4 ms·

The Case Against Climate Change, by Former Greenpeace President

8 points by artagnon 10y ago

zzalpha 10y ago
Not really sure why this is news now. According to Wikipedia, Moore has been spouting off on global warming (among other things) for quite some time now, and not without plenty of controversy and criticism. As for the lead-in: just because he was president of Greenpeace decades ago, doesn't automatically make anything he says about modern climate science credible (unless, of course, he's saying what you want to hear...)
- artagnon 10y ago
  These are good talking points when you want to debate climate change; it is necessary to gather scientific evidence to back each of these points. Everyone knows that 97% of scientists believe in climate change, 84% in an anthropogenic version; that's not news, but I didn't know what to research earlier.
Oletros 10y ago
> Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is credible and authoritative. Eeehh, no. And the rest of his lecture is the same things debunked time ago
- artagnon 10y ago
  Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have been debunked. Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    > Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have been debunked Probably. I would love to read the critique. > Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber. Sorry, but I do not buy that argument. Scientists are, like the rest of us, subject to peer, media and economic pressure. They can make mistakes too. I hope they don't, but I can not religiously accept that science is infallible. Authority arguments apply to science too.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      Yes, scientists make mistakes but it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for decades like the author of this lecture is implying. If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        > ... it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for decades ... This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it. > If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation We are talking very long term effects here, so it is nearly impossible to know in detail how a chaotic system like Earth will evolve. He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify: 1) that without human intervention long-term CO2 levels tend to zero 2) that current increases in temperature do not follow increases in CO2, rather the opposite 3) that increases in temperature (and CO2) do not mean mass extinctions, rather the opposite. What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?
        Oletros 10y ago
        > This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it. And is this what is happening with climate science? > He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify: > What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false? Why should exists a counter argument? He is the one making this claims, he should publish papers supporting his claims. And until now, there is none.
gonvaled 10y ago
He makes a good case that humans are responsible for a lot of the increase of CO2, which is exactly what mainstream science is also claiming. He goes on to say that this is a good thing, since high levels of CO2 are necessary for plants to develop. He also claims that we are in a long-term downward spiral, and that the fact that humankind is intervening is a lucky coincidence to avert mass starvation in the medium term (geologically speaking). I like this, but I have a couple of questions: - what is the mainstream science critique to this theory? - how come that, even though CO2 cycles have happened in the past, we are now in a final CO2 crisis? The Earth has done great without massive intervention from humankind, why is this needed now? We even have fungi now to break down lignin! - how can he foresee the effects of an externality (release of CO2 by non-natural means) massively affecting the environment? Basically his argument is that the Earth is, right now, in need of terraforming, and that we have arrived at the right moment to do it. Isn't this too much of a coincidence? Sounds too good to be true.

8 points by artagnon 10y ago

Not really sure why this is news now. According to Wikipedia, Moore has been spouting off on global warming (among other things) for quite some time now, and not without plenty of controversy and criticism. As for the lead-in: just because he was president of Greenpeace decades ago, doesn't automatically make anything he says about modern climate science credible (unless, of course, he's saying what you want to hear...)

artagnon 10y ago
These are good talking points when you want to debate climate change; it is necessary to gather scientific evidence to back each of these points. Everyone knows that 97% of scientists believe in climate change, 84% in an anthropogenic version; that's not news, but I didn't know what to research earlier.

Oletros 10y ago

> Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is credible and authoritative. Eeehh, no. And the rest of his lecture is the same things debunked time ago

artagnon 10y ago
Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have been debunked. Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  > Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have been debunked Probably. I would love to read the critique. > Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber. Sorry, but I do not buy that argument. Scientists are, like the rest of us, subject to peer, media and economic pressure. They can make mistakes too. I hope they don't, but I can not religiously accept that science is infallible. Authority arguments apply to science too.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    Yes, scientists make mistakes but it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for decades like the author of this lecture is implying. If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      > ... it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for decades ... This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it. > If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation We are talking very long term effects here, so it is nearly impossible to know in detail how a chaotic system like Earth will evolve. He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify: 1) that without human intervention long-term CO2 levels tend to zero 2) that current increases in temperature do not follow increases in CO2, rather the opposite 3) that increases in temperature (and CO2) do not mean mass extinctions, rather the opposite. What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?
      - Oletros 10y ago
        > This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it. And is this what is happening with climate science? > He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify: > What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false? Why should exists a counter argument? He is the one making this claims, he should publish papers supporting his claims. And until now, there is none.

gonvaled 10y ago

He makes a good case that humans are responsible for a lot of the increase of CO2, which is exactly what mainstream science is also claiming. He goes on to say that this is a good thing, since high levels of CO2 are necessary for plants to develop. He also claims that we are in a long-term downward spiral, and that the fact that humankind is intervening is a lucky coincidence to avert mass starvation in the medium term (geologically speaking). I like this, but I have a couple of questions: - what is the mainstream science critique to this theory? - how come that, even though CO2 cycles have happened in the past, we are now in a final CO2 crisis? The Earth has done great without massive intervention from humankind, why is this needed now? We even have fungi now to break down lignin! - how can he foresee the effects of an externality (release of CO2 by non-natural means) massively affecting the environment? Basically his argument is that the Earth is, right now, in need of terraforming, and that we have arrived at the right moment to do it. Isn't this too much of a coincidence? Sounds too good to be true.