Do people actually read the things Greenpeace says and then still take them seriously?
Do people actually read the things Greenpeace says and then still take them seriously?
If you want us to take the 'founder' seriously, I would assume so.Do people actually read the things Greenpeace says and then still take them seriously?
I don't take anyone who says "climate change is a scam" seriously.If you want us to take the 'founder' seriously, I would assume so.
I didnt realize logging was environmentally friendly.I don't take anyone who says "climate change is a scam" seriously.
But when you claim to be a champion of the environment but oppose logging and nuclear energy, well, that kind of speaks for itself.
Do you think logging and clear cutting are the same thing?I didnt realize logging was environmentally friendly.
Very aware. I grew up in northern BC. If done ethically, it can benefit the forest and environment. If done based off greed, it can be very damaging.Do you think logging and clear cutting are the same thing?
I never said logging was across the board environmentally friendly. I was simply pointing out that an "environmental" group stating categorically that it's bad is false.Very aware. I grew up in northern BC.
Not all logging practices are environmentally friendly, even if it is not a clear cut. To state logging is environmentally friendly is misleading as stating logging contributes to climate change.
If we get mired down in semantics and subjective definitions, charges of being "environmentally unfriendly" can be levied against practically any practices we do as a society.I never said logging was across the board environmentally friendly. I was simply pointing out that an "environmental" group stating categorically that it's bad is false.
He's one of the founders
This in no way changes the fact that people still go way out of their way to agree with a tiny minority of climatologists, scientists in general, and 21st century scientific literature on this.If you look into it the 97% is scientists and not climatologists. A lot of the people on the IPCC aren't climate scientists by training.
I remember reading some stuff a little while ago that pointed out that when they started specifically polling climate scientists the unanimity started to go away too.This in no way changes the fact that people still go way out of their way to agree with a tiny minority of climatologists, scientists in general, and 21st century scientific literature on this.
We already have readily available power production that produces zero emissions, and instead of using it, we're trying to develop new technologies.It's endlessly frustrating and even a minority chance of all this would be worth making radical changes to mitigate the rise of CO2 levels, but everything points to it being far greater than a minority chance.
lots of efficient tech is held back in the name of the almighty dollar...pretty sad but $$ talks, or silencesI remember reading some stuff a little while ago that pointed out that when they started specifically polling climate scientists the unanimity started to go away too.
We already have readily available power production that produces zero emissions, and instead of using it, we're trying to develop new technologies.
In this case it's mostly held back by environmentalists.lots of efficient tech is held back in the name of the almighty dollar...pretty sad but $$ talks, or silences