What's new

A Place for Conservatives

Anti-GMO Euros ... lol. No, we're brainwashed in this country by the Monsanto P-R machine (now they're Bayer with the merger). I guess the fact they're losing these lawsuits is because anti-GMO Euros? You think science might have something to do with it? Plus Monsanto has been found to be using deceptive methods to propagandize their position. For example, GMO advocate Professor Kevin Folta of the University of Florida was found to be receiving funds from Monsanto to use his position as the head of the school's Botany department to promote GMOs as harmless. Henry I. Miller of the Stanford Institute, a former FDA employee, was using his byline on articles in Forbes magazine that were actually written by Monsanto lobbyists -- and he was fired for this. I actually had running debates with both of these individuals before they were exposed, questioning some of their claims, which they never were able to adequately explain. I was surprised to find that my suspicions were correct.
 
Regarding Dr. Moore and Greenpeace, I would think they would in fact know who were the founding members, but, at any rate, this is how they word their opinion of claims that he was a co-founder:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

"Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF)."

Obviously, you can click on the PDF above to read Moore's letter.

I would find it hard to believe that Greenpeace would put out this statement with a view toward slinging BS just to disassociate themselves from any connection to Dr. Moore. If he were a co-founder, in their view of their own history, admitting as much would not reflect on their own purpose and mission. They could simply portray him as one "who went astray" or however they would wish to word it. It would not reflect poorly on them at all. From the statement above, it would seem they were clear that there were three individuals regarded as the founding members. So I don't see why they would feel they would need to lie and re-write their own history. If he was not a co-founder, on the other hand, I can understand why they would want to make that fact clear, given their attitude toward climate change, and those of Dr. Moore.
 
Regarding Dr. Moore and Greenpeace, I would think they would in fact know who were the founding members, but, at any rate, this is how they word their opinion of claims that he was a co-founder:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

"Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF)."

Obviously, you can click on the PDF above to read Moore's letter.

I would find it hard to believe that Greenpeace would put out this statement with a view toward slinging BS just to disassociate themselves from any connection to Dr. Moore. If he were a co-founder, in their view of their own history, admitting as much would not reflect on their own purpose and mission. They could simply portray him as one "who went astray" or however they would wish to word it. It would not reflect poorly on them at all. From the statement above, it would seem they were clear that there were three individuals regarded as the founding members. So I don't see why they would feel they would need to lie and re-write their own history. If he was not a co-founder, on the other hand, I can understand why they would want to make that fact clear, given their attitude toward climate change, and those of Dr. Moore.
Did you read this: https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/03/18/google-scrubs-greenpeace-co-founder-protect-aoc/

Regardless of whether you think it makes sense for Greenpeace to rewrite their history, it appears that they have chosen to do just that, and Google is helping them out.
 
Did you read this: https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/03/18/google-scrubs-greenpeace-co-founder-protect-aoc/

Regardless of whether you think it makes sense for Greenpeace to rewrite their history, it appears that they have chosen to do just that, and Google is helping them out.

Yes, I did read that. Regarding "the committee's founders and first members included:", in the other thread by @One Brow, he felt a proper reading of English would make Moore one of the "first members". Now, I might actually read it to mean "these individuals were both the founders and the first members". Not sure I'd be right in reading it that way, but it just seems like a possibility.

Now, this statement is not signed by anyone, but in reading it, I have to assume it was written by Moore. It's the only conclusion I can draw, but somebody correct me if I'm mistaken. Not sure why it is not signed. If it is Moore, this may be his most complete statement on the matter:

http://greenspiritstrategies.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace/

Oh, OK, footnote #19 confirms Moore wrote the above statement....
 
Yeah I believe it's an underserved rep, however I was going at the concept that company = evil therefore every output of said company = evil. I'm not a fan of absolutes. Absolutes are never right!

Plus I figured we were far enough in for some Godwin action up in here.

I figured that was the joke. Maybe I should erase my ignore list of posters who never write anything worth reading so I can follow along in these threads again.
 
Yes, I did read that. Regarding "the committee's founders and first members included:", in the other thread by @One Brow, he felt a proper reading of English would make Moore one of the "first members". Now, I might actually read it to mean "these individuals were both the founders and the first members". Not sure I'd be right in reading it that way, but it just seems like a possibility.

Now, this statement is not signed by anyone, but in reading it, I have to assume it was written by Moore. It's the only conclusion I can draw, but somebody correct me if I'm mistaken. Not sure why it is not signed. If it is Moore, this may be his most complete statement on the matter:

http://greenspiritstrategies.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace/

Oh, OK, footnote #19 confirms Moore wrote the above statement....
Based on my understanding of what I've seen I'm a lot less concerned about Moore calling himself a Co-Founder than I originally was. It might be a stretch, but it's not a very big stretch. It seems like Greenpeace was okay with him using that characterization too, until recently. I can understand why they aren't so crazy about their past association with him now. It would make perfect sense for them to write something that disassociates their organization with who he has become. What I don't like at all is that Google has obviously recently gone in and altered the search results. This does not appear to be some organic change that simply happened. Someone must have made it happen.
 
