Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace way back in 1971. He abandoned them in 1986 so he could pursue his environmental passions. As you would. Last November he published a tempting book: Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. And not surprisingly stretched a few of his old friendships. The Vancouver Sun has a rare debate between Moore and Rex Weyler, another co-Founder (see below for a snippet). Predictably, Greenpeace is firing their best ad hom, and referring to him as a “paid spokesman for the Nuclear Industry” and are busy rewriting history. They used to list Moore as a co-Founder on their website in the past (copy here), but now they say that they were formed in 1970, and he joined it in 1971, “see the letter”. I did see the letter, and it seems “Greenpeace” didn’t quite mean the same thing in 1970. What Moore joined in 1971 was a committee called, engagingly, “Don’t Make A Wave Committee” (I can see why that didn’t catch on) and it seems they had a boat called Greenpeace. He was also president of Greenpeace from 1977, and was even on the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed in 1985. You’d think that would count for something. Patrick Moore is very much a skeptic
:
“We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and its not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
He quit Greenpeace when they banned chlorine:
“The last straw was when Greenpeace decided to run with a global ban on chlorine. “This is when Greenpeace really lost me. As a student of advanced biochemistry, I realized chlorine was one of the 92 natural elements in the periodic table and that it is essential for life. You don’t just go around banning entire elements…”
Today he is chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. From the Vancouver Sun
Transcript: A heavy-weight bout between two founders of Greenpeace
RW: You portray yourself as “sensible” and disparage all non-corporate environmentalists, but you don’t act scientific. You employ rhetorical devices such as: “There is no alarm about climate change,” since “the climate is always changing.” I’m sure this plays well at corporate speaking gigs, but you should google the fallacy of “misplaced concreteness.” I assume you are aware that you erroneously presume a word means the same thing in different contexts. PM: … As to acting “scientific” the highest duty of a scientist is to retain a healthy scepticism about all hypotheses, especially regarding subjects that have many variables like climate. I think you are aware that I hold an Honours BSc in Biology and Forest Biology, a PhD in Ecology, an Honorary Doctorate of Science and have received the the US National Award for Nuclear Science and History from the Einstein Society, affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute. Would this not make me at least as credible as any member of the IPCC? Second, I did not say “there is no alarm about climate change,” but that “there is no REASON FOR alarm about climate change.” The fact that there is such alarm I blame in part on Greenpeace itself. And finally, as to the “misplaced concreteness”, I refer to climate as a scientific subject, measurable and real. Following Alfred North Whitehead’s definition of this fallacy, I see no misplaced concreteness there. My belief that there is no reason for alarm has no bearing on the fact that the climate is always changing. I can imagine the public outcry when you accuse me of “misplaced concreteness”, Lordy Lordy. You and your allies love to use the words “corporate” and “industry” as if they are epithets, swear words, put-downs, etc. with the implication that something sinister is going on. My public appearances are in public, usually with media present. …. RW: I genuinely enjoy our occasional beer sessions, but since you have gone on such a full scale attack against those working on environmental efforts outside the corporate world – calling us “senseless,” accusing us of being “murderers,” cherry-picking data, and insulting everyone who has a different point of view, I think you must expect some resistance and honest feedback. PM: I expect resistance to my honestly held views because they threaten the misinformation machine that Greenpeace and their allies have become. I believe many of the policies of the organization are senseless, such as their opposition to many forms of aquaculture, including salmon, shrimp and tuna farming. I have not called you a murderer, unless you too have been responsible for blocking the introduction of genetically modified Golden Rice that would prevent between 250,000 to 500,000 children from going blind each year and then dying miserably at an early age due to vitamin A deficiency.
Read it all (it’s much longer than this). It’s not often you actually see two well informed men go face to face. H/t Merryn Sullivan, HockeySchtick. Photo: Petroleum Economist who also have a story out on Moore 31-3-2011
Bob of the Nether Regions should get a copy of this.
20
Heh heh .
From the full piece itself:-
By his own account, Eh ?
Has George been fishing ?
Inspired by the words of his favourite commentator, Lord Monckton, no doubt.
😉
20
This video featuring some of Tim Flannery’s comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c&feature=player_embedded#at=254
He is evil, personified.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
10
I colleague of mine, in the States, refers to the “OrgCom Divide”.
