• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we believe the experts or the politicians regarding climate change?

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I feel, with regards to CO2, that he is being a bit disingenuous. Saying that fossil
fuels come from sunshine isn't the point - it's the release of CO2 from these which
is the Problem. And the Earth IS getting hotter, very very fast.
Yes, we need nuclear. And yes, wind power chops up birds so people are draining
wetlands and forest around them to reduce the number of birds. So, it's complicated.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
This expert appears to be a PR flack for certain industries

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore

I love this "certain industries"
it has the strong whiff of Marxist envy about it.
"Certain industries" wanted to go nuclear power in the 1960's and 1970's.
Certain other industries sought to stop them.
Now we can't have nuclear, coal, oil, gas or hydro.
And the truth about wind power environmental damage is slowly coming out.
So that leaves us running our civilization on roof-top solar cells - as long as
the sun shines.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
I feel, with regards to CO2, that he is being a bit disingenuous. Saying that fossil
fuels come from sunshine isn't the point - it's the release of CO2 from these which
is the Problem. And the Earth IS getting hotter, very very fast.
Yes, we need nuclear. And yes, wind power chops up birds so people are draining
wetlands and forest around them to reduce the number of birds. So, it's complicated.

In this video, he says that at the peak of the last glaciations carbon dioxide dropped to level of 180 ppm. This being only 30ppm above the death of plants.

The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth is 1000ppm. It is only 400ppm at present.


He says that carbon dioxide is the food of life.
 
I love this "certain industries"
it has the strong whiff of Marxist envy about it.
"Certain industries" wanted to go nuclear power in the 1960's and 1970's.
Certain other industries sought to stop them.
Now we can't have nuclear, coal, oil, gas or hydro.
And the truth about wind power environmental damage is slowly coming out.
So that leaves us running our civilization on roof-top solar cells - as long as
the sun shines.

I love when people just make stuff up and pretend it has anything to do with what you said. It has the strong whiff of the narrative fallacy about it.

The point was that paid advocates for a cause shouldn't be presented as neutral experts ;)
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Of course you are a climate change denier.

Why am I not surprised.

The scientific community as a whole stands behind the science of climate change.
"But hey look, here is this one guy who probably gets money from some Oil/Gas Company who says different!"

What is he doesn't "get money from some Oil/Gas" ???
There's tons of careers and money riding on Global Warming you know.
A lot of "Oil/Gas" people wanted to go nuclear but vested interests stopped them.
If the issue concerns vested interests then let's list them all.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I love when people just make stuff up and pretend it has anything to do with what you said. It has the strong whiff of the narrative fallacy about it.

The point was that paid advocates for a cause shouldn't be presented as neutral experts ;)

In Australia we have plenty of "paid advocates" standing in the way of nuclear power, bridges, airports,
gas fields, oil drilling, timber, live sheep export, commercial fishing, shooting, dams, hydro-power, coal,
heavy industry, uranium mining, any mining, freeways, tollways, tourism infrastructure and the like.
And many of these are tax-payer funded. The nerve.

We have outsourced our industries. It's all quite racist but Asians now handle our waste, provide our
timber and fish and soon I would suppose - send their coal-generated electricity to us.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What makes you so convinced that he does not have the facts?

Why didn't you answer my question?

I don't know how many facts he's in possession of but he's a "consultant" and campaigner with some clear vested interests - not an expert. Experts are people who actually study these things. This guy doesn't appear to have done any real science since his PhD.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Why didn't you answer my question?

I don't know how many facts he's in possession of but he's a "consultant" and campaigner with some clear vested interests - not an expert. Experts are people who actually study these things. This guy doesn't appear to have done any real science since his PhD.

I have watched some of his videos. This does not make me an expert but it does make me believe that Dr Moore is far more of an expert than your average politician is.

He says that life cannot survive without carbon dioxide


He makes some very good points.

Should Chlorine be banned worldwide because Greenpeace says it is the Devil’s Element?
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
In this video, he says that at the peak of the last glaciations carbon dioxide dropped to level of 180 ppm. This being only 30ppm above the death of plants.

The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth is 1000ppm. It is only 400ppm at present.


He says that carbon dioxide is the food of life.
Unfortunately Patrick Moore cannot be believed as he is funded by Asia Pulp & Paper, which has been involved in widespread (and illegal) rainforest clearing.
He is a global warming denier who cherry picks facts that suit and ignores others that don't.
 
It is typical tactic of the Left to smear someone that disagrees with them rather than come up with a convincing counter argument.

I'm not "the left" and it's not a "smear" to point out a paid advocate for a cause is a paid advocate. What is unethical is presenting a paid advocate as a neutral expert and that paid advocate misrepresenting his credentials.
 
In Australia we have plenty of "paid advocates" standing in the way of nuclear power, bridges, airports,
gas fields, oil drilling, timber, live sheep export, commercial fishing, shooting, dams, hydro-power, coal,
heavy industry, uranium mining, any mining, freeways, tollways, tourism infrastructure and the like.
And many of these are tax-payer funded. The nerve.

If people are unethically hiding the fact that they are paid advocates for a cause while misrepresenting their credentials feel free to point them out then.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Paraphrased: "All the fossil fuels we use are from plants, it is solar powered."

True, in a roundabout way. It still ignores all the bad stuff from fossil fuel use like emission of nitrogen oxides.

And yes, he is right that there is a "greening" effect from the extra carbon dioxide, which makes sense since plants act as a carbon sink. But ultimately, this is limited, and likely won't stop the negative effects of global warming: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Glad to see he is admitting the human role in climate change, though!

Another fun Patrick Moore video:
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I have watched some of his videos. This does not make me an expert but it does make me believe that Dr Moore is far more of an expert than your average politician is.

The thing is that it's very easy to fool people if you have even marginally more scientific knowledge than your intended audience and you are telling them something that they want to hear.

The fact is that this guy is neither an expert nor impartial.

He says that life cannot survive without carbon dioxide

Wow - really!? Well, he must be an expert then..... :rolleyes:
 
Top