FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1380
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdat ... 60625.htmlGreenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans,
No - solar panels covering an area the size of Pennsylvania are the answer!dbackjon wrote:nuclear Power is our best option at this point.
HI54UNI wrote:No - solar panels covering an area the size of Pennsylvania are the answer!dbackjon wrote:nuclear Power is our best option at this point.
Moore never said he didn't think global warming was caused by humans. He's endorsing nuclear power because of its lack of CO2 emissions.AZGrizFan wrote:It is sadly ironic when these former rebels see the light. They were so SURE of their position just a few years ago.Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans,
Mvemjsunpx wrote:Moore never said he didn't think global warming was caused by humans. He's endorsing nuclear power because of its lack of CO2 emissions.AZGrizFan wrote: It is sadly ironic when these former rebels see the light. They were so SURE of their position just a few years ago.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdat ... 60625.htmlGreenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans
Simply priceless...Mvemjsunpx wrote:The title of this thread really needs to be changed since, from what I can tell, Patrick Moore was never on the "global warming is a proven fact ship" to begin with. He's obviously not an ardent supporter of the other side, either, as he acknowledges human-caused global warming is fairly likely. Moore is a strong environmentalist, but opposes the anti-modern, reactionary environmental movement. He actually left Greenpeace 22 years ago because he felt the organization was becoming too radical (specifically when they argued for banning chorine).
And, while I realize you are not the spokesperson for Google, maybe you could explain to me how Google News could return a result of "Your search - Patrick Moore no proof man contributes to global warming - did not match any documents." ...yet a web search returned, "Results 1 - 10 of about 137,000 for Patrick Moore no proof man contributes to global warming 2008. (0.07 seconds)" (at least 30 of the first 5 pages specifically referenced his speech last week.)“The movement has been hijacked by people who prefer rhetoric to fact and refuse to evolve beyond confrontation,” says Dr. Moore. “As the first wave of activists in the early 1970s, we struggled to make people realize the harm that was being done to this planet—and yes, we relied on confrontational tactics. But, after more than 15 years of yelling as loud as we could, an interesting thing happened. People started to listen. Governments started to listen. Environmental protection became a fundamental part of our laws and regulations. Public participation and inclusiveness became the norm.
“And yet, I see environmental groups today becoming increasingly extreme, promoting arguments that have less to do with the environment than their own political agendas. This is not the way to achieve environmental progress.”
That's a peace offering...I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human.
It's become so complicated, there's so much snake oil around the whole subject... the best comment that was ever made was by Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear: 'I am certain there is too much certainty in the world'. And I am certain that he is right.
We all agree with that logic, unfortunately it may take a "sky is falling" approach to get anyone off their fat asses.Mvemjsunpx wrote:travelinman, we're not on the same page.
I made my previous post because BigApp and AZGrizFan were using this article to suggest that former global warming "true believers" were all changing their minds. I argued that Patrick Moore was never a "true believer" because I couldn't find (& still can't) any evidence he ever acknowledged it was "proven fact". Maybe he did do so in the past & I missed it, but oh well. He was a co-founder of Greenpeace (whose founding had nothing to do with global warming), but left in 1986, well before global warming was even a vaguely major debate. So, in other words, Moore's ex-involvement with Greenpeace has very little to do with anything you are talking about. I did not make my previous post to discredit Patrick Moore, nor to argue some "true believer" agenda. I, in fact, agree with most everything Moore said in that article & I have always supported the expanded use of nuclear power. I also agree with everything he said in that last quote you posted (which I did read before my previous post), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make unless you're assuming I'm some sort of radical environmental terrorist or something. So, next time you attack someone with a long-winded, mostly irrelevant reply, maybe you should figure out what that person's point actually was before assuming everyone who dares to disagree with you is promoting a radical leftist agenda.
I do believe global warming is mostly human-caused. I don't know how factually proven it is, but, based on the evidence, it definitely seems like the horse to bet on at this point. Disaster isn't just around the corner, but I believe significant problems could occur if things aren't done by the later part of this century. However, I'm not a fan of the seemingly useless approaches like carbon caps & what-not. I think (as does Patrick Moore) the best approach is alternative energy sources that don't put large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere like nuclear, non-corn ethanol (& biodiesel), and eventually hydrogen fuel-cells. Even if you don't at all believe in human-caused global warming, there are plenty of other reasons to support that idea.
Good evening, Humorless. I'll keep this short 'cause I know those "long-winded, mostly irrelevant" replies tax your thoughts.Mvemjsunpx wrote:travelinman, we're not on the same page.
I made my previous post because BigApp and AZGrizFan were using this article to suggest that former global warming "true believers" were all changing their minds. I argued that Patrick Moore was never a "true believer" because I couldn't find (& still can't) any evidence he ever acknowledged it was "proven fact". Maybe he did do so in the past & I missed it, but oh well. He was a co-founder of Greenpeace (whose founding had nothing to do with global warming), but left in 1986, well before global warming was even a vaguely major debate. So, in other words, Moore's ex-involvement with Greenpeace has very little to do with anything you are talking about. I did not make my previous post to discredit Patrick Moore, nor to argue some "true believer" agenda. I, in fact, agree with most everything Moore said in that article & I have always supported the expanded use of nuclear power. I also agree with everything he said in that last quote you posted (which I did read before my previous post), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make unless you're assuming I'm some sort of radical environmental terrorist or something. So, next time you attack someone with a long-winded, mostly irrelevant reply, maybe you should figure out what that person's point actually was before assuming everyone who dares to disagree with you is promoting a radical leftist agenda.
I do believe global warming is mostly human-caused. I don't know how factually proven it is, but, based on the evidence, it definitely seems like the horse to bet on at this point. Disaster isn't just around the corner, but I believe significant problems could occur if things aren't done by the later part of this century. However, I'm not a fan of the seemingly useless approaches like carbon caps & what-not. I think (as does Patrick Moore) the best approach is alternative energy sources that don't put large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere like nuclear, non-corn ethanol (& biodiesel), and eventually hydrogen fuel-cells. Even if you don't at all believe in human-caused global warming, there are plenty of other reasons to support that idea.
As a life-long environmentalist, I’m very heartened that the Massachusetts Legislature appears poised to enact energy legislation that will help the state move in the right direction on CO2 reduction. For example, Massachusetts is considering mandating the following...
...The electricity that Pilgrim supplies is created with practically zero greenhouse gas emissions and therefore it does not contribute to global warming.
For years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations has warned us that greenhouse gas emissions from our fossil fuel consumption threaten the world's climate in ways we will regret. This year it won the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts.
You don't have to be a true believer in human-caused climate change to take the IPCC's opinion seriously. We are contributing to a change in the chemistry of the global atmosphere by increasing its carbon dioxide concentration at an appreciable rate. Even a sceptical person must accept that there is a risk associated with altering the balance of greenhouse gasses on a global scale. And there is no doubt that the most effective way to limit this risk is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels...
...Greenpeace and company are stuck in the 1970s when it comes to the policy on energy as it relates to climate change. They have invested a great deal of time and money convincing their supporters that nuclear energy is evil. It is time they came clean on the reality facing us all in the 21st century. They should accept the wisdom of the scientists at the IPCC and recognise that nuclear energy is a big part of the climate change solution.
BTW, Humorless...this "true-believer" line of crap just doesn't cut it. When ol' Locomotive Breath Gore's "Warming" theory didn't pan out (as become apparent with NASA was forced to release their first unredacted "Aqua" satellite dataset in July 2007), overnight the "Media Matters/Democratic Underground/SourceWatch/CMD Crowd" switched gears and magically, overnight, "Global Warming" became "Climate Change". When challenged, the liars even have the audacity to claim they never 'claimed' AGW would only be manifested by increased temperature (Lie). When Hurricanes hit, that was due to Man-made Global Warming (Lie). When that theory was disproven, the liars denied implying the relation (Lie). Now, globally temperatures have dropped so radically that most scientists are now starting to look at models factoring in sunspot activity as being the primary force behind global weather pattern changes. Yet despite the absence of scientific evidence to support ongoing global warming trends, much less, any connection with an increase in atmospheric CO2, the con continues...and most notable, it no longer is about the environment, it has become clear the purpose of the "Global Warming" con was to facilitate enactment of increased governmental authority and restriction of liberties...More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change
OK, again, Moore didn't reject man-made global warming. He said there was "no proof" but then said "it was likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power". I don't see how that qualifies as a "rejection" of man-made global warming unless you believe everything is black & white. Just because he doesn't see conclusive proof doesn't mean he doesn't believe it's real, especially since his advocacy for nuclear power largely depends on a necessity to reduce CO2 emissions.travelinman67 wrote:
...and now, you remark, "I argued that Patrick Moore was never a "true believer"...", so his rejection of man-made global warming doesn't necessarily count as a 'scoundrel' jumping ship...ergo, BigApp and AZGriz were wrong to equate him with the other liars who are jumping ship...