She uses the term in two ways (which can be a little confusing, at times):
Firstly, it is a shorthand for the attitude in a lot of American and international NGO’s that the corporate world are, in some way, “the enemy”.
That comes through very clearly in this snippet where Rex Weyler talks of “Corporate Gigs”, both attempting to belittle “Corporations”, and implying that Patrick Moore is speaking as a form of paid entertainment. It is a propaganda ploy – people need an identifiable enemy if they are going to become motivated.
Secondly, the contraction “OrgCom” (without the word “Divide”) is used to describe the organisational structure and relationships between Not-For-Profit (tax exempt) organisations, and commercial organisations that are working together to achieve the same goal.
Probably the best known of these, is the relationships between Fenton Communications (a commercial organisation that, “develops landmark public interest campaigns that start conversations, drive action and change the world”); the Tides Foundation (a not-for-profit organisation that accepts donations from philanthropists, movie-stars, and other charitable foundations, and allows the donors to nominate which causes they wish to support); and the Tides Center (another commercial organisation, that partners with groups and other organisations to promote, “economic justice, robust democratic processes, and the opportunity to live in a healthy and sustainable environment where human rights are preserved and protected”).
Fenton Communications drives (or used to drive) a lot of the PR that raises concern over climate change. Philanthropists, and other wealthy people concerned about the amount of tax they pay, make donations to worthy causes, and Fenton’s job is to present the climate as a worthy cause.
Many of those donations find their way to the Tides Foundation which, according to its mandate, makes grants to commercial organisations working in the areas nominated by the donors. The Tides Centre is one such organisation, and it, in turn, provides funding of other not-for-profit organisations, including Greenpeace, WWF, etc.
It is worth noting that the RealClimate web site was originally registered by an organisation called “Environmental Media Services” which, in turn, was established as a joint not-for-profit “project” (i.e. joint venture) between the Tides Center and Fenton Communications. It is a small world.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that Greenpeace, WWF, et al, are corporations in all but name. The actual difference is they they are registered as charitable organisations on the basis that they rely on funding from donations, and are not required to pay a dividend to shareholders. But their revenue streams, retained funds, and salary payments are larger than many successful American corporations.
They are in an “OrgCom” relationship that is actually based on a classic money laundering model, which is how I came to be interested in all this in the first place.
10
Well, here’s my confession.
I joined the Friends of the Earth in 1977, marched against Uranium mining, was a member of Greenpeace but left in the early nineties to be more active locally and joined the Wilderness Society.
I resigned in disgust in 2000 due to the radical influence that infiltrated the organisation and I’m still active in real environmentalism behind the scenes.
So I understand Patrick’s position.
10
Off Topic:
Just arrived in my inbox from the ACTU Your Rites at Work.
What has happened to our union movement, when did its executive become a noose around the necks of their membership?
________
Note: Mr. Malloy’s comment here is critical, not supportive, of the ACTU petition. Please see his additional comment at #13. — Editor
10
3Shocker:
April 9th, 2011 at 6:28 am
Indeed. Isn’t it somewhat ‘axiomatic’ that such unbridled enthusiasm for his own ideas will be disastrous for the rest of us.
Seeing that zeal in the naive & inexperienced reminds one of the thinking of Robespierre & his cohorts, which caused such devastation in the wake of the French Revolution. He was supposedly well meaning too.
The young must be given time to get over their enthusiasm for nouveauities, before being given the power to subject us to them . Some would call it experience.
Sadly experience doesn’t come from time alone, but from having one’s beliefs challenged and indeed from discovering when is wrong.
10
Sad to think a whole group of young people are fighting the battles of a bunch of activist baby boomer hippies who have long since gone corporate. The young people being indoctrinated into greenpeace today have grown up with the concept and targeted from a young age, complete with marketing and merchandising. That hardly makes them revolutionary or in any way representing the original grassroots objectives or roots of the movement.
10
Sometimes we have to disagree with those we agree with.
I disagree with Patrick Moore’s opposition to the Greenies proposal to ban chlorine in drinking water.
The chlorine put into public water supplies is sodium hypochlorite [bleach]. It is tumorogenic, mutagenic and a primary irritant.
Combined with fluoride which has the same toxicity as lead and arsenic we have a pretty toxic water supply. See “Just Think It – Fluoride the Invisible Killer”
11
I’m unable to look in for a while and nothing much changes. What a world!
