Greenpeace Says Fossil Fuel Industry Misleads On Climate Science

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. You have already posted about Soon hundreds of times. Can't you find anybody else?

a reply to: Anosognosia

I've found three more people than the denier camp has EVER produced. So how about producing some people of your own for a change?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not denying climate change am I? I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish.

The title of this thread should be Greenpeace misleads on climate science.

a reply to: Anosognosia

I'm trying to show that it isn't the people saying climate change is real that are being paid to say that, but the people saying it isn't real are being paid to say that.

By the way, no one has actually proved that Greenpeace is lying about their investigation. You've just labeled them as misleading due to them having an agenda.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, I wasn't trying to bait you, as I gave a thoughtful answer to the question posed. But you don't need to engage it, it was soooooo 15 minutes ago.

As for "opinions," AGW is a theory based on some evidence out there. Other evidence exists that shows an alternate view or concern that the AGW theory isn't the whole picture. Therefore, being pro-AGW or skeptical (or an absolute denier, as some are) is an opinion...evidence-based, for the most part, but an opinion nonetheless. I wasn't trying to be as demeaning as you seem to have taken that comment to be.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Anosognosia

I'm trying to show that it isn't the people saying climate change is real that are being paid to say that, but the people saying it isn't real are being paid to say that.

By the way, no one has actually proved that Greenpeace is lying about their investigation. You've just labeled them as misleading due to them having an agenda.

Did I say they were lying about their investigation? No I did not. Soon is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, that has been established a long time ago. Who cares anymore?

You are missing the point here. Greenpeace has a HUGE influence in the environmentalist community, much larger than anything the fossil fuel industry could hope to achieve by paying off a few scientists.

They should be held to much higher standard than someone obviously payed to uphold a specific agenda. Yet they are not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

the Koch brothers, who are donating something close to $1 billion.

There, you answered your own question. The whole debate, both sides is a dog and pony show, like con vs. chemtrail, like democrat vs. republican. (Edit: religion,race, class, education, wealth, pick your flavor of divisiveness).

Shadows in firelight dancing on the cave wall.

I already know this, I'm not a shadow maker, like others who incessantly promote the same topics over and over to keep it a going concern…

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Therefore, being pro-AGW or skeptical (or an absolute denier, as some are) is an opinion...evidence-based, for the most part, but an opinion nonetheless. I wasn't trying to be as demeaning as you seem to have taken that comment to be.

Always taken to be… welcome to that club.

I forget, debate on posters subjects is fraught with ridicule for disagreeing.

Greenpeace would say that, wouldn't they?

a reply to: intrptr

Well you've certainly proved that you are an expert at deflecting from actually providing evidence of your claims. That's all you've proved to me.

originally posted by: Anosognosia

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Anosognosia

I'm trying to show that it isn't the people saying climate change is real that are being paid to say that, but the people saying it isn't real are being paid to say that.

By the way, no one has actually proved that Greenpeace is lying about their investigation. You've just labeled them as misleading due to them having an agenda.

Did I say they were lying about their investigation? No I did not. Soon is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, that has been established a long time ago. Who cares anymore?

You are missing the point here. Greenpeace has a HUGE influence in the environmentalist community, much larger than anything the fossil fuel industry could hope to achieve by paying off a few scientists.

They should be held to much higher standard than someone obviously payed to uphold a specific agenda. Yet they are not.

It should be noted that you are making a lot of accusation about Greenpeace without actually providing any evidence that they aren't being held to high standards. I got a link on page 1 (which I'm pretty sure was from someone else, but that's not the point) to a wikipedia page about their past controversies, but YOU are making a bunch of claims about their character and that it is automatically proven that they aren't held up to certain standards.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Anosognosia

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Anosognosia

I'm trying to show that it isn't the people saying climate change is real that are being paid to say that, but the people saying it isn't real are being paid to say that.

By the way, no one has actually proved that Greenpeace is lying about their investigation. You've just labeled them as misleading due to them having an agenda.

Did I say they were lying about their investigation? No I did not. Soon is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, that has been established a long time ago. Who cares anymore?

You are missing the point here. Greenpeace has a HUGE influence in the environmentalist community, much larger than anything the fossil fuel industry could hope to achieve by paying off a few scientists.

They should be held to much higher standard than someone obviously payed to uphold a specific agenda. Yet they are not.

It should be noted that you are making a lot of accusation about Greenpeace without actually providing any evidence that they aren't being held to high standards. I got a link on page 1 (which I'm pretty sure was from someone else, but that's not the point) to a wikipedia page about their past controversies, but YOU are making a bunch of claims about their character and that it is automatically proven that they aren't held up to certain standards.

It's not just Greenpeace, most big environmental groups don't acknowledge the real issues affecting our climate.

Considering you post so much on climate change, I figured you would already know that.

a reply to: Anosognosia
In your opinion, what are the 'real' issues that affect our climate?

Do you think the spike of CO2 we are observing is not a significant issue?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Anosognosia
In your opinion, what are the 'real' issues that affect our climate?

Do you think the spike of CO2 we are observing is not a significant issue?

It is significant, but I think more so on a national security level right now. To be more clear, our dependency on fossil fuels being the threat to national security.

The real issues IMO are greenhouse gas emissions due to livestock, and deforestation which is in large part due to animal agriculture.

a reply to: jrod

Do you agree that livestock agriculture/deforestation is a bigger issue than CO2?

If not, please explain how you come to those conclusions.

a reply to: Anosognosia
Deforestation is right up there.

However the spike in CO2 levels is something that can't be ignored.

It's really futile to try to debate what environmental problem is the biggest issue and the spike of CO2 levels as a result of our fossil fuel consumption is a major issue that needs to be addressed, regardless.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Anosognosia
Deforestation is right up there.

However the spike in CO2 levels is something that can't be ignored.

It's really futile to try to debate what environmental problem is the biggest issue and the spike of CO2 levels as a result of our fossil fuel consumption is a major issue that needs to be addressed, regardless.

I appreciate your reply, but I think you may have missed what I said.

Do you think that livestock agriculture, and the deforestation that goes along with said livestock is a bigger issue than CO2?

You only mentioned deforestation, which in this case is just a result of the livestock agricultural industry.

I don't believe it is futile in any way to discuss specific issues that are causing climate change. I think it is the exact opposite actually.

How are you supposed to solve a crisis if you don't know what the problem is? The major environmental groups don't acknowledge this problem, neither do governments or climate scientists. You haven't either...why is this?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
Well well greenpeace. As if THEY ARENT BIASED or anything.

Is their bias preventing them from speaking the truth here?

www.kiwiblog.co.nz...

number 2

number 3

the third one is of particular interest to this topic.

a reply to: Anosognosia

I have not done the research to give a meaningful answer. I do know livestock agriculture also produces a lot of methane(as do landfills) and this also is a problem.

I think you missed my point, just because there are other ecological problems that very well maybe more serious than the CO2 problem, does not mean we should ignore the problem or use that as an excuse to kick the problem down to the next generation.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Anosognosia

I have not done the research to give a meaningful answer. I do know livestock agriculture also produces a lot of methane(as do landfills) and this also is a problem.

I think you missed my point, just because there are other ecological problems that very well maybe more serious than the CO2 problem, does not mean we should ignore the problem or use that as an excuse to kick the problem down to the next generation.

I didn't miss your point at all, but I do find it shocking you aren't more aware of this.

You really should do some research on it, otherwise you are basing your opinions on a very limited set of information.