ChatterBank1 min ago
Doom And Gloom.
Here is a letter in last week's Spectator;
Sir: The depressing article by Tom Woodman (‘You must be kidding’, 16 October) confirms my growing fears about the damage being wrought by the promoters of apocalyptic climate change, which has become a dangerous cult with alarming echoes of millenarian doom which has stretched through many previous centuries. While sensible care for the environment is a good thing, the descriptions of a frightening future of the imminent end of the world through drought, flood and fire now imbues every aspect of education and politics. Constantly bombarding young people with the news that the end of the world is nigh has led many of them into completely unnecessary visions of death and disaster.
Those convinced by the relentlessly gloomy outlook should try reading some of the opposite viewpoints instead, of which there are many. Those responsible for the propaganda should hang their heads in shame at what they have done and are doing to the mental welfare of younger generations.
Dr Angela Montford
St Andrews, Fife
Does the Doctor not make a good point?
Sir: The depressing article by Tom Woodman (‘You must be kidding’, 16 October) confirms my growing fears about the damage being wrought by the promoters of apocalyptic climate change, which has become a dangerous cult with alarming echoes of millenarian doom which has stretched through many previous centuries. While sensible care for the environment is a good thing, the descriptions of a frightening future of the imminent end of the world through drought, flood and fire now imbues every aspect of education and politics. Constantly bombarding young people with the news that the end of the world is nigh has led many of them into completely unnecessary visions of death and disaster.
Those convinced by the relentlessly gloomy outlook should try reading some of the opposite viewpoints instead, of which there are many. Those responsible for the propaganda should hang their heads in shame at what they have done and are doing to the mental welfare of younger generations.
Dr Angela Montford
St Andrews, Fife
Does the Doctor not make a good point?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Well it's your choice; you can either listen to what "Moore" (Dr!) says, a man who cares so much & is knowledgeable enough about the planet to not just talk, but to found Greenpeace.
Or you can listen to the rantings of a teenage, hysterical and uneducated, Swedish girl. //
I’ll choose neither, I’ll listen to the frontline scientists that know what they are talking about
Or you can listen to the rantings of a teenage, hysterical and uneducated, Swedish girl. //
I’ll choose neither, I’ll listen to the frontline scientists that know what they are talking about
\\ Have you seen Dr. Moore's pesticide interview khandro? Rather shows him up for what he is imo... he takes money from lobbies that don't want anything done about climate change and acts as a mouthpiece for them//
Is that any worse than scientists kowtowing to government agendas to ensure they continue to get their funding?
Is that any worse than scientists kowtowing to government agendas to ensure they continue to get their funding?
vulcan : I know nothing about Dr Moore's views on pesticides & I don't know if he supports Manchester United, all I'm interested here is his opinions on climate change; a subject he has been publicly speaking about for several years in front of some very smart people, and so far he hasn't been challenged on the facts he has laid before them.
If you know where he is going factually wrong, please tell us.
If you know where he is going factually wrong, please tell us.
// Moore, a man who cares so much & is knowledgeable enough about the planet to not just talk, but to found Greenpeace. //
I thought we had dispelled with that yesterday.
He was not a founder of Greenpeace. It had existed for a year before he joined. He was an early member.
He was not President of the worldwide organisation, he was President of the Canada branch.
That was before he converted to Nuclear and became a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies.
I thought we had dispelled with that yesterday.
He was not a founder of Greenpeace. It had existed for a year before he joined. He was an early member.
He was not President of the worldwide organisation, he was President of the Canada branch.
That was before he converted to Nuclear and became a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies.
gromit: and I dealt with it too, saying it was immaterial. He has never (as far as I know) claimed he was President of Greenpeace, that was a title someone else put on to an earlier video.
He was though, certainly a founder member, being a party to its origin
Dictionary;
'Founder-member
nounBRITISH
a person belonging to a society or organization who was involved in setting it up.'
He was though, certainly a founder member, being a party to its origin
Dictionary;
'Founder-member
nounBRITISH
a person belonging to a society or organization who was involved in setting it up.'
Greenpeace statement:
// Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. //
He was NOT a founder.
// Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. //
He was NOT a founder.
tomus; I wouldn't say it was a 'hoax', but when it comes to catastrophic man-made global warming theory, the evidence just isn’t there to support it. Current global temperature fluctuations are within normal historic climate patterns. As for predicting future climate behaviour, this is a fool’s errand.
The bloodcurdling predictions of apocalyptic global warming are mostly derived from computer modelling. But climate is a vastly complex, chaotic, non-linear system that cannot be predicted.
The global temperature measurements brought to support the modelling predictions are wildly inaccurate and contradictory. And some scientists — acting more like ideological zealots — have manipulated the available data to suppress evidence that contradicts the theory.
Contrary to current claims, extreme weather events aren’t occurring more frequently. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and at most coastal locations this is primarily due to changes in land level associated with tectonics and land use.
The Antarctic interior recorded its coldest April-to-September this year since records began in 1957. It was also the station’s second coldest winter (June, July and August) on record, with an average seasonal temperature 3.4 degrees C below the average for winter recorded from 1881-2010.
Climate change dogma holds that rising CO2 levels inescapably push up global temperatures. But these temperatures have actually been flat-lining for the past seven years. Globally, it’s actually cooler now than it was in 2015. This undermines the entire theory.
One of the world’s most distinguished meteorologists, professor Richard Lindzen, has said that not only does the data show no trend towards extreme temperatures, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees there is no evident trend.
The bloodcurdling predictions of apocalyptic global warming are mostly derived from computer modelling. But climate is a vastly complex, chaotic, non-linear system that cannot be predicted.
The global temperature measurements brought to support the modelling predictions are wildly inaccurate and contradictory. And some scientists — acting more like ideological zealots — have manipulated the available data to suppress evidence that contradicts the theory.
Contrary to current claims, extreme weather events aren’t occurring more frequently. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and at most coastal locations this is primarily due to changes in land level associated with tectonics and land use.
The Antarctic interior recorded its coldest April-to-September this year since records began in 1957. It was also the station’s second coldest winter (June, July and August) on record, with an average seasonal temperature 3.4 degrees C below the average for winter recorded from 1881-2010.
Climate change dogma holds that rising CO2 levels inescapably push up global temperatures. But these temperatures have actually been flat-lining for the past seven years. Globally, it’s actually cooler now than it was in 2015. This undermines the entire theory.
One of the world’s most distinguished meteorologists, professor Richard Lindzen, has said that not only does the data show no trend towards extreme temperatures, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees there is no evident trend.
