• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenpeace founder: Climate Change hysteria a complete fabrication

CLAX1911 said:
I don't think the government's goals was altruistic there I think they fought that kicking and screaming. Governments love maintaining status quo.
Click to expand...
The government fought the laws itself had passed?
 
Loulit01 said:
Patrick Albert Moore (born June 15, 1947) is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, an early member and past president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986,[2] Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".[3] Greenpeace has criticized Moore, calling him "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"[4] who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson".[5]
wiki

Not exactly co-founder of Greenpeace.
Click to expand...
People and organizations don't like being "ratted out."
 
JBG said:
People and organizations don't like being "ratted out."
Click to expand...
Gee, members of a progressive organization or the organization itself go over the top with some advocacy. Who knew? Glad to know it doesn’t happen on the right, with gun advocates, etc.
 
Nickyjo said:
Your post about wind suggests that subsidies don’t exist for oil. Two come to mind: first the old oil depletion allowance subsidy to oil; second, the presence of two US fleets in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
Neither of those are actual subsidies by the old definition of the word. The left has misused the word "subsidy" for so many years, and so frequently, that the dictionarys accommodated the new definition of misuse.
 
Nickyjo said:
As I posted, the world disagrees with you. But relax, we’ll likely make the right decisions as we did with the dangers perceived with respect to tobacco, smog, the ozone layer, acid raid, etc.,creating and modifying and ending policies as new evidence surfaces.
Click to expand...
Careful.

Your indoctrination to government control is showing.
 
Loulit01 said:
Not exactly co-founder of Greenpeace.
Click to expand...
If you can find old literature on the topic, they include him as a founding member. One of several. They like to rewrite the history, but then they constantly lie anyway. They have zero credibility. That is no different.

The conflict to my knowledge comes in when originally, the boat they used was named "Greenpeace" before Moore joined them. Moore was part of the group when they officially and collectively named the organization after the boat.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Neither of those are actual subsidies by the old definition of the word. The left has misused the word "subsidy" for so many years, and so frequently, that the dictionarys accommodated the new definition of misuse.
Click to expand...
A huge tax break is not a subsidy? Its purpose is defined as “so that a price or commodity can remain low or competitive.” But your attack on how dictionaries work is illuminating. Hint: it’s the way they have always worked, not the result of some leftist conspiracy.

But really, who cares how one defines it? The fact is that the US has seen production of and access to energy here and elsewhere, to water in California, to survival of family farms as worthy of government support, whether through farm assistance, government-built dams, fleets guarding the Middle East, et al.

I put solar panels on my roof some years ago and got a huge tax credit, (no longer available, I believe) sort of my own oil depletion allowance. I got to deduct mortgage interest on a rental property, and depreciation on that property as if it were a tractor falling apart when it quadrupled in value.

We probably all get subsidies in one form or another. I worked for the farm workers union in the 1970s and was amazed at the attitudes of some of the growers I got to know. It is true that the business could have them make a lot one year and go under the next. But perhaps because of that they thought it was them alone vs soil and weather, seeming oblivious to the water they got from dams (in apparent violation of acreage limits), the assistance of ag universities to analyze their soil and provide other assistance, the temporary WWII bracero program of imported Mexican labor that lasted 20 years after the war ended, the freedom from labor laws governing non-farm businesses, etc. Conclusion: we all suck at a different government teat.
 
Nickyjo said:
A huge tax break is not a subsidy? Its purpose is defined as “so that a price or commodity can remain low or competitive.” But your attack on how dictionaries work is illuminating. Hint: it’s the way they have always worked, not the result of some leftist conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I didn't call it a conspiracy. That is your misinterpretation. , The left is so agenda driven they misuse words to the point of invalidating their nuances. They get rewarded for their activism, and I find that appalling.
Nickyjo said:
But really, who cares how one defines it?
Click to expand...
When you destroy the nuances between words, why have so many? Pretty soon the left will drive us into a culture that has no bigger of a vocabulary than cavemen.
Nickyjo said:
The fact is that the US has seen production of and access to energy here and elsewhere, to water in California, to survival of family farms as worthy of government support, whether through farm assistance, government-built dams, fleets guarding the Middle East, et al.

