Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic | Hacker News Reader

Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

science.slashdot.org

14 pointsKhalilK5 comments

This isn't new, or perhaps I should say, it isn't surprising. He's being saying such things for at least a decade. See http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/feb/16/1 :

> Yesterday's Independent devoted half a page to an article entitled Nuclear Energy? Yes Please, by Canadian Dr Patrick Moore, billed as "a former leader of Greenpeace, and chair of Greenspirit Strategies". And therefore, presumably, a man well placed to question British environmentalists' misguided suspicions about nuclear power. Might it have helped the paper's readers to understand his stance had they known that his last involvement with Greenpeace was 21 years ago; that he currently heads something called the Clean & Safe Energy Coalition, which is reportedly wholly funded by the US Nuclear Energy Institute; that he wrote last year to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global warming; and that he is on record advocating the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops? Guess we'll never know.

Does it really matter if humans are the main cause or not? If it is happening, it is bad for humans and we have to figure out some way to stop it. That's all that truly matters.

There are different solutions for the two scenarios. If humans are the main cause then reduction in CO2 emissions may suffice. While if there are other reasons then we may need to consider how to drastically increase CO2 capture methods, or look towards deliberate geoengineering, or ramp up coastal protections and work to decrease the population in low-lying areas.

Global warming has become a religion so it's difficult talk about.

He also makes the point he's a sceptic on

"and that it will be catastrophic in the near future"

And even though I, also a sceptic, agree with him, it's not for the reasons he gives which I find a little crazy. (Plus I'm happy to say it's caused by humans)

So no, I and he wouldn't agree with the statement

> We have to figure out some way to stop it.

(Yet)

I am a bit confused how you could say that you are both a sceptic and "happy to say it's caused by humans". Or are you saying you're a sceptic about the catastrophic potential?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com