The reversal of Patrick Moore is refreshing however. We need all the high level people who realize what’s really going on that we can get.
10
kevin moore @9,
As with anything, the dose makes the poison. Addition of chlorine to drinking water has made it possible for large cities to have safe drinking water for a very long time. If you use any swimming pool you’re exposed to many more times as much of it. So much more in fact, that if you swallow very much of it you’re almost certain to be sick from it.
I’ll take the chlorine and avoid the nasty little bugs like cholera any day. 😉
20
brc: #8
I could be glib, and say that it was, “all evolution, baby”, but I won’t.
The way I see it, having never been a member, is that Greenpeace has gone through three manifestations:
The original manifestation was the “baby boomer hippies”, who were also into the idea of living in communes, being self sufficient, and growing hemp to make their own shirts (seriously – I still own one).
But the joys (or otherwise) of living in a commune is very akin to living as a Communist, so naturally when the Berlin wall came down, a lot of the young people who moved west, looking for a better life, found a familiar society they could join. This particularly was evident in Germany, at the time. In the communes, they learnt all about Greenpeace, and what it stood for, and joined in droves. This formed the second manifestation of the organisation, where is shifted from being a protest organisation, to being an activist organisation.
As an activist organisation, it has lots of young, idealised, foot soldiers who need to be fed, and watered, and motivated, and supplied with activist propaganda material. All of that needs supply-chain management, and a corporate structure, and a guaranteed income stream (as per my previous comment). That is the third manifestation.
So we have gone from laid-back Hippies, through Communism, to Corporatism.
An interesting progression, and the people still at the top – the few remaining Hippies – don’t actually see it, in the same way that a fish doesn’t see the water.
It is only when you get outside and away from it, as Patrick Moore has done, that your perspective changes. And for that reason alone, I would take his views as having more credence than the views of somebody who was still with the organisation.
10
Not that I post to count the thumbs up I receive, However I believe the fact that my post at 6 in relation to the ACTU’s attempts to solicit signatures for their petition in support of a price on carbon has only attracted thumbs down, the intention of my post has been totally misread.
I posted it only so readers here could see how Australian Unions work against their membership, I left the links open on purpose so their evil could be better exposed.
It was never my intention to solicit signatures on their behalf. As should have been evident with my closing line. What has happened to our union movement, when did its executive become a noose around the necks of their membership?
_____
Mr. Malloy, I’ve added a clarifying note to your original post. Hope this fixes the problem. — Editor
10
Bob Malloy: @ 6.
After receiving similar emails some time ago I sent “Your Rights at Work” a response to the effect that such activism was outside their charter and that I was not happy with them. I also canceled my subscription and no longer have to read their enviro-propaganda.
Jo says:-
Yep, Commo’s doing what they do best, smearing opponents and “airbrushing” inconvenient history.
10
A link posted by Patrick over the CANdo site.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/
10
Shocker
I think Tim might just be having flashbacks to the days of his youth playing Shadowrun or Alpha Centauri.
10
I also in the past have sent them a critical reply to their propaganda, recommending they investigate the works of Richard Lindzen and Bob Carter or spend a bit of time here at Jo’s or at WUWT.
At the moment I choose to keep receiving their newsletter as I believe its always preferable to now what your enemy is doing.
10
Bob Malloy,
Good strategy.
I must admit as soon as I got the email I was so incensed I immediately shot a hostile email back and canceled.
I read too much of what the enemy’s up to and have to limit my exposure to their lies as it’s not good for my blood pressure.
10
Great interview – thank you Jo.
I particularly like this :
RW: Really Patrick, you appear to have lost your way.
PM: There is your condescending tone again. I have a very clear path ahead of me.
we cop that sort of remark everyday don’t we, the believers are so convinced that they are right yet Patrick blew away every objection he put up.
10
[…] Greenpeace founder has second thoughts. Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace way back in 1971. He abandoned them in 1986 so he could pursue his environmental passions. As you would. Last November he published a tempting book: Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. And not surprisingly stretched a few of his old friendships. The Vancouver Sun has a rare debate between himself and Rex Weyler, another co-Founder (see below for a snippet). […]
10
Kevin Moore@ 9 (no where near Keb Mo)
In my experience, the chlorine used in municipal treated water in Australia is by chlorine gas.
