Greenpeace founder questions man made global warming

Appearing on Fox Business Network on Thursday, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, said global warming is a ‘natural phenomenon,’ that there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and he suggested that ‘alarmism’ is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies.

In his interview, Moore also explains why he left Greenpeace, saying that his departure was in part due to the group’s ‘extremist positions‘ and it is being hijacked by political and social causes as well as the left.

When a parent abandons their child and decries they behaviour you can be fairly sure something is wrong with that child.  Moore’s comments seem to confirm what many people have said about the environmental lobby for some time.

About these ads

9 Responses to “Greenpeace founder questions man made global warming”


  1. 1 MrT 21/01/2011 at 11:30 am

    GreenPiss going down the toilet…marvellous!

  2. 2 JRP3 21/01/2011 at 1:05 pm

    Unfortunately it misses the entire point that we have no idea what we are doing to our atmosphere and climate and common sense would tell us to reduce our emissions since we don’t know what effect they may have. Running a giant experiment on our climate seems like a poor idea.

  3. 3 mat 21/01/2011 at 2:15 pm

    I do feel sorry for Moore as the group he helped start had a view and an idea to change things and it wasn’t a bad one really!, but sadly like all groups the mouthy self believers and ego junkies push their way to the front!the next thing you know your outside the local power station holding a banner you were given and no idea why your there!.

  4. 4 mat 21/01/2011 at 2:54 pm

    Er JrP3
    “since we don’t know what effect they may have”
    Sorry maybe me but I thought this was all sorted on your side? consensus and all that and it was only us lowly heretics [us fools that need facts!]that were the problem ?

  5. 5 Cassandra King 21/01/2011 at 5:12 pm

    “21/01/2011 at 1:05 pm

    Unfortunately it misses the entire point that we have no idea what we are doing to our atmosphere and climate and common sense would tell us to reduce our emissions since we don’t know what effect they may have. Running a giant experiment on our climate seems like a poor idea.”

    The precautionary principle at work? But the fact is that CO2 is a harmless trace gas of which humanity is responsible for only a tiny fraction. We are not running a giant experiment at all in fact, more CO2 is good for the planet and there is no proof that CO2 in such tiny concentrations affects climate and since we do not have any proof that tipping points caused by CO2 have occurred then the precautionary principle becomes a dead weight.

    In fact we have all the evidence we need in order to make an informed choice. The precautionary principle is a corrosive and toxic poison, it strips us of our confidence and instils unreasonable fear and uncertainty of the future. If I took into account all the possible risks to me when I leave the house or even live in it then I would stay in bed for the rest of my life, we all accept risks and take in the most applicable precautions like looking both ways before we cross the road and other simple precautions but we cannot live a full life if we restrict ourselves on the basis of avoiding anything that has a slight chance of hurting us.

    Our industrial civilisation is built on cheap readily available energy, take that away and we have no first world civilisation, in other words the aim of alarmism is to kill civilisation in order to save it, we cannot go back to some fake idealistic pre industrial la la land it didnt exist then and it cannot be created now. The precautionary principle you advocate is dangerous, more dangerous than any supposed tipping points created in the fantasy world of alarmism, its stripping our confidence to grow as a species, to take risks and aim for the stars.
    It will be fear that does us in, it will be cowardice and uncertainty and risk aversion that will send humanity crashing back to the awful past we tried so hard to escape from. Fear has been used to further a political ideal, a rancid political ideal, a poisonous anti human anti freedom ideology that always ends the same way, ignore the fear mongers whispers of doom and reach for the stars.

  6. 6 Andy5759 21/01/2011 at 7:59 pm

    To JRP3; running an experiment with millions of lives based on the premise that we may or may not be permanently damaging our environment is not the way to go either. Current “green” policies are causing deaths now (see NQL flooding), are causing hunger now (see USA corn prices), and are causing fuel poverty in prosperous nations (see fuel prices escalated by Carbon Taxes). I well recall the time in the late 1980′s when I saw Socialists migrate from traditional left politics towards green politics, this they said was a better bet to remake the world in the image they wanted. From the laudable aims in the beginnings of Greenpeace, stopping whale hunting, and such like to what we have now is a total sea change and not one for the better. The environment and the creatures who rely on it are not best served now by Greenpeace. Shame.

  7. 7 JRP3 22/01/2011 at 1:18 pm

    Despite what some of you suggest we do not have enough information to know the effects of the huge volumes of man made emissions of the last 100 years upon our climate. It may have no effect, it may be beneficial, and it may cause an undesirable snowball effect. Fact is reducing CO2 also reduces other pollutants and uses more sustainable methods. As world population grows and tries to consume a similar amount of energy per person as the US things are going to get ugly. The days of cheap reliable energy are gone in case you hadn’t looked at petroleum prices lately so we obviously need to move towards other sources. That probably means more expensive sources. The wasteful use of energy we’ve enjoyed for the last century including endless travel on a whim is over. Our civilization needs to get vastly more efficient or fail.

  8. 8 mat 22/01/2011 at 2:05 pm

    petroleum prices ? well as we in the UK get kicked the hardest for tax in that game maybe the EV industry can help by giving back the 43 million it will take this year off government? no ?
    also if you don’t know what the consequences of not doing are! then you have no idea of the mess you could end us in by doing things with no bases in fact do you ?
    The precautionary principle is a fallacy a nice bit of greenish Pr bluff! sorry but many millions believe without proof in ghosts so if we use the ‘just in case ‘ rule you use, then should we not be spending billions on ghost busting equipment ? you never know do you? or how many people see U.F.O.s? could happen you have no proof it won’t!!yes I know I’m being saft but you have no more facts for your position then this lot do! but we are expected to fall in line and spend more billions [about £4.6billion 2010 UK only!] propping up the greenish theory’s !!
    Give the world the technology to stop the problems it has now not one’s based on ‘maybe’ ‘could be’ tens of years away possibly !

  9. 9 JRP3 23/01/2011 at 1:58 pm

    Every one of us uses the precautionary principle every day, that’s how we survive. We constantly weigh the consequences of our actions and make a decision as to whether or not we should proceed. Very often we decide not to do something because we don’t know the possible consequences. Forget global warming if you wish, how about energy independence for your country and reduced pollution? You do understand there are more emissions than just CO2 right? You want the EV industry to give back 43 million, how about the oil industry giving back the billions in subsidies it’s had for decades? That doesn’t bother you at all? The true cost of oil is hidden, especially in the US. The huge military presence in the Middle East has to be paid for, and it has, in dollars and in lives. I want no more part of it. If that means we have to sack up and pay extra to get EV’s and green technology in motion I’m all for it, better than the vast amounts we are paying for our citizens to go die in foreign lands so we can have the privilege of sending billions to countries that hate us. You only seem to worry about the consequences of doing something different but don’t seem concerned about the consequences of continuing as we are.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive