By opposing Golden Rice, Greenpeace defies its own values – and harms children

[roseBudd]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/by-opposing-golden-rice-greenpeace-defies-its-own-values-and-harms-children/article14742332/

Two humanitarian scientists, Dr. Ingo Potrykus and Prof. Peter Beyer, used their knowledge of genetics to create Golden Rice, a variety of rice that contains beta carotene, the essential nutrient that we make into vitamin A. They were aware that two million people, mostly young children, die each year from vitamin A deficiency. Most of them live in urban slums in Asia and Africa and eat little more than a cup of rice each day. Conventional rice contains no beta carotene, resulting in 250 million preschool children who have chronic vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A is necessary for eyesight and the immune system. As many as 500,000 children go blind each year, half of whom die within a year of becoming blind, according to the World Health Organization.

Since Golden Rice was first announced in 2000, Greenpeace has made a concerted effort to block its introduction. They have waged a campaign of misinformation, trashed the scientists who are working to bring Golden Rice to the people who need it, and supported the violent destruction of Golden Rice field trials at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines....

The real reason Greenpeace is opposed to Golden Rice is because it is generically modified and they can’t seem to imagine that even one beneficial crop might result from this technique. They are willing to put their zero-tolerance ideology ahead of a critical humanitarian mission. Every major science and health organization supports Golden Rice.

Last week we launched the Allow Golden Rice Now! campaign with a demonstration at the Greenpeace Canada office in Toronto. We are not asking Greenpeace to give up their general dislike of genetically modified foods. We are only demanding that they make an exception to their policy, on humanitarian grounds, for Golden Rice.

Dr. Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace and helped lead the organization for 15 years. He is now an independent ecologist and environmentalist working from Vancouver, Canada.

[Sunlei]

1. can't we add some carrots to that daily cupa rice?

or even send seeds, carrots are so freakin easy to grow.

[roseBudd]

2. No, have you seen Slum Dog Millionaire?

Are you aware that there are not roads everywhere that VAD, Vitamin A deficiency is endemic.

The WHO currently spends millions on twice yearly vitamin A supplements for children, but are unable to reach all, as evident by the death toll.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24417-golden-rice-creator-wants-to-live-to-see-it-save-lives.html

Why couldn't children just be given vitamin A capsules, or other foods that contain it?
The capsules are already being given through programmes of the World Health Organization and charities such as Hellen Keller International. They've been running the programmes for 15 years, but they cost tens of millions of dollars a year. The problem is that besides the expense, you need the infrastructure to distribute the capsules. We're aiming for people who can't be reached this way, poor farmers in remote places.

As for the possibility of eating foods that supply vitamin A, such as liver, leafy green vegetables and eggs, the people we're targeting are too poor to buy them. Some kitchen garden projects provide them, but despite these interventions we still have 6000 children dying every day. These are not enough. Our aim is to complement, not replace these programmes.

There's a project in Uganda and Mozambique to combat vitamin A deficiency by supplying sweet potatoes conventionally bred to contain extra beta-carotene. Over two years it doubled vitamin A intake in women and children compared with those who ate conventional sweet potatoes. Could this be done with rice?
Sweet potatoes naturally contain beta-carotene, so you can use traditional breeding to improve the content. Rice contains no beta-carotene, so it's impossible to introduce it without genetic engineering. Because the sweet potato project does not involve genetic modification, Greenpeace doesn't complain about it despite the aim being identical to ours. But the experience with sweet potatoes shows that what we're trying to achieve with rice is realistic. As soon as people get the potatoes, it improves their vitamin A status.


Last year, didn't you finally obtain the proof you needed to show that Golden Rice provides enough vitamin A?
It was a long experiment by a group at Tufts University with colleagues from China. The outcome was fantastic. It was basically as good as it could be, with every 2.3 grams of beta-carotene eaten in the rice producing 1 gram of vitamin A in the bloodstream, close to the theoretical maximum. This is four times better than the conversion from spinach, in which the children had to eat 7 to 8 grams to make each gram of vitamin A in blood...

The UK environment minister Owen Paterson has now weighed into this debate by describing opposition to Golden Rice as wicked. Is this a moral tipping point that will potentially win emotional support for Golden Rice?
Unfortunately, there's an enormous majority against genetic modification in Europe, so the brave UK minister will have lots of enemies. But he deserves support from wherever possible. I'm optimistic we've maybe reached a tipping point in Britain, and that's something. But I'm not confident the "wicked" accusation will change the attitudes of Greenpeace supporters in Europe. Even Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore now supports Golden Rice and has accused Greenpeace of crimes against humanity for opposing it, but no one cares.

[dipsydoodle]

51. I take your point

but that may not to be too easy in the countries so affected.

[jberryhill]

3. Have you looked into the licensing terms of the patents?

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php

Even the "humanitarian use license" contains restrictions one would be well advised to carefully understand before entering into a license agreement to grow, buy, sell or distribute this rice.

[roseBudd]

6. I can assure you I have

And that my knowledge of such, is not subject to confirmation bias.

http://www.ajstein.de/cv/golden_rice.htm

Golden Rice as a humanitarian project

Golden Rice was originally developed by a team of researchers led by Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and by Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg in Germany. Later on the project was also supported by a group of seed companies, coordinated by Syngenta, who donated royalty-free intellectual property (materials and patented processes and technologies) for the development and humanitarian use of Golden Rice. For this reason – and contrary to often repeated claims by activists – smallholder farmers in developing countries will be able to get Golden Rice without additional charges and they are free to save the seeds for replanting. The work on Golden Rice is being continued and coordinated by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Target countries for the introduction of Golden Rice are the Philippines and Bangladesh, but also India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

[jberryhill]

7. Yeah, you skipped a step there

Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

"smallholder farmers in developing countries will be able to get Golden Rice without additional charges and they are free to save the seeds for replanting"


How much of that rice can the smallholder farmer sell before he quits being a humanitarian?

And, quite frankly, if you have looked extensively at the detailed terms of the licensing agreements, then you would know as well as anyone that generalised PR language as to the purpose ostensibly served by the agreements is certainly not controlling.

Aside from which, I do not think you understand the application of "confirmation bias" when it comes to contract interpretation. Contracts are to be read with bias against the drafter. The entire body of contract law is a testament to the fact that "an objective" interpretation of a contract is a rare bird indeed.

I am not at all familiar with the details of the "humanitarian" licensing arrangement. The fact of its existence, however, indicates that it is not a matter of saying, "Hey, I'm a humanitarian, send me some rice" but that there are likely to be very important conditions on what activities fall within the license and which do not. The reason for having such a license in the first place is to clearly delineate between what you will, and will not, allow people to do with that crop.

The smallholder farmers in question are not there for the purpose of feeding their neighbors for free. Even a "subsistence farm" is one which serves the needs of its family and those who work the farm, but given the vagaries of season and yield will certainly sell some of its crop in exchange for money to buy other necessities.

So, how the license defines "smallholder farm" and the conditions under which one ceases to be one, are critical to understanding the deal offered here.

[roseBudd]

4. Vitamin A interventions to date

http://www.ajstein.de/cv/golden_rice.htm

Vitamin A interventions to date

So far, efforts to address VAD rely mainly on the distribution of medical doses of synthetic vitamin A. Usually these supplementation programmes are targeted at pre-school children, who have to receive a vitamin A mega dose twice a year. While such interventions are considered to be very cost-effective, it represents a considerable cost to cover millions and millions of children two times year on year. Apart from these recurrent costs, which reduce the funds that are available for other humanitarian efforts, in developing countries there are additional problems that limit the coverage and success of such programmes (infrastructure, logistics, qualified health personnel). Children in remote rural areas or in urban slums may not be reached and older children and adults are not covered at all. Programmes for the industrial fortification (e.g. of sugar) face similar obstacles. And the promotion of nutrition knowledge and dietary diversification, while the most desirable option, is also the most long-term and resource-intensive intervention (for instance on the supply side such projects have high staff requirements and their geographic coverage is limited, while on the side of the beneficiaries there can be opportunity costs – especially in form of the time and costs it takes to cultivate or procure the required produce and to prepare the meals – that prevent an uptake).

