Former head of Greenpeace, who has now done a complete U-turn and thinks chopping down the rainforests is fine, mainly because he has a highly paid consultancy for a lumber company.
Off Topic Climate change/ pollution
- Thread starter bradymk2
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Former head of Greenpeace, who has now done a complete U-turn and thinks chopping down the rainforests is fine, mainly because he has a highly paid consultancy for a lumber company.
That's an extremely limited opinion of the reasons he says what he does, and no longer wants anything to do with Greenpeace and if you look at his views, most are not 'U-turns' as much as reappraising the scientific information.
It's well worth someone looking in a bit more detail for the reasons he left, and makes the views he does, and it's sod all to do with lumber companies.
He changed his mind about the environmental policies and left Greenpeace in 1986
In 2010 he became a consultant for the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper
I doubt anybody would honestly think he would change his views "mainly because" he was planning to do work for a logging company 24 years later
Some of what he says is perfectly reasonable, but that's largely negated by the fact that he's now paid to lobby for organisations that are absolutely not good for the environment (though he claims they are).
It seems he was also a consultant for Monsanto and went on TV to declare that RoundUp was entirely safe and that you could drink 250ml of it with no adverse effects. The TV host offered to pour him a glass to see if it was true and Moore declared himself not stupid, ended the interview and walked off.
Sounds like he has sold his soul.
I didn't say he left Greenpeace to lobby for a lumber company.
He left Greenpeace because he disagreed with the direction they were taking, which is fair enough. But he's subsequently gone on to change his mind completely and claims there's nothing wrong with cutting down rainforests, as he's effectively paid to say that. He also claimed genetically modified foods are necessary, because he was a paid consultant for Monsanto.
So when he was part of the crew of The Greenpeace and later was president of Greenpeace Foundation in Canada and supporting what they stood for was it "largely negated" because he was getting paid by them?
I think that there are many informed people that would disagree with that rationale.
Part of the reason for several of the major forest fires is down to the restrictions placed on forestry by environmental actions, which has left a source of fuels vulnerable to the arsonist going around lighting them, and insufficient firebreaks being allowed to be put in place, as well as the wrong sort of tress that add to fire risks being in place as they more readily support combustion.
Improper forestry management also has a host of other negative environmental issues.
The lumber company he is involved in is one of the more environmentally responsible ones that put the environment before profit. Those types of sites do not suffer the extent of fires seen in other forests and done properly these companies can contribute big environmental gains, not just on fires but also biodiversity.
To dismiss his scientific knowledge and experience based on the on issue you do, is pretty much just copying a lazy, ill-informed trope.
Agree to disagree, though I'd strongly suggest you don't follow his advice regarding drinking weed killer.
I don't agree to disagree on the lazy trope.
If that sort of argument was offered in support of creating environmental damage, there'd be calls of fake news and climate denier, and advice to do some research and listen to the experts.
Patrick Moore has never been a consultant or a paid lobbyist for Monsanto, and he never walked off at that interview either. The actual debate they were having was if it caused cancer, for which the jury was very much out.
People who are against climate change are the same people who fell for £350m for the nhs.
Case closed.
Case closed.
Log burners should be banned, the legislation is weak and unenforceable, the pollutants that they push out along with CO2 is 450 times what comes out of a gas boiler, yet they are being phased out,
Like our old coal fires, people burn any waste crap they can find just get either get rid of it or keep the fire going. I took a blokes log burner out last year, it was supposed to be a super efficient one, yeah right, how his chimney never caught fire I will never know, he was horrified at the state of it, and he had a garage full of well seasoned logs.
Log fire burners are pretty nice during the winter. Not sure why anyone would burn anything other than wood though, because it damages the inside of them and causes smoke marks on the glass, plus causes creosoting on the inside of the chimney flue. But aren't you supposed to get the flue swept every two years, if a regular user, to prevent chimney fires?
Spending on the NHS has gone up by even more in real terms but it wont stop lefties lying
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projec...he Department,for spending on health services.
Much easier to switch off the electric if you don't follow the rules.
Dr Eli David is a Covid misinformation grifter. He spends his days on Twitter sharing videos about vaccines causing myocarditis and how 10% of vaccinated people will be dead in five years.
He has a PhD in Computer Science, hence his title, he is not an expert opinion on climate change, Covid or anything except computer science.