I have attacked the assertions of conservatives in this thread because conservatives were the only ones other than me making assertions in this thread (aside from one sentence from dbackjon). As you pointed out a while back, there just aren't enough liberals posting on this board. I target the assertions of those I believe to be wrong or in error. I don't go on "conk hunts" & I'm not sure why you think I do unless you have a major persecution complex.No, I have never believed you are some type of terrorist or environmental whacko. The handwriting, however, is clearly on the wall that you target self professed "conservatives" for rebuttal and debate. Often, hijacking the thread with objections to parsed, contextualized "problems" with remarks not even germane to the poster's assertions. Unfortunately, in our society of 1st amendment rights, you have an absolute right to take up my time and contribute nothing in return. And that's just the way it is...
BTW, Humorless, I don't hate you (yeah...I know, you don't care what I think.). I feel sorry for you that you obviously have the passion and energy to plead your belief/case/cause, yet choose to fixate on conservatives and spend all your energy trying to 'mark your territory' at the debate table by bashing rather than offering rational to justify your positions (or offer solutions to regional, national, global problems...then 'go to war' advocating those solutions. Beats the sh!t out of hunting for conks so you can get into pointless pissing matches).
I think the two of you just need to grow the fvck up.Mvemjsunpx wrote:OK, again, Moore didn't reject man-made global warming. He said there was "no proof" but then said "it was likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power". I don't see how that qualifies as a "rejection" of man-made global warming unless you believe everything is black & white. Just because he doesn't see conclusive proof doesn't mean he doesn't believe it's real, especially since his advocacy for nuclear power largely depends on a necessity to reduce CO2 emissions.travelinman67 wrote:
...and now, you remark, "I argued that Patrick Moore was never a "true believer"...", so his rejection of man-made global warming doesn't necessarily count as a 'scoundrel' jumping ship...ergo, BigApp and AZGriz were wrong to equate him with the other liars who are jumping ship...
I have attacked the assertions of conservatives in this thread because conservatives were the only ones other than me making assertions in this thread (aside from one sentence from dbackjon). As you pointed out a while back, there just aren't enough liberals posting on this board. I target the assertions of those I believe to be wrong or in error. I don't go on "conk hunts" & I'm not sure why you think I do unless you have a major persecution complex.No, I have never believed you are some type of terrorist or environmental whacko. The handwriting, however, is clearly on the wall that you target self professed "conservatives" for rebuttal and debate. Often, hijacking the thread with objections to parsed, contextualized "problems" with remarks not even germane to the poster's assertions. Unfortunately, in our society of 1st amendment rights, you have an absolute right to take up my time and contribute nothing in return. And that's just the way it is...
BTW, Humorless, I don't hate you (yeah...I know, you don't care what I think.). I feel sorry for you that you obviously have the passion and energy to plead your belief/case/cause, yet choose to fixate on conservatives and spend all your energy trying to 'mark your territory' at the debate table by bashing rather than offering rational to justify your positions (or offer solutions to regional, national, global problems...then 'go to war' advocating those solutions. Beats the sh!t out of hunting for conks so you can get into pointless pissing matches).
The only person hijacking this thread is you. I was clarifying what I thought to be the point of Patrick Moore's statement in the supplied Idaho Statesman article, yet you have now turned it into yet another tirade against Al Gore & the "GW Nazis". I understand that this is your big issue & I see that you've started several threads about it here & on AGS, but please don't become like UNHWildcats & become a propaganda machine.
I was going to let your obvious issues with me go, but since you've chosen to make this personal by mischaracterizing or straw-manning many of the things I say and also childishly referring to me by the moniker "humorless" for whatever reason, I unfortunately felt the need to carry this on further.
travelinman67 wrote:
Are you related to Tod?
AZGrizFan wrote: I think the two of you just need to grow the fvck up.
Touche.Mvemjsunpx wrote:AZGrizFan wrote: I think the two of you just need to grow the fvck up.
Probably.
But what fun would that be?