[roseBudd]

5. Vitamin A deficiency

http://www.ajstein.de/cv/golden_rice.htm

Rice and vitamin A deficiency

Rice is a staple crop for half of humanity. In particular in Asia it is the main source of dietary energy for many people. Yet, rice is a poor source of some vitamins and minerals, e.g. unlike certain other crops it does not contain any beta-carotene (provitamin A). Therefore people who rely on rice as their main food source are at risk of vitamin A deficiency. This risk is biggest for pregnant and lactating women as well as for young children. The main consequences of vitamin A deficiency are (i) eye problems that can lead to complete blindness and (ii) a higher susceptibility to infectious diseases that are often deadly. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year 125,000-250,000 children die due to VAD, with as many becoming blind. In the poorest countries the WHO considers vitamin A deficiency to be one of the major health risk factors. And according to data of the latest study on the "Global Burden of Disease", in 2010 more than 11.5 million so-called "Disability-Adjusted Life Years" (DALYs) – i.e. person-years lost in a population owing to disability and shortened life – were lost globally due to VAD.

[HERVEPA]

8. Doing some googling indicates the question is nowhere near as clear as stated above.

[roseBudd]

9. The misinformation is rife. I can Google all kinds of false things

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/25/10/2013/141698/scientific-consensus-on-gm-crops-safety-39overwhelming39.htm

Scientific consensus on GM crops safety 'overwhelming'

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) has refuted claims from an anti-GM campaign group that there is “no scientific consensus” on the safety of genetically modified foods.

More than 90 scientists, academics and physicians added their names to a statement published this week which challenges claims from the UK government and biotech companies that GM foods are safe.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) released the statement in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta.

ABC chair Julian Little said the statement had been put together by an anti-GM group and he insisted that contrary to the claims, there was an “overwhelming weight of evidence” that points to the safety of GM crops.

Dr Little said: “Biotech crops are among the most extensively tested foods in the history of food safety.

AdTech Ad
“In 2010, the European Commission concluded on the basis of 130 research projects involving 500 independent groups over 25 years that ‘there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms’.

“This year, the representative body of the national science academies of the EU Member states agreed, saying that ‘there is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment’ than any other crops produced using plant breeding techniques.”

Dr Little added that an estimated three trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been eaten around the world over the past 13 years “without a single substantiated case of ill-health”.

“The World Health Organisation (WHO) has said that: ‘No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved’.”

Dr Little said the WHO’s statement was backed up by government regulators around the world, including the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK.

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) of Australia said the ENSSER’s statement “flies in the face of a consenus of an overwhelming majority of scientists”.

[roseBudd]

10. Greenpeace Hysteria Campaign Scares Chinese into Retreat on Nutrition-Enhancing GMO 'Golden Rice'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/11/greenpeace-hysteria-campaign-scares-chinese-into-retreat-on-nutrition-enhancing-gmo-golden-rice/

The Chinese press, which rivals Rupert Murdoch for sensationalism, jumped on the story, embellishing even the gross exaggerations of the original story. Reporters played the anti-American card, claiming that researchers at Tufts University in Boston, with the approval of the US Department of Agriculture, had conspired with Chinese scientists to carry out a secretive and unauthorized experiment to feed “potentially dangerous” genetically modified rice to as many as 80 rural children, ages 6-8, in Hunan. The Chinese blogosphere, including Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, lit up with outrage.

Although no children were harmed—in fact they benefitted from eating vitamin-enhanced rice—this story has an unhappy ending. And it’s not because American or Chinese researchers “experimented” on children, as one of the world’s most anti-science NGOs (non-governmental agencies) claims. Chinese officials, in a panic fanned by its own media, decided last week to fire three officials from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, which had coordinated the project and had been named in the Greenpeace report....

