Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.
EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2. The American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
Breitbart News Daily
June 5, 2017
h/t to Harry Readme
Peer review lost its way several decades ago. I was a tough peer reviewer in my field. I asked tough questions, in some case blatantly obvious questions the researchers should have asked in the first place. Often my comments and the other peer reviewers comments would be ignored by the editors, interestingly this happened most often when the federal government was in anyway involved, most especially for journals they published. I was also involve, actually had to live with the results of blue ribbon and, I guess we would call them today blue/red ribbon, panels. They were a bit better than peer review but not much. One of the most significant problems in both peer review and panel review was that the fields of study were so relatively small everyone knew everyone else if not personally by reputation. I cannot imagine that the field of climatology is a whole lot larger than my field of study. Several papers have been written about the peer review problem. One solution was to bring in honorable and honest scientists expert in their own but other fields to do a final review after field expert review. They would look at the very basics. For example, was good Scientific Method used, were the statistical models appropriately applied, did the results support the conclusions. To good scientists those would certainly seem like uncontroversial topics that all could support or should. However in the last paper I reviewed for a journal published by the federal government none of those things applied. The tables even had addition errors which were ultimately published. All comments by me and others were ignored. The paper was published. Though supposedly a blind review, the author some how got the names of the reviewers and called blasting us. How dare we question his work? He is now serving in the federal government at a relatively high level.
Wrong Ed. The climate industry published more than 11, 000 papers in a decade (3 or 4 a day) . I learned this remarkable statistic when Cook of sceptical science blog did the famous 97% paper. I dare say this field today is the largest of them all.
By displaying a graph at https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm of an energy related thing, temperature (multiply temperature by effective thermal capacitance to get energy in units W hr/m^2), with a power related thing, TSI (with units W/m^2), and asserting that the difference in curve shapes proves TSI does not affect temperature, Cook at SS apparently does not grasp the relation between mathematics and the physical world.
Easy Climate Proof.
?w=776
It is easy to prove that our atmosphere has about 49% more carbon dioxide than 3,300 years ago (and) it is easier to prove that the atmosphere has been in a cooling trend for 3,300 years.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
CO2 parts per million now minus 3,300 years ago.
409 – 274 = 175
175 / 274 = 0.492700729927 about 49% more CO2 parts per million than 3,300 years ago
The Cooling
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/GISP2-HADCRUT4-Anomalies.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/24/current-warming-is-not-unprecedented-it-is-not-even-unusual/#sthash.YirWw2lK.dpbs
The same but just the last 4,000 years. That makes the detail easier to see.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/kobashi-and-alley-gisp2-central-greenland-temperature-reconstructions/
Current interglacial period compared to the previous 4.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
While we are at it let’s look at sea level rise.
The home page. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
The Battery, New York https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
San Francisco, California https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
If humanity had increased the rate of sea level rise there would be a big increase after 1950.
How did the belief in man made global warming begin? Because the scientific consensus was wrong.
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm
“By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift, radically and catastrophically, within a century — perhaps even within a decade.”
the end
Marlow Metcalf
Great name.
I burst out laughing when I read your comment.
You are extremely confused.
You presented good charts and links.
You seem to understand climate science.
But the coming runaway global warming catastrophe has absolutely nothing to do with science.
There is no science to support that conclusion.
It is a false boogeyman used to scare people.
Scared people want their government to save them.
That allows governments to seize more power.
This is save the Earth socialism … because socialism doesn’t sell well any other way.
I mean it didn’t work so well in Russia and China and Venezuela … so those who want BIG GOVERNMENT needed a better sales pitch — global cooling, hole in the ozone layer, acid rain didn’t catch on for long — but runaway global warming did.
The new pitch for socialism:
We need a much stronger central government and new energy taxes on those pesky corporations, to save the Earth (not because we want to control people and micromanage their lives — we are good people who want to save everyone, even dumb white Republicans too stupid to understand any science).
Well I was once on a Blue Team,representing skeptical views. To debate with the Green Team and the Red Team. The debate was adequately moderated, in that partisanship,insults and other inappropriate comments would be moderated out,which means you had to be civil and try to debate.
The end result was that the Red and Green Teams were slaughtered by the Blue Team on most climate issues,they knew it and so did the Greenie/warmist forum founder, who closed it down. It was illuminating to see how poor the alarmist/warmist arguments were.
