Talk:Patrick Moore (environmentalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
 

Paul Watson paragraphs[edit]

I removed the huge quotes from Watson's website again, let's discuss them line by line:

Dr. Moore has been criticized by environmentalists however for his support of nuclear power and genetically modified organisms.

This is already said below, "Patrick Moore has been criticized by environmentalists for many of his views detailed above."

Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace and also founder of the Sea Shepard Society has a different take on the situation than Moore, "In June 1977, Paul Watson resigned from the Greenpeace Foundation because of disagreements with the emerging bureaucratic structure of the organization. Patrick Moore had replaced Robert Hunter and was opposed to direct action campaigns. Moore had informed Watson that he would not be allowed to lead another seal campaign (this refers to Watson's tactics of intervention

I now incorporated this: "Paul Watson, another co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the organization after Moore allegedly called a meeting to expel him from the board amid disagreements over Watson's direct action campaigns."

in an attempt to stop the brutal clubbing to death of baby harp seals - often in front of their frantic mothers [1]; Watson would spray green paint on the white fur so as to make it unattractive to the fur industry). Paul left Greenpeace because he felt the original goals of the organization were being compromised, and because he saw a global need to continue direct action conservation activities on the high seas by an organization that would enforce laws protecting marine wildlife" [2]

I think this is too verbose for this article, should be in Paul Watson's.

"He [Moore] uses his status as co-founder of Greenpeace to give credibility to his accusations. I am also a co-founder of Greenpeace and I have known Patrick Moore for 35 years.... Moore makes accusations that have no basis in fact".

This is already in the article verbatim.

"Moore insists that he is a scientist first and foremost, and that his positions are influenced only by science. But this “scientist” who does not have a single peer-reviewed publication to his credit has challenged the credibility of real scientists like Dr. David Suzuki and Dr. E.O. Wilson. He makes outlandish statements like, 'There is more bio-diversity in a clear cut than in a parking lot in Vancouver but I don’t see anyone protesting against parking lots.' Over the years, Captain Paul Watson has challenged Dr. Patrick Moore to a public debate on numerous occasions. Pat has always refused" [3].

The biodiversity statement should be included if we can find another source, Google doesn't seem to turn up anything. As for feuds with Suzuki and Wilson, with more research those could be interesting too.

"And then there's money. Even 18 years after he left Greenpeace, Moore's business relationships with polluters and clear-cutters elicit disgust from his erstwhile comrades. 'He'll whore himself to anything to make a buck,' says Paul George, founder of the Western Canada Wildlife Committee. In an email, former Greenpeace director Paul Watson charges, 'You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money'. Moore admits he's well paid for his speaking and consulting services. He won't say how well, avowing only that his environmental consultancy, Greenspirit Strategies, has been 'very successful because we know what we're talking about and give good advice.'" [4].

Added "His critics point out Moore's business relations with what they see as "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy." This point needs to be expanded, but the quoted text is mostly just personal insults. --c3o 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