Greenpeace and like-minded groups argue that tinkering with the genome of food or crops will unleash a genetic Godzilla that threatens the future of mankind. This is not hyperbole. They claim that Trojan-horse genes not subject to checks and balances in nature could be “released” into the environment causing untold havoc, and could physically harm children, as it said in its August news release.

Which is total hogwash.

Greenpeace’s “investigation” amounted to reading an August article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which published a summary of the four year old study by the joint Chinese-American team, which has been publically discussing the project for years. The Hunan trial was meant to determine whether a small bowl a day of the modified rice could effectively deliver enough Vitamin A and other nutrients to make a difference—and by all measures, according to the article, it was enormously successful—which was apparently enough of a reason to send Greenpeace’s disinformation campaign into over-drive...

Greenpeace’s campaign is a “crime against humanity, says Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who broke with the NGO over its precautionary anti-science policies and now serves as Chair and Chief Scientist with Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, Canada.

[HuckleB]

43. If you don't know how to find your way through the disinformation, that is.

The Internet contains the good science, but bored people tend to push reams of bad information, and if you don't know the difference then you're going to be very confused.

[dtom67]

11. Is there a shortage of food?

I don't believe there is. The problem is poverty, not food scarcity. Solving the poverty problem caused by the soul crushing debt that the West has imposed on the Third World through the World Bank would do more to relieve hunger and malnutrition than playing games with our food supply.

But , of course, Profit is more important than actually saving people.

Dr Patrick Moore has spent the last 2 decades shilling for Corporate America, the very people who are destroying our World right now. He's about as "independent" as Bill O'Reilly.....

Fuck him AND the bought-and-paid-for " major science and health organizations ".

[roseBudd]

13. Why calling someone a shill betrays the weakness of your position, and your inability to defend it

http://badskeptic.com/?p=750

Not only is the shill argument empty and sad, it’s one of the most common mistakes made by people in any argument. It’s a logical fallacy, known as an ad hominem. (Against the person.) The crier o’ shill is attacking the person making a statement in an attempt to render that target’s argument invalid, rather than demonstrating any falsehood in the argument through attacking the argument itself.

Of course you would say there’s no scientific proof that GMOs are dangerous! You’re getting paid by Monsanto!

Not only is the crier o’ shill refusing to address any argument their target makes with a statement like this, they are usually doing so, as I said before, on the evidence that the target opposes them, leaving no room whatsoever for the crier o’ shill to be wrong.

The only thing the crier o’ shill proves is that they don’t give a flying fuck about having an actual discussion, about hearing any viewpoint but their own, or about any reality outside of the one they’re already convinced exists. Saying, “I’m right, and that’s that! Neener!” is good enough for them.

But not for anyone who knows better. : )

[jberryhill]

19. Would you consider answering the question of how much a farmer can sell?

How much can a small, local farmer sell before he needs a commercial license?

[roody]

12. Monsanto can afford to send all

those kids vegetable seeds, yet they spend millions to block GMO labeling laws. Humanitarian?

[roseBudd]

14. These kids who are suffering from VAD, don't receive mail from Amazon

They don't even many times have any land, to plant these vegetable seeds.

Do you have any idea how offensive your "let them grow carrots, and quit being so stupid" sounds?

Monsanto has nothing to do with Golden Rice, so your solution is a logical fallacy.

[roody]

16. Which company holds the patent for it?

[jberryhill]

18. Link to licensing program in thread above

But, rest assured, the company holds the patents for the purpose of ensuring that the rice is grown and distributed by licensed humanitarians.

[roody]

21. I am not resting assured.

[roseBudd]

24. Yeah who gives a shit how many die

[jberryhill]

27. Excuse me?

I am a patent attorney and quite familiar with licenses.