I can’t remember the name of that forum,as this was around 6 years ago. Anyone recall?
All I can remember is an Intelligence Squared debate some years ago, but I only recall two sides. After the debate, the audience did move clearly to the side of the skeptics, though.
Not that one, Kurt. It was in a forum set up,where there were THREE groups in it.
When I read about the red/blue team idea by Koonin here on WUWT (along with many others) I saw this as a permanent part of dealing with scientific issues which effect policy, the economy, health etc. Also, it could have broader use, its presence in the system serving as a disciplinary agent in research to stop all the fraud. I would add a code of ethics with teeth that must be part of the disciplinary picture for scientists as it is for engineers.
Com’on mods I used the fr**d word re a passle of medical, biochemistry a d other sensational examples in the literature,even pointed out by Nature and Lancet. Please put my post at the bottom when you release it.
I think the CAGW scientists will not show up, or plead the 5th Amendment, and don’t answer.
In addition to a Red Team and a Blue Team to figure out the science, we also need a Fraud Team to investigate past fraudulent surface temperature modifications in order to figure out who is guilty of lying to the world about CAGW, and how much they have cost the world in wasted money on the CAGW fraud.
Actually a fraud team consisting of forensic statisticians should be put in to bat first. Only when the fraud team has passed the data as kosher should the teams face off and the match begin. The use of unverified data by a member of either side should lead to the user being shown a “red card’ and forced to use the field.
I anticipate that if the debate proceeded on these lines it would end in a walkover by the skeptic team as none of the CAGW side would be let to argue their point. .
Mod please ignore my earlier submission. I have corrected one word.
Actually a fraud team consisting of forensic statisticians should be put in to bat first. Only when the fraud team has passed the data as kosher should the teams face off and the match begin. The use of unverified data by a member of either side should lead to the user being shown a “red card’ and forced to leave the field.
I anticipate that if the debate proceeded on these lines it would end in a walkover by the skeptic team as none of the CAGW side would be let to argue their point. .
“Actually a fraud team consisting of forensic statisticians should be put in to bat first. Only when the fraud team has passed the data as kosher should the teams face off and the match begin.”
I think that is a darned good point.
J. Philip, I agree, they won’t show up, and make good sounding excuses, but that would still be a single for our side, not the home run all of us would hope for. But, a single is better then not playing the game.
This is surreal stuff, Anthony.
In a bad way. (Subreal?)
Last time I checked the scientific method, scientists were supposed to be their own hypothesis’ harshest critic. The Red Team and the Blue Team were one and the same person.
You know something is seriously, terminally gangrenous in a supposedly “scientific” field when the practitioners view skepticism as the OTHER side’s job.
Climate science, as an enterprise, is dead. It’s passed from the sclerotic, arthritic spasticity in which it lived its final decades to livor mortis, rigor mortis and unlovely states beyond.
Weekend at Bernie’s was fun for a while, but it’s Wednesday now. Time to let our putrefying puppet rest in peace. Not for the sake of its dignity (I doubt it ever had any), but for health & safety.
dude- you are on a roll!
i’ve been enjoying your comments very much for the past few days.
if winning has brought out your inner satirist to frolick and gambol- win moar! it’s great stuff!
Alt-real?
Brad Keyes, ++
WT Heck??? Two teams?
I’m with white “vs”…
I’m torn as to whether Bill Nye and Al Gore should be included … just for kicks and giggles
Bill can wear a spinning bow-tie, and Big Al can pretend that he’s not in it for the money.
Rocky (empirical evidence) vs Drago (alarmist fraud). Bring it on!
https://youtu.be/h8nC-RnETd0
The apocalyptic green believers will never agree to a detailed debate with cross examination as it would be an end to the CAGW scam and they well know it.
Great play by Pruitt.
Post live and written transcription / closed caption (or as close as possible) for those of us with hearing loss or slow connections.
There is REAL HOPE for REAL CHANGE !!!!!!!!!!!!
Covfefe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Blue team would have too much at stake, and have shown time and time again that they aren’t interested in the truth. So, I’m not sure how productive a debate there could be with known liars.
“[H]e talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2.”
