Keepitsimple Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Patrick Moore was one of the original founders of Greenpeace. His recent book should be an interesting read..... Patrick Moore was a founder of Greenpeace back in the early 70s. He was a radical environmentalist who became a sensible environmentalist. In his important new book he tells his story, and much more. It is an eye-opening account not only of the inner workings of one radical green group, but a story of how balanced environmental concerns can be expressed. We learn about how he became involved in radical environmentalism; how he became president of Greenpeace in 1977; how he reacted to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland; how he grew aware of ideological and politicised agendas amongst his peers; and how he eventually decided he had had enough of a once important organisation.He describes in detail his growing disillusionment with Greenpeace. He came to see that these people were ideologically-driven activists, not scientists, so they were often going off half-cocked, lambasting things which were not in fact harmful or dangerous. Moore points out how greatly global temperatures vary, and how there have been warmer periods in the earth’s history. He believes that CO2 emissions may in fact be mostly beneficial, possibly making the coldest places on earth more habitable and definitely increasing yields of food crops, energy crops, and forests around the entire world.In sum, he believes that groups like Greenpeace have in many ways been selling us a bill of goods. The environmental movement “is partly a political movement that aims to influence public policy, but it is also partly a religious movement in that many of its policies are based on beliefs rather than scientific facts. Environmentalism is to a large extent a populist movement that challenges established authority and appeals to the disenchanted, social revolutionaries, and idealists. ‘Pop environmentalism,’ like popular culture in general, tends to be shallow and sensational, moving from fad to fad. The pop environmentalists are generally self-assured, even smug in the belief they know the truth. He is alarmed by how the political left has hijacked the environmental movement, given how there are clear examples of good environmental policies which can be found on both the left and right side of politics. He concludes with a list of causes he thinks we should be tackling, such as: •grow more trees; •move to hydroelectric and nuclear energy; •deal with the most pressing environmental problem: poverty; •relax about climate change which is always taking place; •make use of advances in genetic science. Link: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2011/02/the-taming-of-a-radical-environmentalist Edited February 21, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Patrick Moore was one of the original founders of Greenpeace. His recent book should be an interesting read..... Link: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2011/02/the-taming-of-a-radical-environmentalist This is a good piece, simple. I'm just waiting for wyldo to cut and paste a scathing character assassination of Moore, but only after he(Moore) realized Greenpeace was nothing but a group of professional activists/eco-fascists who have no clue how the world works. Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Patrick Moore was one of the original founders of Greenpeace. His recent book should be an interesting read..... no - not one of the original founders of Greenpeace... yes, he was President of the 'offshoot' Greenpeace Canada extension... yes, he became one of the directors of Greenpeace International - 25+ years ago! Of course, Greenpeace long ago distanced itself from "today's Patrick Moore" - this guy: what was your point, hey Simple? Or yours, hey lukin? Quote
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 no - not one of the original founders of Greenpeace... yes, he was President of the 'offshoot' Greenpeace Canada extension... yes, he became one of the directors of Greenpeace International - 25+ years ago! Of course, Greenpeace long ago distanced itself from "today's Patrick Moore" - this guy: what was your point, hey Simple? Or yours, hey lukin? Sourcewatch??? You're a joke waldo. Sourcewatch is tabloid BS. You must be on their payroll. Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Sourcewatch??? You're a joke waldo. Sourcewatch is tabloid BS. You must be on their payroll. feel free to refute anything the Sourcewatch article states... waiting... Quote
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 feel free to refute anything the Sourcewatch article states... waiting... Who wrote the sourcewatch article? How much does Greenpeace pay you waldo? Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Who wrote the sourcewatch article? How much does Greenpeace pay you waldo? waiting... feel free to refute anything the Sourcewatch article states... waiting... Quote
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 waiting... I don't read tabloid trash such as sourcewatch, written by the fine eco-fascists at Greenpeace. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 I don't read tabloid trash such as sourcewatch, written by the fine eco-fascists at Greenpeace. Did you just post a long rant from a UK tabloid columnist on another thread ? So you don't read tabloids, but you read their blogs. Is that really better ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Did you just post a long rant from a UK tabloid columnist on another thread ? So you don't read tabloids, but you read their blogs. Is that really better ? Specifically to the article I linked Mike, what did Booker say that you considered false with reagrds to the World Wildlife Fraud, err..I mean fund? Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 not that I would presume on the 'facilitator in waiting'; however... suggest you take the subject of Amazongate II to the other thread... no need to pollute this one with further lukin crapola. More to the point, we could ask lukin to more clearly define the strawman he presumes to build concerning the WWF... of course, we could also ask lukin why he refuses to acknowledge my earlier references concerning the Cancun COP16 treaty agreements (particularly as relate to land use/deforestation). I gave lukin the opening... suggesting he look for more current and relevant "writings" from Booker concerning his reaction to all the world governments signing off on compensatory benefits in lieu of deforestation practices. After all, the Booker article is significantly dated relative to events in passing time. Oh wait... is lukin purposefully avoiding the essence of the Booker article concerning deforestation in favour of presuming to attack the WWF. And if so... who cares! Like I said, strawman! Quote
Shady Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Sourcewatch??? You're a joke waldo. Sourcewatch is tabloid BS. You must be on their payroll. Don't you know that you're not allowed to link to blogs, etc, unless you're Waldo! Anyways, I literally almost spit out my coffee when I saw that he actually linked to sourcewatch! Quote
