Patrick Moore

Lurkalot · Post by **Lurkalot** » 09 Mar 2014, 19:17

I've joined this forum because of the level of sense and understanding that is shown in comparison to other forums I use. One forum I use has become more right wing climate change denial and recently a thread was started with a link to a report from Patrick Moore . It was jumped on as absolute proof that man made climate change was a myth and all money spent on green issues was totally wasted. One poster called for using more coal and thought it inconceivable that trillions of tons are not just lying there waiting to be exploited. Only one poster attempted to argue against that but he was fighting a losing battle.
I have visited this site for some time ( hence the user name) and have picked up information . I was hoping that the subject would come up on here and I could again "borrow" some more facts and figures. Alas it didn't so I'll just ask if anyone has any links to responses to Mr Moore's statements.
This is the brief article that was posted on the other forum
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 59627.html

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 09 Mar 2014, 21:06

Patrick Moore was great on the Moon, but there isn't much atmosphere there to confuse the fellow. Welcome out of lurkerdom, Lurkedalot.

Oh! That Patrick Moore. He's just bonkers. Ignore him.

Or read this: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... een/198266

Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.

and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Mo ... mentalist)

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian ecologist, known as one of the early members of Greenpeace, in which he was an environmental activist from 1971 to 1986. Today he is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, a consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.
He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[2] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[3] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change

Lurkalot · Post by **Lurkalot** » 10 Mar 2014, 08:43

Thanks Biff , I too liked the one with the monocle and xylophone , but the link to the other one is the sort of thing I had in mind. I fear , though , that if or when I post that on the other forum it won't change anyone's mind as they are completely stuck with their mindset that CC is all just a big money making scheme and Mr Moore is some sort of crusader against all the hype . It is somewhat frustrating to me and I would assume to others.
Incidentally I posted Woodburner's signature in one post ( the one about holding ones breath while counting money) but that was completely ignored and when I mentioned TEQ's that idea too was completely derided as it would be a step backwards.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Mar 2014, 12:04

Mostly I think the deniers are best ignored. They are a dwindling race, marginalised and irelevant. We have to concentrate on how we cope with global warming, not whether it is happening.

BTW, this is a nice piece: http://climatechangenationalforum.org/c ... SGMeA.gbpl

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 10 Mar 2014, 14:29

Even the original Patrick Moore was politically dubious. Wasn't he an enthusiastic member of the Monday Club or somesuch?

Anyeay I'm delighted to report that his sucessor presenting the Sky At Night is (a) female, and (b) black That's real progress.

Post by **clv101** » 10 Mar 2014, 17:35

Lurkalot wrote:Thanks Biff , I too liked the one with the monocle and xylophone , but the link to the other one is the sort of thing I had in mind. I fear , though , that if or when I post that on the other forum it won't change anyone's mind as they are completely stuck with their mindset that CC is all just a big money making scheme and Mr Moore is some sort of crusader against all the hype . It is somewhat frustrating to me and I would assume to others.
Incidentally I posted Woodburner's signature in one post ( the one about holding ones breath while counting money) but that was completely ignored and when I mentioned TEQ's that idea too was completely derided as it would be a step backwards.

In my opinion the vast majority of folk who 'deny' anthropogenic climate change aren't really objecting to the physical science at all (why would they?). Denying or debating the science is just a proxy for disagreeing with the proposed response to climate change.

At the highest level, climate change is a global issue requiring global governance/controls and limits to today's personal and corporate freedoms to address a seemingly future problem (or at least current mitigation proposals broadly fit that description). If your politics are against that kind of governance or you value today far higher than tomorrow - then you're not going to like the proposed climate change mitigations. These folk could honestly say, yes I accept our current actions will see the world warming significantly but personal and national freedoms are just more important. Or yes, it may be 4C warmer in 2100 - but I'll be dead, as will my children, and in any event, we'll be so astronomically richer in a hundred years time it'll be trivial to adapt by then. However, instead of that (which generally comes across as a bit selfish) they question the science.

This recent article in the Telegraph was good; pretty much accepts the science but argues not do to anything about it. This is where I think most deniers really are if they are honest with themselves:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... to-it.html

Lurkalot · Post by **Lurkalot** » 10 Mar 2014, 19:19

Thanks clv101 nail and head spring to mind. My experience on the other forum backs that up. The deniers on there were accused of human greed and selfishness which they of course rejected , even though they feel that increasing living standards in for example China shouldn't happen at the expense of our own declining or even standing still. Also there is their often quoted idea that future generations will sort it all out and we should just carry on as we are. Perhaps worryingly those opposed to any actions are also those that can vote.
I try to ignore them as Biff suggests but it can get frustrating reading their drivel time and time again. I'm also not fully convinced that they are a "dwindling race " either. In scientific circles yes but amongst the general population there still seems a healthy ( yes I know probably not the best word to use ) percentage that question climate change or at least human induced climate change. One argument I see is as the science is updated people view it as the "experts" getting it wrong and then coming up with another theory. I've seen the claim that first it was " the coming ice age" then this changed to "global warming" and is now "climate change" and all of this " proves" that science is wrong irrespective of how much evidence is put in front of them.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Mar 2014, 19:30

The claim that first it was " the coming ice age" has always been nonsense. This came about through a bit of bad journalism but was never part of serious science. The points clv101 made about mitigation requiring big government explains why the deniers tend to be right-wing. The history of climate denial is spelled out brilliantly in a book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt, in which they show the enormous influence that a remarkably small number of people had in successfully promoting the denial.
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

Lurkalot · Post by **Lurkalot** » 10 Mar 2014, 19:47

I seem to recall that there was a faked National Geographical magazine cover that had something to do with the ice age myth. Either way a small bit of bad journalism has had a big effect on a lot of people.
I'm going to try my best and take your advice Biff and turn a deaf ear to deniers.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Mar 2014, 22:49

Yes, that's right, it was a Nat Geographical cover that triggered it IIRC.

edit:

Ah, it was Time Magazine:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/ ... d-kirtley/

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 10 Mar 2014, 23:39

Climate Change deniers are probably just that; in Denial - a recognised stage on the Change Curve (after Elizabeth Kubler-Ross). The next stage is Anger. This is probably what Nicole Foss had in mind when she warned of the risks of trying to crash the system by opting out of consumption. Those who opted out would get the blame, she suggested, even though the system was on its way to crashing anyway.

(See Nicole Foss - response to David Holmgren's essay; "Crash on Demand" on the automaticearth.com)

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 11 Mar 2014, 10:29

clv101 wrote:Denying or debating the science is just a proxy for disagreeing with the proposed response to climate change.

Yes yes yes! Totally agree. This doesn't just apply to fossil-fuel-sponsored ones lording it at the top. It applies to the (almost) equally fossil-fuel-sponsored ones who are your neighbours, work colleagues and 'friends' who couldn't imagine not being given their toys.

The message is, we have to make do with far less. All of us in the minority world that is. And those that currently have little - the majority world - will not be getting what we've enjoyed.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 11 Mar 2014, 10:34

Here's a cracker:

"Why don't you starve to death? Fitting end for [a] misanthropic retard." That was what Patrick Moore tweeted to a woman who disagreed with him about the value of Golden Rice. A week later he had GMWatch in his sights: "as I've said before, you are murdering bastards and deserve to rot in Hell for your anti-human sins."

Moore is clearly enraged by those who are sceptical about Golden Rice. But where does this passion come from? Moore has no obvious history of helping people in the developing world. In fact, since leaving Greenpeace about 30 years ago, Moore's history is one of helping environmentally dubious industries defend their PR image. He has earned a good living defending everything from mining to clearcut logging, nuclear power to fish farms, PVC to GMOs, leading another founder member of Greenpeace to brand Moore a "corporate whore" and "a hired gun for industry" who defends his clients "with lies, character attacks, and pseudo scientific justifications."

And Moore's assault on environmental concerns doesn't stop at a client list that reads like a Who's Who of unsavoury corporations. Just last week Moore was busy telling the US Senate, Fox News and anyone else that would listen, that there was "no proof" that humans cause climate change.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 11 Mar 2014, 14:12

While I was walking around Ecobuild last week a group of students asked me if I could answer a question on video for broadcast at the event. The question was, "What is "Sustainabilty"?"

My answer was "Having a little less each year as we only have one planet and the rest of the world wants what we have so we will have to have a little less as there is not enough to go round everyone."

The students were very interested as the hadn't heard that one before but they were not in the least phased by my reply and took it on board completely. So maybe the young of this country are amenable to the requirements of sustainability. It's their future at stake more than ours.

People like Moore are clearly frightened by the consequences of having less and this fear results in an aggressive attack on anyone who compromises their perceived future lifestyle. The man has clearly placed his entire future strategy in the hands of technology and technologists and is fearful of any attacks on that strategy.

Anyone who wishes to argue with him must get him to confront his fear. Maybe it's even paranoia given the level of his attacks on others who don't share his philosophy? Perhaps he should do the American thing and see a shrink!