Eppur Si Muove

Ok, a quick google search presents another view of this guy:

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain.

Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining.

Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who's Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.Moore's claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that "clear-cutting is good for forests" and Three Mile Island was actually "a success story" because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying "my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn't die."

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media - especially conservative media - give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.The following provides a brief overview of Patrick Moore's positions and his history of working for corporate polluters.

Last edited by Just Fred (3/21/2015 4:57 pm)

Fred,

Do you mind sharing where you found that information?  I think we need to know who is saying that about Mr. Moore in order to understand where they are coming from.

Last edited by Brady Bunch (3/21/2015 5:31 pm)

Goose wrote:

Why?
The deniers have been completely discredited.

I presume this in response to my question to Fred.  I think it is completely fair to know who is saying that, so we can evaluate where there they are coming from and what motives they might have.

Maybe it is a completely reliable source, or maybe it is someone who as an agenda themselves.  We won't know until we know who the source is.

That is why.

Last edited by Brady Bunch (3/21/2015 5:55 pm)

Do you really need to be so condescending?  There really is no need for that

All I did was ask Fred for the source of his information that was discrediting the skeptic.  I made no comment on what my thoughts were on the subject and my personal position.

Common presents an article, and Fred then responds by posting information trying to discredit Mr. Moore.  I don't think it is much to know who is trying to discredit him and what motives they may have.  It is good to know what motives Mr. Moore might have, but shouldn't we know what possible motives someone would have for trying to discredit him?

Last edited by Brady Bunch (3/21/2015 6:11 pm)