I put solar panels on my roof some years ago and got a huge tax credit, (no longer available, I believe) sort of my own oil depletion allowance. I got to deduct mortgage interest on a rental property, and depreciation on that property as if it were a tractor falling apart when it quadrupled in value.
Click to expand...
I believe in tax deduction for costs. Not tax credits. There is a difference you know, but maybe you do not since you consider them both a subsidy...

I am old school and a realist. By my standard a tax deduction is appropriate in many situations. A tax credit is never good in my book. That is a subsidy. The tax deduction is not, or at least did not use to be by definition.

Words have meaning, and the destruction of their nuances should not be tolerated by any intelligent individual.
Nickyjo said:
We probably all get subsidies in one form or another. I worked for the farm workers union in the 1970s and was amazed at the attitudes of some of the growers I got to know. It is true that the business could have them make a lot one year and go under the next. But perhaps because of that they thought it was them alone vs soil and weather, seeming oblivious to the water they got from dams (in apparent violation of acreage limits), the assistance of ag universities to analyze their soil and provide other assistance, the temporary WWII bracero program of imported Mexican labor that lasted 20 years after the war ended, the freedom from labor laws governing non-farm businesses, etc. Conclusion: we all suck at a different government teat.
Click to expand...
Everyone is subsidized in one way or another by the changed definition.

The word no longer has any valid meaning.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you can find old literature on the topic, they include him as a founding member.
Click to expand...
I don't need literature. I know Greenpeace staff. One friend risked his life confronting Russians, as did others.
The uninformed should just sit this topic out.
 
Volunteer said:
I don't need literature. I know Greenpeace staff. One friend risked his life confronting Russians, as did others.
The uninformed should just sit this topic out.
Click to expand...
I have seen older writings by them. Believe as you wish, and if you are friends with that garbage... I suggest you distance yourself from them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
t have seen older writings by them. Believe as you wish, and if you are friends with that garbage... I suggest you distance yourself from them.
Click to expand...
Although we disagree over the effects of fossil fuel burning at least you bring some data to the table on that topic. But, on this topic, I sense only negativity, and without data. I suggest you sit this one out unless you can cite something simple, like, who is "them?"
 
Volunteer said:
Although we disagree over the effects of fossil fuel burning at least you bring some data to the table on that topic. But, on this topic, I sense only negativity, and without data. I suggest you sit this one out unless you can cite something simple, like, who is "them?"
Click to expand...
i know what I saw. This was years ago. Search engines are no longer goo at finding information seldom used.

Go fish.
 
Consider this. Was he or was he not an active member when they became official and took the name "Greenpeace?" He was part of the inner circle of the group called DMAW (Don't Make A Wave) that was founded in 1971. They legitimately organized later and Moore was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation.

Now you can take your revisionist history as it is on marked shit paper. They were not a legitimate foundation until the same time they changed their name to Greenpeace, which makes him a founding member of it.

It is DMAW that he did not help start.
 
He was part of Green Peace and did have a leadership role up until sometime in the 80s - 40 years ago - (& before it became a more formal org ). And I have no idea why his GP claim is relevant to us here in the 2020s. Anyone who is impressed with his GP association should note the separation occurred about 4 decades ago.

Back then, it was about bomb testing and then the whales. As the interests of the majority of Green Peace expanded to include climate issues, he began to separate from GP, it seems. He supported "sustainable development" though I was unable to find when he was a big pro-forest preservation activist.

As far as his statement on the science of CO2 with respect to climate change, he is quite wrong.

HOWEVER, does anyone know what the pinkish red "e" is in the upper right corner? Also, he appears to be much younger than in current photos - I worked a bit to find out how old this video is and the original source & failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom