's assume you're correct - that humans are making weather events more severe. That doesn't mean the correct response is to cripple the energy grid and make other extreme and expensive changes that have little real positive impact and come with their own set of environmental impacts (e.g., mining for batteries). .

You seem to have a real vendetta against "oil companies". I can assure you that if oil production stopped today, you'd be spending a lot more than $6,000 on your energy (to offset your storm losses) AND you will still have storm losses. But you do you.

There are common sense things we can do to reduce carbon emissions. Those measures should be adopted OVER TIME and should not contemplate the complete elimination of fossil fuels. It is literally insane that CA and other places are (too) rapidly shifting away from nuclear and clean burning gas power plants in favor of renewables that are not as stable and will ultimately require massive battery storage. CA (and Texas as another example) started to implement these massive shifts and have crippled their grid. Gavin tells me to not run my AC during heat waves (like a third world country) but he wants to make all cars electric by 2035? What is his plan? He has none. And of course, the cost of energy continues to skyrocket, putting CA (and really the USA) at a competitive disadvantage.



His plan is to blame republicans and global warming for the heat wave and ride the path of ignorance to reelection.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I suspect now that red states are doing well with green energy we are going to hear a different tune soon from the GOP. Money speaks to them above all else so it may happen quicker than you think. Just like the George Bush supporters who pretend never to have been a fan, we are about to have a lot of long-time green energy supporting GOPers.

Until the rest of them come around, probably best to avoid engaging in these silly debates.



https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/26/red-states-lead-usa-renewable-energy-wind-solar-power
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Once again ML's self-professed powers of discernment of credibility have failed him.

He's referencing an extremely misleading statement by an industry-affiliated climate denier group. What ML doesn't know or hasn't stated is that the group was founded by a former Shell employee who later founded a company to sell technology to the O&G industry. ML also didn't mention that the "scientists" aren't climate scientists, some of them are dead and many of the live ones aren't scientists at all. It's the equivalent of an online petition.

It's complete garbage and no credible person would even begin to pretend that it means anything. I'm 0% surprised that ML fell for the scam.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Once again ML's self-professed powers of discernment of credibility have failed him.

He's referencing an extremely misleading statement by an industry-affiliated climate denier group. What ML doesn't know or hasn't stated is that the group was founded by a former Shell employee who later founded a company to sell technology to the O&G industry. ML also didn't mention that the "scientists" aren't climate scientists, some of them are dead and many of the live ones aren't scientists at all. It's the equivalent of an online petition.

It's complete garbage and no credible person would even begin to pretend that it means anything. I'm 0% surprised that ML fell for the scam.

What percentage of these scientists are actually dead, or big oil shills? You're engaging in your classic cherrypicking exercise.

Haven't seen the full list, but the names on the right margin in that picture above are pretty solid. Benoit Rittaud, one of the scientists listed above, is a brilliant French mathematician and polymath, who is also very well-versed in the history and epistemology of scientific thought and philosophy. His approach to presenting and dissecting the flaws in the current discourse and scientific establishment is the most brilliant I've ever heard.

Most of these presentations are in French, though it turns out that his English is actually decent:

2min personal presentation:


20min talk on the perils of scientific consensus, with the case of the Lysenko Affair:

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On the one hand you have overwhelming scientific consensus acknowledging the obvious. On the other hand you have industry-aligned climate change deniers and online petitions signed by whoever wants to sign for whatever reason they choose.

Just like with most opposition to hard things that need to be done, the point is to force people to waste time on a disingenuous debate to stall any potential action which could be effective and might hurt the opponents short-term financial interests. You see this in every area that has been politicized and, sadly, we've allowed moneyed industrial interests to politicize this issue in the US.

For anyone interested in recent news about climate change, I've included a few links. For anyone who doesn't believe climate change is happening, you are welcome to look at fake magazine covers from the 70's and crayon drawings which make you feel better about the status quo. There is no real debate to be had.













movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But it's not overwhelming. How many are shilling for $$$ themselves? Reminds me of an African doctor I heard speak decades ago. "If I speak on river blindness or malaria, I attract a few people... if I speak about AIDs, I get courted and paid a large speaking fee."

But go ahead, I'll accept the IPCC report if you agree to build the 1,000 worldwide nuclear power plants they proposed as the only viable large-scale solution. I'm guessing we only have to build 100 or so.

Not all of the IPCC folks were 'scientists' or even 'climate scientists'.

BTW, we cut our CO2 emissions 15%, something Europe didn't do. Largely by converting to Natural Gas. But the green religious zealots are against that, too.

Are they the ones torching our food production plants? You know, man being bad and everything.

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

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.
As opposed to people trying to argue that someone is right because he used to be in Greenpeace?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

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.
As opposed to people trying to argue that someone is right because he used to be in Greenpeace?


The MO of a few here is to mock and discredit sources, as well as mocking posters for using these "discredited" sources.
A Source was being mocked and discredited for not being a founder of Greenpeace. I presented evidence that he was, essentially making the jerk mocking the source look bad. Oh well.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

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.
As opposed to people trying to argue that someone is right because he used to be in Greenpeace?


The MO of a few here is to mock and discredit sources, as well as mocking posters for using these "discredited" sources.
A Source was being mocked and discredited for not being a founder of Greenpeace. I presented evidence that he was, essentially making the jerk mocking the source look bad. Oh well.

Okay, so either it matters who the person is or it doesn't. I think the people who complain about this "discrediting" tactic know that it does matter, hence why they are always citing credentials.

So let's stop b****ing about the discrediting of the person. It's a valid argument.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


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).


I had to find this and repost. Not entirely sure what sycasey is upset about. Multiple posts discredited this individual for lying about being a founding member of Greenpeace.