You said you were familiar with the terms, and I asked you a pertinent question about the humanitarian license terms. Nobody gets any rice unless someone signs a patent license.

Now, would you like to behave like an adult and answer my question about the license terms, or is it just profanity and emotional appeals from here on out?

[roseBudd]

35. Just admit you don't give a shit about the morbidity and mortality due to VAD

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/goldenrice/dasmag.html

One of the most vigorous critics of genetic engineering critics is Ingo Potrykus, plant biologist and professor emeritus of the ETH, who has developed the so-called vitamin A rice in a greenhouse outside Zurich that would resist a hand grenade attack. This genetically engineered crop is to solve one of the biggest nutrition problems in developing countries, namely iron and vitamin A deficiency which causes every year the death of one to two million children and blindness in hundreds of thousands of cases. Together with his partner Peter Beyer (University of Freiburg), Potrykus engineered a rice crop with substances that the body synthesises to vitamin A. Experts believe the 'Golden Rice' to be a wonder cure able to fight more diseases and sufferings than any other drug in the history of mankind, so Charles Arntzen of Cornell University. For this reason Potrykus developed the new rice applying strictly non-commercial criteria for free use by small farmers in Third World countries. The scientist's relations with industry are limited to agreements granting companies, in exchange for the free release of the Golden Rice in developing countries, the commercial rights of use in the industrial world (there is very little in it for Potrykus). It took over two years to fully settle the patent rights but in mid-January the rice was handed over to the public as a gift in a symbolic ceremony in Manila. Currently over 20 research institutes worldwide are testing how to cross the rice with local varieties. Regardless of the potentially beneficial effects of the Golden Rice genetic engineering opponents are preparing to make a stand against it, headed by the 'protest multi' Greenpeace. With no proof whatsoever being supplied, it is claimed that the rice is either worthless, harmful or superfluous, demanding the global food problem to be solved by a redistribution of all foodstuffs available.

Obviously there cannot be what must not be - which is that companies and scientists for once make a more sustainable contribution to development in the Third World than the protest lobby which sits on its high horse of morality and criticises and judges while now as in the past millions of children die from vitamin A deficiency.

Potrykus received hate mail and was threatened in case the rice would be released. He implied to the 'New York Times' that he was sometimes worried about his safety. In a long essay published in the 'Frankfurter Allgemeine', the former ETH professor criticised the 'hidden motives' of his opponents who spread the absurd rumour that this genetically engineered rice causes hair loss and impotence: 'These critics do anything to prevent the distribution of the Golden Rice to farmers striving for self-sufficiency. Such a thing might be acceptable in rich countries where people can have a carefree life also without genetic engineering. But it is intolerable in countries where it is a matter of life or death (...)' In the United States Potrykus, who appears in public with a modesty close to shyness, is feted as a visionary and the great hope of an unjustly maligned technology. The 'Time Magazine' put him on the cover of its US edition but did not do so in Europe for fear of the militant opposition genetic engineering encounters in our latitudes. The 'New Yorker', the 'New York Times' and the 'Financial Times' praised Potrykus's rice as an invention that points the way to the future. Meanwhile also US TV stations have contacted the German scientist who has received numerous offers to continue his career at an elite university stateside. In Zurich the plant biologist's merits, who himself suffered from malnutrition in Germany after the war, are underrated with a restraint that is typical of the city of Zwingli. Since his retirement Potrykus has no longer his own office at the ETH. At least he was allowed to keep the front door key, and his successor enables him to continue his work at a small scale for some time....

One of the main arguments of genetic engineering opponents targets patenting. They say that with patents biotech companies use 'life' belonging to all humans to enrich themselves in an arrogant manner.

- I am not happy with the patenting situation either, but there is no point in dreaming of a patent-free utopia. And it is barely understandable why no patents should be granted in biotechnology when all other forms of intellectual property are patentable. If we want to fight hunger effectively we must face reality and strive for - and not against - a fair use of patents. It is a fact that we were only able to develop our rice just because there are patents. Many of the technologies we resorted to were only publicly accessible because inventors had their rights protected by patents and without this form of protection a large number of the technologies we used would have been kept secret. Therefore we should focus on the question how to apply the knowledge we have to the benefit of the poor.