Shady Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 This is the best part of Waldo's link! The structure of the SourceWatch allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information SourceWatch cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here Soucre Watch Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Specifically to the article I linked Mike, what did Booker say that you considered false with reagrds to the World Wildlife Fraud, err..I mean fund? I disagree with the way he takes facts about funding, and lays them out as though there's a concerted conspiracy happening to destroy... I don't know what... the western economy. Maybe you like tabloids more than you know ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Don't you know that you're not allowed to link to blogs, etc, unless you're Waldo! you've made the same claims in the past... and I've re-quoted you relevant posts where I've most certainly made no such claims. I've most certainly chastised those, like you, who would presume to flaunt "blog science" and make-believe wannabe blog scientists... you know... over real science and real scientists. As I've also stated, I rarely link directly to blogs; rather, as is clearly evident in my posting history, I much prefer to link directly to scientific papers and offer my interpretations, accordingly. Anyways, I literally almost spit out my coffee when I saw that he actually linked to sourcewatch! other than for some presumed 'dramatic' affect/emphasis in your statement, this is most odd as you, without doubt, have known me to quote from other Sourcewatch articles... in fact, you've whined about it in the past. Would you like me to replay a relevant quote string to that end? Quote
lukin Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 This is the best part of Waldo's link! Soucre Watch Sourcewatch is for fools. I guess it doesn't surprise me that sourcewatch is waldo's talking points. Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 This is the best part of Waldo's link! same ole, same ole... as has been stated previously, Sourcewatch follows a similar approach as that followed by wiki. In this particular instance, I most welcome you challenging anything that exists within that Sourcewatch article concerning Patrick Moore. I expect you have the cycles to do that since you appear to have now backed away from your past ShadyPractices routine of linking directly to British tabloids - burnt once too often, hey? Of course, in that you're the appointed MLW Intellectually Dishonest posterboy, the irony in you challenging the veracity of Sourcewatch, is probably lost on you - hey? Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Maybe you like tabloids more than you know? if you haven't actually caught on yet... lukin doesn't read his own linked references... it's a part of the lukinWay™ Quote
bill_barilko Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 Patrick Moore was one of the original founders of Greenpeace. An old old Vancouver joke-anytime more than three old time hippies are gathered together chances are one of them is a founder of Greenpeace. Note-having lived in Vancouver all my adult life I know the truth behind the joke-and speaking of joke Patrick Moore is the second oldest joke in this city. Quote
waldo Posted February 21, 2011 Report Posted February 21, 2011 An old old Vancouver joke-anytime more than three old time hippies are gathered together chances are one of them is a founder of Greenpeace. Note-having lived in Vancouver all my adult life I know the truth behind the joke-and speaking of joke Patrick Moore is the second oldest joke in this city. yes, of course. What's most illuminating is the premise within the OP... positioning Moore as some type of "reformed" environmentalist, actually using the phrase, "sensible environmentalist"... trying quite hard to link those very dated, 20+ year old associations with GP. it's quite telling reading the immediate reactions from the usual blowhard suspects in this thread to that linked SourceWatch article... apparently, they appear to take exception to the article simply outlining the progression of industry ties that Moore has fostered, or the outline of his current positions. One would think that would align with their underlying premise; i.e., the "sensible environmentalist" (/snarc). On the other hand, perhaps they are troubled by the articles other references - some of Moore's actual work, comments and (people) associations mentioned... ya, that must be it! Maybe they don't like what GP officials have written about Moore, as referenced within the article! The SW article is certainly a well sourced piece... linked citations abound, inclusive of many other linked references. Certainly, these defenders of Moore are free to edit the SW article and correct any perceived errors/transgressions they feel exist... of course, they will have to actually provide a foundation to their raised concerns, one with full citations to counter anything they object to within the article. Perhaps the usual suspects will advise exactly what they dispute within that SW article... perhaps we'll be presented with something other than bluster/fluster and faux concerns over the procedural format behind SW. Perhaps they can offer like concerns over the similar procedural handling behind wiki... Quote
waldo Posted February 22, 2011 Report Posted February 22, 2011 This is the best part of Waldo's link! same ole, same ole... as has been stated previously, Sourcewatch follows a similar approach as that followed by wiki. In this particular instance, I most welcome you challenging anything that exists within that Sourcewatch article concerning Patrick Moore. I expect you have the cycles to do that since you appear to have now backed away from your past ShadyPractices routine of linking directly to British tabloids - burnt once too often, hey? Of course, in that you're the appointed MLW Intellectually Dishonest posterboy, the irony in you challenging the veracity of Sourcewatch, is probably lost on you - hey? Anyways, I literally almost spit out my coffee when I saw that he actually linked to sourcewatch! other than for some presumed 'dramatic' affect/emphasis in your statement, this is most odd as you, without doubt, have known me to quote from other Sourcewatch articles... in fact, you've whined about it in the past. Would you like me to replay a relevant quote string to that end? hey Shady, lil' buddy... as follows, a gentle reminder of one of your past whines concerning SourceWatch... I like this one since it includes a reference to the significant point SourceWatch highlights in their editorial procedures; i.e., persons are subject to considerations of liability under the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"... of course, why would that stop anyone from purposely planting false information within SourceWatch articles, hey? Read your links waldo. Is source watch like wikipedia where anyone can write anything.Great observation. Here's the best aspect of waldo's stupid link. why yes... yes, it is. Of course, CMD (Center for Media and Democracy - SourceWatch) highlights that persons posting are subject to considerations of liability under the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Certainly, if you have concerns about the veracity of the SourceWatch account for Steve Milloy, you should seek recourse. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.