"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."
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
His science knowledge and common-sense approach are what trigger the far left.








Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


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).


I had to find this and repost. Not entirely sure what sycasey is upset about. Multiple posts discredited this individual for lying about being a founding member of Greenpeace.

"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."
Alan Shepard was the first American launched into space, but that didn't make him a co-founder of NASA.
My favorite school days… “There is no substitute.”
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


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).


I had to find this and repost. Not entirely sure what sycasey is upset about. Multiple posts discredited this individual for lying about being a founding member of Greenpeace.

"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."
Alan Shepard was the first American launched into space, but that didn't make him a co-founder of NASA.


Greenpeace itself said that Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace. Nice try though with your lame analogy.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


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).


I had to find this and repost. Not entirely sure what sycasey is upset about. Multiple posts discredited this individual for lying about being a founding member of Greenpeace.

"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."
Alan Shepard was the first American launched into space, but that didn't make him a co-founder of NASA.


Greenpeace itself said that Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace. Nice try though with your lame analogy.
The statement from Greenpeace upthread said that Moore was on the first Greenpeace voyage but that he wasn't one of the three co-founders that formed Greenpeace many months before that voyage.
My favorite school days… “There is no substitute.”
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

oski003 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


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).


I had to find this and repost. Not entirely sure what sycasey is upset about. Multiple posts discredited this individual for lying about being a founding member of Greenpeace.

"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."
Alan Shepard was the first American launched into space, but that didn't make him a co-founder of NASA.


Greenpeace itself said that Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace. Nice try though with your lame analogy.
The statement from Greenpeace upthread said that Moore was on the first Greenpeace voyage but that he wasn't one of the three co-founders that formed Greenpeace many months before that voyage.


Of course they want to separate from him. That doesn't change the fact that they said that Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace. With that in mind, George Washington is our founding father. F you Madison and Franklin! Greenpeace!
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A lot of hair splitting because he diverged from their path.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.

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


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

A lot of hair splitting because he diverged from their path.
Surely no one would ever want to drop association with someone because they suddenly turned against all the things they believed in.

You guys are fine with the NeverTrumpers, right?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

movielover said:

A lot of hair splitting because he diverged from their path.
Surely no one would ever want to drop association with someone because they suddenly turned against all the things they believed in.

You guys are fine with the NeverTrumpers, right?


Not sure about Never Trumpers. Just that it was disingenuous to discredit this person by claiming he lied in saying he was a founder of Greenpeace. We should just move on to arguing against what he actually says. We should also be aware of any biases he has because of affiliations with big oil, etc...
NVBear78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

His science knowledge and common-sense approach are what trigger the far left.











Common sense is in shortage today
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:


Common sense is in shortage today


Yeah - just look at all the morons that voted for Trump twice. Maybe even more than twice.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!


Why does he find it important to call himself a founder when he was not?

Why not just say "early member" or "former President?"

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

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!


Why does he find it important to call himself a founder when he was not?

Why not just say "early member" or "former President?"




Then why say Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace instead of just calling him an early member or former president?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dimitrig said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!


Why does he find it important to call himself a founder when he was not?

Why not just say "early member" or "former President?"




Then why say Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace instead of just calling him an early member or former president?


Because Greenpeace was formed before he joined it?


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

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!


Why does he find it important to call himself a founder when he was not?

Why not just say "early member" or "former President?"




Then why say Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace instead of just calling him an early member or former president?


Because Greenpeace was formed before he joined it?





So it was formed right before he joined it and then became Greenpeace a few months later? Is this like a black swan thing? Greenpeace needs to work on its verbage. This is wild! Pass the reefer.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dimitrig said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!


Why does he find it important to call himself a founder when he was not?

Why not just say "early member" or "former President?"




Then why say Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace instead of just calling him an early member or former president?


Because Greenpeace was formed before he joined it?





So it was formed right before he joined it and then became Greenpeace a few months later? Is this like a black swan thing? Greenpeace needs to work on its verbage. This is wild! Pass the reefer.


Seems like you may have had too much already!


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

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:

oski003 said:

dimitrig said:


I think I posted the letter that Greenpeace wrote to him when he asked to join Greenpeace.

When you ask to join an existing group and that group writes you back on letterhead with that group's name on it I think it's pretty clear you aren't a founder.

Was he a really early member? Yes. Did he work hard to expand Greenpeace? Yes.

Was he a founder? No.

Was Elon Musk a founder of Tesla? No.

This is the same thing.




I also heard Ray Croc didn't found McDonald's and Sunny Balwani didn't found Theranos. This is exciting stuff! I will remember that if they ever speak about the company's direction, they are not founders! Not founders get it!!!!


Why does he find it important to call himself a founder when he was not?

Why not just say "early member" or "former President?"




Then why say Patrick Moore was a pioneer of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace instead of just calling him an early member or former president?


Because Greenpeace was formed before he joined it?





So it was formed right before he joined it and then became Greenpeace a few months later? Is this like a black swan thing? Greenpeace needs to work on its verbage. This is wild! Pass the reefer.


Seems like you may have had too much already!





"The Greenpeace environmental movement is known worldwide now, with offices in over 40 countries, and almost 3 million supporters.

It is generally agreed that this date, September 15, 1971, marks the beginning of the international movement that began in Canada.

It was on this date that a ragtag group of 12 activists set out on a fishing trawler from Vancouver, British Columbia to protest US nuclear testing in Alaska...

Although the name Greenpeace only became official in early 1972, it is generally accepted that the origin of this vast movement began with the group in Vancouver who set out from the harbour on September 15, 1971."

https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/09/16/history-sept-15-1971-the-canadian-origins-of-greenpeace/

Starting in 1977, he also served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a director of Greenpeace International.

Quibbling over him calling himself a founder is beyond stupid.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.