10
The achievements of the environmental movement during the 70s and 80s was revolutionary.
The problem is revolutions also attract thugs and bandits who use the veil of the ’cause’ to legitimise their behaviour.
Of course the thugs and bandits want the revolution to continue forever so they continually change their goals, becoming increasingly unrealistic as they go.
10
kevin moore@6
I think you’ll find that it’s Calcium Hypochlorite that is used for water purification. I’m reasonably sure of that because I used to work for people that sold it to the authorities.
10
I seem to have created a bit of a stir with my post at 9 re chlorine.
Some information about chlorines affect on health can be found here:
“Chlorinated water”
http://www.whale.to/w/chlorine.html
10
kevin moore:
April 9th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I followed your link.
What’s next “chemtrails”?
Loony tunes.
10
I can see how Gaia would be a very appealing philosophy to live by for the comfortably off, well meaning & idealistic, but The danger comes when they start projecting and predicting from what is only a theory & not a very falsifiable one at that., & then imposing suffering in the name of Gaia.
What Gaia the philosophy seems to be missing is a self regulating mechanisms on the tendency to excesses in it’s proponents if left unchecked.
Anyhow, James Lovelock seems to be resigned to the view that we’re headed for hell in a handcart whether we like it or not and there’s nothing we can do to really stop it., while admitting he may be wrong on the former but not on the latter.
Wouldn’t that make him a sceptic ( of our impact on GW) too ?
10
Sorry kevin @23,
But when I read stuff like: “Fluoride (and chlorine) is a halogen. Halogens make it simpler for beings to gain access to the human self and possess it.”
I start to veer away from reading much further. Just as I cringe when Tim Flannery tells me all about “Gaia” (whatever that’s supposed to be), I know they are not talking science.
Tarot cards, crystal balls and astrology might be the tools of trade for Flannery and the greens, but it sure ain’t science. If I want fantasy, I’ll turn to Disney, Pixar or some other reputable people.
10
Greenpeace and many other environmental groups predict the collapse of civilization and the environment and then push policies that would accomplish just that. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yeah the science on the MDB report was crap recommending the worlds largest food bowl be reduced by 2/3ds. Tony Burke utter slimball says ‘boy catch up we don’t make policy based on a report.’
In future that is if the Greenies want one we will have criminal trials for this sort of thing.
10
Agree with you William @ 28.
Taking this thought further. What idealistic objection does Greenpeace have (or could have) to Roger Moore’s wish for a better world?
Mummy, how do you spell misanthropilst?
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Liked it. I think the opinion on mechanisation was over-emphasised. My list for villages in developing countries would go:
1 Clean water
2 Sewage disposal
3 Education for women
4 Free effective contraception (controlled by women)
5 Free mosquito nets
That would be easily do-able with the $trillions$ proposed for “climate control” in a ten year time scale.
On mechanisation. I use a 50cc Honda machine to move snow around. It has about 5 times more power than me, and gave me about 60 hours work on 10 litres of petrol this winter.
10
Mummy replies: “Misanthropist, my son.”
10
Re Al Gore, global governance, the new global currency:-
http://www.alor.org/
10
Kevin Moore @ 9 what do you know about Sodium Hypochlorite that isn’t in the MSDS?
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s4106.htm
10
Mark D @ 33
I wrote to the Brisbane Library back in the early 90’s and received a printout which among research citations, supplied that information.
I have worked in some toxic mining and refinery sites and found from my own research that Manufacturer Safety Data Sheets are not to be trusted.
10
I was interested in Shocker’s comment on April 9th at 6:28 am and commented on it on the Bishop Hill blog of UK sceptical author Andrew Montford (Note 1) who wrote “The Hockey Stick Illusion”
After watching that A/V and another from 2008 (Note 2) on U-tube I don’t think that banjo is far off the mark.
Gaia-man Flannery has been appointed to head up the Australian Government’s Climate Change Commission and it is obvious why he has been specially chosen for that job. There is no doubting his inclinations – he’s as “Green” as they come. The Commission was set up after the Government reneged on its election promise of a citizens’ assembly. Such an assembly would be liable to influence from sceptics so that wouldn’t help persuade the Australian taxpayers to feel good about paying more of their hard-earned income over in the form of a tax on their carbon dioxide emissions. Although the Government claimed to be selecting climate experts it made sure that they were first and foremost staunch supporters of the CACC doctrine. They had to do that because they wanted to ensure the Commission’s full support even if, as “Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says it will work independently of the Government” (Note 3).