The very idea of this is silly, almost beyond comprehension. Only those scientists who believe that we know very little would even be willing to participate. Those scientists who already believe that the “science is settled” will be of the opinion that there is nothing to discuss. Even if you did assemble these two teams, they would never agree on a list of what is known and what is not.
At its heart, this is a naked appeal to the authority of scientists, but under a stipulation that the scientists should arrive at their conclusions by a decidedly unscientific process. Why on earth would you ever appeal to the authority of a scientist in these circumstances? Scientists’ expertise is in the scientific procedure. The results of those procedures speak for themselves.
Moreover, there’s a circularity problem here. if you have to call for such a meeting, you already know the answer. Do we need to have a red/blue team meeting to resolve what the acceleration of gravity is at the Earth’s surface is? Of course not. The request for a red/blue team to meet under these circumstances itself presupposes the existence of so much uncertainty as to obviate the need to even call the meeting.
I agree. The issue is whether the science is understood or whether it isn’t. The Blue team would have answers for all the issues based on faulty peer review.
What we really need is to remove the funding prejudice. Get more skeptical papers funded. Since this will take time, the first thing is to bring a skeptic team into NOAA and audit the work being done. Analyze the data. This is sort of a red team but no debate. Just real scientific work. Once all the problems in the data are released there will be more openness for the skeptical viewpoint. Of course, the activists will have a fit but who cares.
The problem is that politicians, and unfortunately much of the general public, want the scientists to depart from their procedural expertise in the scientific method, and instead offer their opinions on things that the scientific method can’t determine. There is no scientific procedure capable of objectively measuring the “risk [CO2] pose[s] to health, the United States, and the world.” There is no scientific procedure capable of objectively quantifying how much emissions increase temperatures, or what the downstream impacts will quantitatively be.
There will never be a “scientific needle in the alarmist haystack” – there can’t be. The “alarmist” part relies exclusively on subjective interpretive judgments of ambiguous scientific data. Thus, there is nothing “scientific” about the alarmism. Climate scientists seem not to understand that opinions are a corrupting agent in a scientific endeavor. That’s why scientists came up with protections like double blind studies.
What’s missing in the global warming debate is either the technical literacy, or the willingness, (or both) on the part of the politicians/journalists/general public to intelligently sift through the scientific studies and draw their own conclusions from the objective evidence. I don’t outsource my own intelligence to some scientist or group of scientists. I can read a study, see the methodological flaws in it (e.g. any study co-authored by Cook) and see that its garbage. I can read a study and see the unfounded assumptions on which it is based (e.g. any attribution study) and discard that as being useless, as well. When that happens over and over again, it informs my opinion that there is no objective evidence of harmful warming from CO2 emissions.
The outcome of any team exercise like this isn’t something that I would ever find relevant. What I would find relevant is if the climate models start successfully predicting the timing, geographical boundaries, and severity of droughts. Or the predicting future rises and falls in global (or better yet regional) temperatures. Scientists can convince me through performance. Not talk.
Red + Blue is a waste of Green (money)
Pruitt is a dork.
Trump is a coward.
Both afraid to say anything about “climate science”
The leftists predict runaway global warming … in the future.
They’ve been doing that for the past 30 years.
No leftist is going to change his mind — climate change is a religion.
How can you prove something wrong if its ALWAYS coming in the future?
The government should get out of the climate change and green energy subsidies business
There is absolutely nothing in the adjusted, infilled, wild guessed surface climate record in the past 150 years that even suggests we have a climate change problem.
The surface temperature data records have already been cooked — at least half the warming is “adjustments” and who knows how much warming is infilling bias and urban heat island effect ? — I bet the raw data are “lost”.
We already know one team will be misleaders, adjusters, infilllers and generally smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists” — people with great communications skills from many years BSing about “climate change”.
A skillful presentation of exciting alarmism BS could easily beat boring real science presented by nerds:
The temperature has been quite stable in the past 150 years = boring
The temperature has barely changed in the past 15 years = boring
No one knows what the future climate will be = boring
Runaway global warming will end life on earth as we know it = exciting
NYC subways will be flooded and train cars will have to be replaced by submarines = exciting
NYC streets will be flooded so executives will have to take gondolas to their offices = exciting
The problem with two teams is that the wrong team could win.