[roody]

36. I contribute to several honestly

humanitarian organizations. What do you do besides accuse us of not caring?

[jberryhill]

38. I hope some day you learn to actually care about people

Because the manner in which you choose to communicate indicates something other than concern for others.

You have not answered a very simple question about the patent license, and it is clear at this point you have no intention of doing so.

[HuckleB]

45. Well, we know you don't care about anything but defending fictions.

[jberryhill]

47. And what fiction would that be?

Do you have an answer to my simple question?

[HuckleB]

44. And which logical fallacy are you using here, smarty pants?

Sheesh.

[jberryhill]

48. I asked a question

Under the humanitarian license, how much, if any, rice can a farmer sell?

[jberryhill]

52. Do you have an answer or not?

[Pterodactyl]

15. To me, the anti-GM folks are pretty much the same as the anti-vaccine folks.

They use fear instead of science - and people die because of it.

[roseBudd]

22. They use the same logical fallacies

[jberryhill]

29. Please identify my "logical fallacy"

How much can a small farmer sell before violating the "humanitarian license"?

That's all. Simple question.

[johnd83]

26. Yep

GM food can be good or bad, it just depends on what was genes were modified.

[jberryhill]

28. I have no problem with GM food whatsoever

I do have questions about the patent license terms, but our friend isn't interested in addressing them.

[BronxBoy]

40. Thank you for beating the drum on this issue....

Too many people in their quest to bring the benefits of modified crops (real or imagined) to the masses, too often overlook the massive damage that patent law can play in local agriculture. I notice that you haven't really gotten any semblance of an answer to your legitimate questions.

In addition to the questions you have asked, I would also like to ask what happens to a non-Golden Rice farmer whose rice is cross-pollinated by a Golden Rice field. Will the developers go all Monsanto like and give the farmer grief? A rhetorical question but one that a lot of folks often overlook when discussing this topic

[jberryhill]

49. It's hardly rhetorical

The conversational bullies here don't even want to address it.

[BronxBoy]

50. It's a shame too....

The patent and intellectual property rights issues surrounding this subject are probably just as pressing if not more so than the health issues.

[HuckleB]

46. They're exactly the same.

[BillyRibs]

17. I didn't Know,

Monsanto had so many Shills here!

[roody]

20. There is no shortage here.

[roseBudd]

23. So no argument that isn't a logical fallacy

But you do have an animated emoticon.



Vitamin A deficiency in India is rated severe

[BillyRibs]

25. The Logic is.

you behave as a shill for agra business. Tugging at our Heart so we allow you to get bigger and Bigger! My response to you and folks like you are, Piss Off, You'll get no love here. You want to be a charmer? give it away for free, and while your at it with no license agreement.

[PaulaFarrell]

30. Anything written by Patrick Moore should be discarded out of hand

Although he was at one time in Greenpeace, he left it long ago for life as a corporate shill for environmental destruction. And he doesn't seem quite rational, as this exchange shows:

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/golden-rice-could-save-a-million-kids-a-year?id=12932

Why Patrick Moore calls GMWatch "a bunch of murdering bastards"

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore
Media release - October 10, 2008
"Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes."

Really want tro see what a shill he is? While real environmentalists are getting arrested to stop keystone XL, he is "at ease"

http://greenspiritstrategies.com/moore-greenpeace-co-founder-comes-out-in-favour-of-xl-pipeline/

"Having visited Canada’s oilsands extensively, and having worked on environmental issues for more than 40 years, I am at ease with the notion that the oil is produced under the best environmental regulations, labour conditions, human-rights laws, and First Nations participation in the world."

[bananas]

34. Wow - that Keystone XL article is dated April 2013, but in January 2013 the First Nations signed ...

In January 2013 the First Nations signed a treaty opposing tar sands and pipelines.