Did you read this: https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/03/18/google-scrubs-greenpeace-co-founder-protect-aoc/

Regardless of whether you think it makes sense for Greenpeace to rewrite their history, it appears that they have chosen to do just that, and Google is helping them out.
Consider the source: Red State, an avowed ultra-conservative rag like the Heartland Institute. Disinformation all the way to the bank. I should say Liar, liar, pants on fire ... that's all these rags are, to advance their sick profit-making agenda.
 
Yes, and read this, it should give us pause:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...0403Z1_B_UCM&et_cid=DM278220&et_rid=583090884

I believe jury is still out on this. Apparently, the person who alleged this has been discredited but there are still unanswered questions. Just because mainstream propaganda is trying to crush this narrative doesn't mean there is no substance to it. The uptick in autism is not merely due to increased diagnosis but likely has an environmental component, as do the increases in other neurological conditions.

No, it isn’t. Numerous studies, on all the inhabited continents, by unconnected people, through the last two decades have reported on this. Over and over and over. It is not a reasonable debate.

If vaccines are causing autism, they’re not, it is either a damning indictment on science and medical professionals the world over or is one of the greatest coverup conspiracies perpetrated by mankind.

The vaccines cause autism thing came from some dude publishing one article in the late 90s. An article that was savaged by all his peers and helped led to him having his medical credentials revoked due to its extremely inaccurate nature, intentionally misrepresented information and outright lies. Basically it was ********.

You are sabotaging your entire vaccine stance by including that part.

Edit: also your story tries to tie pesticides to autism. Not vaccines. Entirely different debate.
 
Based on my understanding of what I've seen I'm a lot less concerned about Moore calling himself a Co-Founder than I originally was. It might be a stretch, but it's not a very big stretch. It seems like Greenpeace was okay with him using that characterization too, until recently. I can understand why they aren't so crazy about their past association with him now. It would make perfect sense for them to write something that disassociates their organization with who he has become. What I don't like at all is that Google has obviously recently gone in and altered the search results. This does not appear to be some organic change that simply happened. Someone must have made it happen.

I don't know anything about the Google theme being discussed here. I just view Moore as a tool of industry interests, or "have degrees, will travel". Not saying every climate skeptic, who is also a scientist, is just a spokesman for various industry interests that would benefit from doubting human caused climate change, but in the big picture, from my point of view of course, I'm all in on human caused climate change. I suspect we'll find out the hard way, to a degree unknown to me. And I'm not part of the solution, so I certainly have no moral high ground, so it's what will be, will be.
 
No, it isn’t. Numerous studies, on all the inhabited continents, by unconnected people, through the last two decades have reported on this. Over and over and over. It is not a reasonable debate.

If vaccines are causing autism, they’re not, it is either a damning indictment on science and medical professionals the world over or is one of the greatest coverup conspiracies perpetrated by mankind.

The vaccines cause autism thing came from some dude publishing one article in the late 90s. An article that was savaged by all his peers and helped led to him having his medical credentials revoked due to its extremely inaccurate nature, intentionally misrepresented information and outright lies. Basically it was ********.

You are sabotaging your entire vaccine stance by including that part.

Edit: also your story tries to tie pesticides to autism. Not vaccines. Entirely different debate.
Not really both are toxins that may be the cause of the increase in neurological conditions. It's not just the vaccines themselves as much as the solution in which they are prepared, at least that's my understanding. I linked a massive collection of studies that are looking into this. The jury is not out at all. If the jury was out, then there wouldn't be increasing number of health conditions affecting people. Our toxic environment is spawning many health problems and pharmaceutical drugs are not preventing them, just treating them, often with many adverse side effects. Stop thinking you or the medical establishment knows it all -- they don't.
 
Not really both are toxins that may be the cause of the increase in neurological conditions. It's not just the vaccines themselves as much as the solution in which they are prepared, at least that's my understanding. I linked a massive collection of studies that are looking into this. The jury is not out at all. If the jury was out, then there wouldn't be increasing number of health conditions affecting people. Our toxic environment is spawning many health problems and pharmaceutical drugs are not preventing them, just treating them, often with many adverse side effects. Stop thinking you or the medical establishment knows it all -- they don't.
Yes we are living longer with a higher quality of life than ever before. Crazy right?
 
Not really both are toxins that may be the cause of the increase in neurological conditions. It's not just the vaccines themselves as much as the solution in which they are prepared, at least that's my understanding. I linked a massive collection of studies that are looking into this. The jury is not out at all. If the jury was out, then there wouldn't be increasing number of health conditions affecting people. Our toxic environment is spawning many health problems and pharmaceutical drugs are not preventing them, just treating them, often with many adverse side effects. Stop thinking you or the medical establishment knows it all -- they don't.

Ok, I’ll take your assertions over the repeated testing, study and development of vaccines my the world wide medical community.

Because hell, they could be wrong.
 
I mentioned in an earlier comment that we can find examples where opinions contrary to the consensus or ruling paradigm turn out to be right. Thomas Kuhn explained how changes occur in science in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Now, the story at this link is not related to the subject of climate change, and the sides lined up on both sides of that issue. But, it is an excellent example, and very recent, of how an esteemed astronomer, with tenure, and therefore "protected" from recriminations when advancing an unpopular idea, can put forth a theory that is met with a firestorm of criticism. This is an excellent example of what happens when a "monkey wrench", "outside the box" idea is tossed into the mix, and the consensus of received opinion reacts with outrage:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-his-theory/QuWB4VTpYg8LkDvSUaxcPO/story.html
 
Top