This is 99% politics and 1% science — the science is almost irrelevant for people willing to believe in a coming global warming catastrophe with the positive feedback “tripler” .
Climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
“Global Warming – Climate Change” world biggest hoax and scam.
Just like Obama causing Global Flooding by pissing in the ocean.
That much can humans contribute.
Elaborate scam to screw off taxpayers off their money!
Earth climate and changes are dependent on Sun’s and Sunspots activity supplying 99.99% of energy. Humans can do schit about it.
Volcano eruptions can produce much more distractions to climate than all humans and SUVs farting together.
CO2 is not poison, it is “food” for plants, which in turn produce Oxygen, that we need to breathe.
STOP the scam, jail all the scammers!!!
God bless and protect Mr. Trump!
MAGA!!!!
well exactly……where does he think he’s going to get ” true legitimate, objective, transparent……….peer review”
Forget the science.
The future climate is a mystery.
Neither team knows the future climate.
But I know — it will get colder … or warmer.
Now let’s move on to important things:
Let’s have white collar scientist “brawlers” team boxing match
— red team faces off against blue team —
so the scientists can beat each other up in a ring.
They’ve been verbally beating each other up or decades —
it’s time for a real fight!
A strong ring will be needed.
We wouldn’t want it to collapse under the weight of Al “The Blimp” Gore, who will boxing in a brand new weight class beyond the conventional Super Heavyweight class … called “Stupid Heavyweight”
I fear that a simple red/blue delineation will meet with disaster from the get go. There are far more detailed concerns to consider in choosing teams — things such as racial balance, gender balance, sexual identity tolerance, and so forth. The challenge to pick one politically correct team would be hard enough, let alone two. Good luck with that.
For each team selected, one of these issues would be a point of complaint for somebody — “There were no women scientists on board.” … “The number of whites outweigh the number of blacks.” … “The Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Trans-sexual/Questioning community does not have fair representation.” … “Not enough people from other countries, … Northern Hemisphere inhabitant bias, … Western-science biased forbidding in depth discussions of chi energy.” … Oh, the list goes on.
Kernodle, you are the Dave Barry of climate comments — very funny!
You would hope something like this could do some good. However, I am afraid the Blue team would be so wedded to their agenda that they could not find common ground. And worse yet, if the Blue team did admit that the science is not there and the risk is not great, the media, politicians, academia and your average liberal would ignore the results. Their whole global governance agenda is built on controlling the world’s economy out of fear of a climatic apocalypse.
Oh, I think the “Blue Team” might eventually admit that there’s really nothing practical that humans can do about trying to control “global warming”, whether using a fundamentally flawed view of CO2 or not. BUT [notice, that’s a big “but”], the “Blue Team” would insist that the practical effect of spending trillions of dollars for nothing was NOT the greatest value of human action.
Rather, the greatest value is in TRYING, “sending a message to the world”, as Dr. Mannn has said, I believe, in his own admission that the Paris Agreement would have little practical effect [but then he contradicts himself seemingly in later interviews, using some made-up higher runaway effect that makes some claimed smaller reduction look bigger and more significant].
In other words, the truth might crystallize that what is more important in the minds of alarmists is the symbolic meaning of human actions, NOT the practical results. The world needs a common demon, in order to fight to be more united for a common cause, and CO2 is such a demon.
I have argued for several years that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. With all modesty of course I would be happy ,if asked ,to organize a red team to give Pruitt a helping hand.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””
What good will that do?
The Blues will insist (as they do now) on using doctored data-sets, computer-printed “predictions”, pointless polemics, large fleets of ships, aircraft, and heavy automobiles to shuttle their dog-and-pony-show from palatial abodes to imperial venues in sunny climes safe from the building cold.
Meanwhile the Reds will continue to try to get their story of facts and scientific acknowledged by people that want only their political aims and mandates to be heard.
The final A versus B presentation / debate will be scheduled in mid-summer in Warshington D.C..
Someone will turn off the air conditioning the night before and open the windows on a very hot humid day in Warshington … so all the scientists will be sweating and loosening their ties and that’s all CNN will talk about.
Didn’t that work once before?
Richard, surely even mention of air temperature by the news media would be far too boring. The REAL story by CNN at that final, turned-off-air-conditioner sweat-fest debate would be about some celebrity who happened to walk in with a new hair style that was compromised by the negligent hosting venue’s operation manager, and the law suit she filed for damages.
Make it Purple and Green and I’m all it!
https://youtu.be/AcBTOU7RvbU
talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight … not even fair …
There are 2 million green jobs and many propped up on climate fraud. DJT isn’t going to tank them actual science for obvious PR reasons. He wants to be the “jobs” President not the bubble bust catalyst of whom no one will love.
He’ll leave the academic alarmists alone and funded as well.
I don’t agree with it but I get the short term political logic of deferring the climate war or making “nice” with all sides. The GOP position since Reagan has been appeasement and triangulation of green base culture. That’s what has to change.
Nothing deeper then the climate swamp. Cruz had stronger climate fraud positions and LOST. Paris exit as such is half a loaf at best. Climate trolls remain in charge of NASA and NOAA.
What better way to cement your career than to join then single-handedly sabotage and sink whichever team is supposed to invalidate the climate scam, while feigning objectivity?
Good idea however think about it, a $Trillion dollar global warming fear industry and when someone dares ask a question who do they send in ? A comedian , a failed politician or an actor that barely made it passed high school .
If they did it then have reputable scientists show up .Not lobbiests , rent seekers, and climate pretenders pushing their religion .
To ensure a free and open discussion with no sound bite contests keep the media the hell out and let the
participants discuss the science . . One of the problems for the people who actually know the science is they are almost always put in a completely un science setting trying to explain a very complex subject because the media likes little 5 minute packages . Polarized views and no room for reflection .
The public have been ripped off as a result .
This could take weeks but pay them well and get the cards on the table .
This could be the most significant contribution they will make in their careers .
Maybe they can say whether there is any point .
Why does no one bring up Patrick Moore and his position on CO2?
Perhaps because he was an anti nuclear testing protestor who had no knowledge or interest in climate or the wider environment, who resigned from the anti nuke group he helped lead when it merged into Greenpeace as that org was founded… (he was not a founder of Greenpeace)
So, “helping to lead” does not count as “founding”. The first people who participate are somehow magically removed from the action of “founding”, and “founding” somehow happens by itself with zero effort to actualize an organization at its earliest stage.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that.
Robert, Greenpeace wasn’t ‘founded’ – it was an amalgamation of existing groups.
Griff,
Your perfect record of always being perfectly wrong continues unbroken.
Moore was one of four Don’t Make a Wave members who decided to change the name of their organization to Greenpeace, two of whom were also founding members of DMAW.
Griff,
I see you still haven’t made the least little effort to get the facts behind Patrick Moore’s tenure as president of Greenpeace. Here they are:
In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Moore was elected president. He inherited an organization deeply in debt. Greenpeace associations began to form throughout North America, including Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada.
Moore and the board in Vancouver called for two meetings to formalize his governance proposals. During this time, California lawyer David Tussman, together with other Greenpeace activists and some staff-members, announced that the board of the San Francisco group intended to separate Patrick Moore’s Greenpeace Foundation from the rest of the Greenpeace movement. After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Greenpeace Foundation filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco charging that the San Francisco group was in violation of trademark and copyright by using the Greenpeace name without permission of the Greenpeace Foundation.
The lawsuit was settled at a meeting on 10 October 1979, in the offices of lawyer David Gibbons in Vancouver. Attending were Moore, Hunter, David McTaggart, Rex Weyler and about six others. At this meeting it was agreed that Greenpeace International would be created. This meant that Greenpeace would remain a single organization rather than an amorphous collection of individual offices. McTaggart who had come to represent all the other Greenpeace groups against the Greenpeace Foundation, was named Chairman. Moore became President of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a Director of Greenpeace International.
In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government. He and other directors of Greenpeace International were greeting the ship off the coast of New Zealand on its way to protest French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. Expedition photographer, Fernando Pereira, was killed. Greenpeace’s media presence peaked again.
In 1986, after leaving Greenpeace over differences in policy, Moore established a family salmon farming business, Quatsino Seafarms, at his home in Winter Harbour. He commented that he had left Greenpeace because it “took a sharp turn to the political left” and “evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas”. Which of course is true.
So, Griff, how does this record of Moore’s involvement with Greenpeace disqualify him as a founder?