Greenspirit is Moore's greenwashing PR corporation - this is HIS website:

http://greenspiritstrategies.com/moore-greenpeace-co-founder-comes-out-in-favour-of-xl-pipeline/

Moore: Greenpeace co-founder comes out in favour of XL pipeline
by admin on April 8, 2013

<snip>

I am at ease with the notion that the oil is produced under the best environmental regulations, labour conditions, human-rights laws, and First Nations participation in the world.

<snip>

Apparently he didn't know about this (scroll down for text and photos):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654143

Jan 26, 2013

North American First Nations sign treaty promising resistance to tar sands, pipelines

Posted yesterday in Occupy Underground by Fire Walk With Me:

LIVE NOW http://bit.ly/OyYss2 #ProtectTheSacred N American indigenous communities sign treaty promising resistance to tar sands, pipelines

<snip>

[PaulaFarrell]

31. Oh My god - he's also a climate change denier

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/aug/9/patrick-moore-facts-and-fiction-climate-change/

Patrick Moore on the facts and fiction of climate change

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/aug/9/patrick-moore-facts-and-fiction-climate-change/#ixzz2jZRRYUev

"One thing is certain, there is no “scientific proof” as the term is generally understood, that human emissions are the main cause of climate change today. Even the IPCC only claims that it is “very likely” (a judgement, in their own words, not a proof) that human emissions are responsible for “most” of the warming “since the mid-20th century” (1950). Therefore they are not claiming that humans caused the 0.4C warming between 1910-1940, but they are claiming that we are the main cause of the 0.4C warming between 1970 and 2000. Yet they provide no opinion as to what did cause the warming between 1910-1940. There is a logical inconsistency here that has never been addressed. It is also important to note that the IPCC does not speak of “catastrophe”, that is left to the fanatics and perpetual doom-sayers.

...

Many scientists do not agree with this, or do not agree that we know enough about the impact of increased water to predict the outcome. Some scientists believe increased water will have a negative feedback instead, due to increased cloud cover. It all depends on how much, and a t what altitudes, latitudes and times of day that water is in the form of a gas (vapour) or a liquid (clouds). So if a certain increase in CO2 would theoretically cause a 1.0C increase in temperature, then if water caused a 3-4 times positive feedback the temperature would actually increase by 3-4C. This is why the warming predicted by the models is so large. Whereas if there was a negative feedback of 0.5 times then the temperature would only rise 0.5C.

The global average temperature has now been flat for the past 15 years, as all the while CO2 emissions have continued to increase. There are only 2 possible explanations for, either there is some equally powerful natural factor that is suppressing the warming that should be caused by CO2, or CO2 is only a minor contributor to warming in the first place.

...

I believe that a 2.0C in global average warming, or even more, would be in balance beneficial, partly because most warming occurs where it is now cold and very little occurs in the tropics. This would make northern Canada and Siberia fertile, and it would increase the number of frost-free days for food production in the temperate zones. The polar bear might be reduced in numbers but the only reason they evolved in the first place was due to the present Ice Age. Polar Bears are not even a distinct species, they are a variety of Brown (Grizzly) Bear. Some penguins that live on ice might dwindle but there are plenty of penguin species that do not depend on ice, In the Galapagos, Australia, and South America, for example.

I fear the irrational policies of extreme environmentalists far more that a warmer climate on this relatively cold planet (14.5 C global average temperature today compared with 25C during the Greenhouse Ages."




(looked for a puking smilie but i couldn't find one)

[bananas]

33. :puke:

[NickB79]

39. That was a depressing read

Like he was replaced by a pod person or something.

[PaulaFarrell]

32. good ol sourcewatch

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. Wow -

talk about going over to the Dark Side. Thank you for that link.

[HuckleB]

41. More like "so much for 'sourcewatch.'"

Jumping the shark is never a good thing.

But that's expected when you're whole "thing" is a logical fallacy.