Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it didn't leave out this information after all. Interesting.
Ummm... you all think I'm an idiot. Leaving an organization and having that organization issue a public statement disassociating itself with an individual are two VERY different things.
People leave organizations all the time. Means nothing.
So, there was nothing factually incorrect in the article but you are saying it didn't include additional information? Well, you presented your argument but I also believe that Moore's words should have some credence given his personal experience.
There is no conclusive evidence of manmade global warming.
1. We know we are burning fossil fuels which create carbon emissions that get into the atmosphere.
2. We know that extra CO2 in the atmosphere begins to increase the global temperature.
3. We know that the Earths average temperature has increased at a higher rate over the last 50 years than at any other time in Earths history that we can find in ice core deposits.
4. But we don't know if the increase in temperature is due to the increase in human CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels.
5. Even if we could find a conclusive link, we don't know if we can reverse it.
That is the global warming problem in a nut shell.
Of course it's factually incorrect. Just read the OP's post where he describes Patrick Moore as an "environmentalist". He has been disassociated from that movement for many years and is described as a "former".
And an article that omits key pieces of information to purposely skew a story is NOT factually correct either. Ever wonder why, when you take an oath, they say "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" This article is not the whole truth.
Do you have to join a special group to be considered an environmentalist? Seriously, anyone could call themselves that. I would suspect those that do not agree with him call him "former". If he says he is one then you certainly cannot say he isn't because there is no absolute litmus test for such a claim.
This is the SECOND thread that you either called me UNDEREDUCATED or not of your VAST intellect.
You claim to be not a Liberal, yet ALL your posts prove otherwise.
What part of this thread is not true?
He did just appear recently on the FOX Business News Channel and that's what the article describes accurately.
Therefore, it is newsworthy as a piece of recent news.
I'm sure your intellect can handle that.
To be clear - I've called your posts targeting me lacking intellectual fortitude, not you. I'm sure you're quite stellar. Fine. He appeared on Fox News. Discuss away. Whether or not this thread should exist was a minor little aside that you all have attached to, but is irrelevant to the larger issue.
My views are complicated politically, but I'm a libertarian.
Of course it's factually incorrect. Just read the OP's post where he describes Patrick Moore as an "environmentalist". He has been disassociated from that movement for many years and is described as a "former".
I got a shocker for your VAST INTELLECT.........
Just because he left ONE environmentalist group, doesn't mean he is no longer an environmentalist.
He's just an environmentalist who doesn't agree with Greenpeace....and I'm quite SURE there are many more!!
Do you have to join a special group to be considered an environmentalist? Seriously, anyone could call themselves that. I would suspect those that do not agree with him call him "former". If he says he is one then you certainly cannot say he isn't because there is no absolute litmus test for such a claim.
I get your point, but there's a formal "environmentalist" movement that is well defined politically and separate from "conservationist" or other delineations.
There is no conclusive evidence of manmade global warming.
1. We know we are burning fossil fuels which create carbon emissions that get into the atmosphere.
2. We know that extra CO2 in the atmosphere begins to increase the global temperature.
3. We know that the Earths average temperature has increased at a higher rate over the last 50 years than at any other time in Earths history that we can find in ice core deposits.
4. But we don't know if the increase in temperature is due to the increase in human CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels.
5. Even if we could find a conclusive link, we don't know if we can reverse it.
That is the global warming problem in a nut shell.
There's so much in this that has been studied and has peer-reviewed studies to refute these claims but this would be the 20th thread I have posted those studies and thus will refrain for brevity's sake.
Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental organization Greenpeace, isn’t too hot about global warming. Appearing on Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney on Thursday, he said global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that “alarmism” is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies. He also said he’s not the only environmentalist that believes like him
Of course not, its the women that create all that hot air.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