Here’s a taster of Flannery’s opinion on CACC in 2008 “All of the key indicators of the the climate system really are changing well in advance of the computer modelling. So, if you look at the data for the decay of the Arctic ice cap for example, that is just moving so quickly now. I mean last year was the worst year ever. People are saying, you know, that instead of the ice cap lasting a century, that maybe in five years there’ll be no Arctic ice cap. So you can’t look at things like that without seeing that we are in deep trouble” (Note 4).
So, with statements like that and not a sign of uncertainty, it is reasonable to expect that Flannery has demonstrated expertise in the causes of climate change. A search for relevant papers revealed – nothing. He’s written plenty books on subjects ranging from “The Kangaroo” (1985), through “Australia’s Vanishing Mammals” (1990), “Life and Adventures: John Nicol, Mariner” (1997), “Prehistoric Mammals
of Australia and New Guinea: One Hundred Million Years of Evolution.” (2002) to “An Explorer’s Notebook. Essays on Life, History and Climate.” (2007) but I find nothing on what causes climates to change. It is claimed that his areas of expertise are “evolutionary biology, Climate change, Paleontology, Zoology” (Note 5) but I could find no evidence of any expertise in the processes and drivers of the different global climates.
I suspect that if I checked up on the background of the other members of the Climate Change Commission I’d have similar results and find not a sceptical scientist among them – any thoughts anyone?
This reminds me of another appointee to a position of significance, this time of Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University as advisor on climate science to Rudd’s Government. Once again I could find plenty of evidence of expertise, this time in specie extinction, but nothing demonstrating the required expertise in those rather important processes and drivers of global climates. It is hardly surprising that a coujple of years ago Brook would acknowledge that “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem” (Note 6).
Brook wasn’t very happy when I kept asking him to explain how he could so confidently express his concern about CACC yet admit those uncertainties. He claimed that I was being disingenuous for not including in my quote his reference to those 95% and 5% lines of evidence and the risks associated with climate change and I was threatened with “action” and banned from his blog. Considering that he offered no justification for those 95% and 5% figures, appearing to pluck them out of thin air just like the IPCC when trying to quantify uncertainty, I leave it to others to judge who was being disingenuous.
NOTES:
NB: To bypass the moderation filter I have removed http:// from 1) & 6) and http://www. from the rest.
1) see bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/9/light-blogging.html?lastPage=true#comment12564818
2) see climatechangematters.net.au/tim_flannery.htm
3) see abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/10/3135059.htm
4) see abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2369164.htm
5) see wentworthgroup.org/members/prof-tim-flannery
6) see bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
10
Thing is Pete biologists can genuinely to have an expertise in the impacts of the predicted climate change. I think that is very valuable expertise as it is those people who can see the disaster ahead most clearly. Not everyone can be an expert in “IF” and “HOW”, we do need experts in “IMPACTS OF”. Without those who would know if the “IF” and “HOW” even mattered.
There are uncertainties in all science, but we still have policy and build stuff based on said science.
10
Kevin Moore re 33 & 34
Kevin, I have to say I looked at your link in @24 above and frankly I’m not impressed.
http://www.factsaboutbleach.com/bleach_misconceptions/does_not_cause_cancer_or_asthma.html
and they also add:
Mike Borgelt: says “whats next CHEMTRAILS?” and he must be prophetic because from your link in @24 there is indeed a path to that subject, as well as reptile humans. I quit looking after that!
Kevin, I suggest you stop posting stuff here that is off topic and Wacko.
10
MattB. I agree with you about IMPACTS and consider it worthwhile improving our understanding of these and determining ways in which we can protect ourselves against whatever Nature decides to throw our way. That is not what the main debate is about. The highly uncertain issue is what causes the different global climates to change as they do and how significant an impact do humans have. There is no convincing evidence that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic changes in global climates.
Yes, “There are uncertainties in all science, but we still have policy and build stuff based on said science” but the policy of taxing our emissions of CO2 is not the way to stop Nature changing climates as she pleases. The only reason for that policy is to raise money in order to finance other agenda matters.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
10