About half of the article refer to Moore as "Dr Moore". However this is a bit deceptive since, as Watson pointed out, "this “scientist” who does not have a single peer-reviewed publication to his credit has challenged the credibility of real scientists like Dr. David Suzuki and Dr. E.O. Wilson".
It should also be clearer that Watson quit Geenpeace due to Moore's emerging bureaucratic structure of the organization, not because of disagreements with others.
The cancelling of Watson's seal campaign is a good indicator of where Moore's sentiments lay. Spray painting some green on baby seals fur was not radical IMO.
The deletions appear to be a general watering down of the controversies.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.116.114 (talkcontribs) 30 June 2006
>>About half of the article refer to Moore as "Dr Moore". However this is a bit deceptive since, as Watson pointed out, "this “scientist” who does not have a single peer-reviewed publication to his credit has challenged the credibility of real scientists like Dr. David Suzuki and Dr. E.O. Wilson".>>
The quote from Watson has no relevance to whether Moore is or is not a doctor. If, as stated in the article, he has a PhD in Ecology from the University of B.C., then he has every right to call to himself Dr Moore and it is perfectly reasonable (if perhaps more respectful of its subject than most wikipedia articles!) to refer to him as such. Besides, anyone with a PhD in a science subject Science from an accredited institution, is, i would say, a scientist. (you think you could get a science doctorate?... go ahead then..). Of course that doesn't prevent them making unscientific statements, and published, peer-reviewed articles are an accepted way of judging ones involvement in, and the quality of ones, scientific research, so the Watson quote has some force. but he's still Dr Moore:-).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.244.207 (talkcontribs) 10 July 2006
You're right that technically Moore has the right to the PHD due to a 1972 college thesis he wrote. But the point is that for a guy that pontificates about science he sure doesn't have much beef to show for it. Could it be that those who use the "Dr" here are just trying to impress others? I haven't checked but is "Dr" Kent Hovind listed as such in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.116.114 (talkcontribs) 13 July 2006
What an astoundingly specious argument. David Suzuki has a doctorate in zoology. Does that mean we should disregard any of his contributions to the environmental movement because he didn't get a degree in an environmental science? Pathetic. --CokeBear 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Love him or hate him, if he has a doctorate, it is correct to refer to him as "Doctor". Dagme (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The biography section that keeps referring to him as Dr. Moore needs to be completely reworked anyway, it seems to be lifted straight from his website (with a few changes myself and others made to make it a bit less POV). Please go ahead and rewrite it if you have the time.
I don't see the edits as watering down the controversies, but providing an encyclopaedial view on them, which ought to be somewhat removed and neutral, and not just a huge blockquote from a critic that includes personal insults. --c3o 14:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
An example of the watering down IMO is the removal of the fact that Moore's father "was a logger and past president of the B.C. Truck Loggers Association" [5]. This could have concievably influenced his current views on logging. These views, whether public or private are central, I would think, to anyone interested in joining an environmental organization. Also removed were his failures at certain industries which could have led him to use his former standing as a Greenpeace founder to profit by. I sincerely doubt that all of these anti-environmental organizations which pay him for speaking are hoping to profit from his scientific expertise. Also he fact that Watson has challenged Moore to numerous debates all of which Moore has declined. And why would anyone refuse to allow someone (Watson) to protect baby seals from slaughter?
Maybe because seals are not endangered, and compete with Canadian fishermen? Gifford Pinchot's father was a lumber baron, and he is still considered to be a pioneer of conservation. Why is his father's occupation relevant? The conservation versus preservation debate goes back at least as far as him and John Muir. There is no environmental pope, and no fatwas. To state that someone with a Ph.D. in environmental science, who was also on the board of Greenpeace, is "not an environmentalist" is just political garbage.Pustelnik (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The overall tone of the page is an advertisement for Moore. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.116.114 (talkcontribs) 13 July 2006
As long as you can cite reliable sources and maintain a neutral point of view, please go ahead and add all of that (back) to the article. My main issues with the version previous to my edits were the article's lack of structure, the missing listing of his (controversial) beliefs and arguments and the reliance on several long paragraphs of criticism and even insults by clearly biased sources quoted verbatim. I do feel that the details of the Watson-Moore personal feud are a lot less interesting than a well-sourced listing of those "anti-environmental organizations" he's worked for, especially with accompanying articles that confirm their purpose/actions/track record.
A better article on Moore is found at Sourcewatch here. They are also a good source of info on the organizations Moore works for. I understand your thoughts on the insults, however I feel that they are germain because they are not coming from just anyone but from Greenpeace's other founder. For instance if some Joe Schmole said something like that about George Bush it would probably not be used in Wikipedia. But if Colen Powell made such comments they would certainly be quoted.
I think one of the things that galls me about Moore is the so transparent (to some) reasons that these corporations are working Moore: As a Greenpeace founder they are hoping to create a wedge to divide the environmental community (don't think it's working though). It's certainly not because of any scientific expertise on his part. And for his part Moore is using them to profit by, having failed in his own business ventures. From above "Moore admits he's well paid for his speaking and consulting services. He won't say how well, avowing only that his environmental consultancy, Greenspirit Strategies, has been 'very successful because we know what we're talking about and give good advice.'" As Watson said "He [Moore] uses his status as co-founder of Greenpeace to give credibility to his accusations". And also from above, It reeks of right wing think tank strategy IMO. Unfortunately I don't really have the time at present to redo the article; I think I've spent too much on it already. Maybe later. Okay let's try the sig. anon.
By the way, you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing --~~~~. You might also want to consider registering a username if you contribute to Wikipedia regularly. --c3o 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OY OY OY

No time to read all this wrangling, but the main entry has Watson censored out, and is therefore bogus. 77Mike77 (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Environmentalist?[edit]

I believe that it is misleading and inaccurate to characterize Patrick Moore as an "environmentalist." According to Wikipedia "In modern times, environmentalism is related to the environmental movement, which stresses the necessity for designation and maintenance of public land, roadless area conservation, waste management, recycling, regulation of industrial and other pollution, preservation of biodiversity, regulation of genetically engineered organisms, and prevention of a global climate crisis, as well as ozone depletion." Therefore, Patrick Moore cannot be an environmentalist. He is paid by the timber industry and the nuclear industry to lobby the public on their behalf, under the guise of environmentalism. He openly admits to receiving $$ from these interests, and his statements are patently anti-environmentalist. The term "environmentalist" should be removed from both the title of this article, and from the opening paragraph. - This unsigned comment was added by 68.49.97.205 on 22:29, 24 September 2006

Agreed. 68.49.97.205 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.
Disagree. It is like comparing Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. Both are "environmrntalists". Pustelnik (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, Moore is an environmentalist because of his support for nuclear power. Nuclear power has the lowest impact on the environment among all sources of electricity and can deliver orders of magnitude greater power than "renewables". Moore uses science and math to enforce his position unlike the fringe anti-nuclear "environmentalists" who ridicule the industry over minute incidents (i.e. Vermont Yankee) that physically do not threaten the public. Moore probably joined CAS Energy because they have the power to actually do something meaningful about climate change by lobbying for more nuclear power plants. It is absurd to even think about addressing climate change without massive expansion of nuclear power and as a scientist, Moore recognizes this. Phenix00 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
He is co-founder of one of the world's largest environmentalist movements and has a Ph.D. in ecology. What else but an environmentalist could he be? He has opinions that differ from the mainstream. So what? Was Einstein not a scientist because he disliked Quantum Mechanics? Even if what you say is true - that he is being payed by the timber and nuclear industry - he is still an environmentalist. Just one working for the industry. And I see no evidence for this claim anyway. The article just says "As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC, a group created by the forest industry[1], Moore leads the process of developing the "Principles of Sustainable Forestry" which have been adopted by a majority of the industry." Perhaps he did get payed as chair of this committee, but still that hardly makes him a spokesman for the timber industry. Diadem 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I do NOT agree, and if we go down this road we are going to have to change a lot of things on Wikipedia. Whether you AGREE with his views on the environment or not does not change the fact that he speaks on environmental concerns. Within the environmental movement there are many extremes, and there is no way one person could ever agree with anyone. Moore tries to (or at least seems to) find a balance between the environment and the needs of humanity (or maybe just the needs of his pocketbook, who can be sure?) as opposed to certain in the environmental movement who would take actions which would substantially reduce the ability of the humanity to feed itself, sentencing millions to a horrible death by starvation. For example, by the exact description above, nuclear energy helps with issues of greenhouse gases at the expense of other environmental concerns... he just sees it differently from you. "Regulation of" and "outlawing" things are not the same - and thus his discussions on GMO are valid points. Just because he tries to find diplomatic solutions rather than chaining himself to trees does not mean that he is not an environmentalist. And, just as a personal aside, grow a spine and sign your comments. --CokeBear 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the person who wanted to remove the environmentalist verbiage seems to be really lost. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is and who is not an environmentalist. Moore is publicly known as an environmentalist, so he is one. Just because his views do not align with those of Greenpeace does not make him not an environmentalist. Greenpeace does not have an intellectual monopoly on environmentalism. If the OP feels so strongly about it then one could instead write "self considered environmentalist" - though I have the feeling the OP would object to even this, since his goal seems to be to discredit Moore with ad-hoc and guilt by association attacks, not write a factual article. Hvatum 05:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Agreed, the person who wanted to remove the environmentalist verbiage seems to be really lost. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is and who is not an environmentalist." This is as bogus as it gets. "It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is and who is not an environmentalist." --- so Wikipedia decides that Patrick Moore is an environmentalist. Patrick Moore can be fairly characterized as a self described environmentalist ---Dagme (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dagme, if you have thoughts on this article's title, you may want to discuss it in the much newer section at the bottom of this page.Dialectric (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Moore is a LOBBYIST, not an ENVIRONMENTALIST. He's verifiably employed by energy and lumber companies to influence public and political opinion AGAINST preserving the environment. Calling him an environmentalist is utterly inaccurate. 213.114.237.15 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, because the definition of "environmentalist" is "not a lobbyist". (As you can probably tell, I found the above comment to be hilarious in its absurdity.) Marshaul (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I AGREE. Moore is a public relations consultant. His own biography states that he currently works in consultancy. Employment as an environmental consultant does not make a person an environmentalist. Here is the Wiktionary definition of the term environmentalist: One who advocates for the protection of the biosphere from misuse from human activity through such measures as ecosystem protection, waste reduction and pollution prevention. Patrick Moore's recent Major clients include APP, a company that is clearing Sumatran rainforest at an unprecedented rate and often in dubious circumstances. How can a person be an environmentalist and greenwash the destruction of one of the worlds richest bio-diversity hot-spots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popraxis (talkcontribs) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, we've been around these houses a hundred times before. Moore and others believe firmly that he is still engaged in environmentalist work. The job of the article is not to make a political point or soapbox. The piece is carefully cited and well sourced in a more balanced way with a view to NPOV. See WP:SOAP. The consultancy Moore is engaged in clearly laid out and cited in the article. It speaks for itself. Span (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article neutral ?[edit]

I don't seen much wrong with this article. Moore's views are fairly mainstream, . Saying there is more biodiversity in a clearcut (Image:Biodiversity_on_clearcut )[6]then a parking lot(Image:Manhattancarpark)[7] is not that outrageous. KAM 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. He is not, this is a flat out distortion meant to confuse the arguments regarding environmental issues. This article claims he is a co-founder. He is not. See: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-20.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.145.74 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

this is from the artcle you referenced "Technically, Patrick Moore cannot be described as a founder of Greenpeace. He was there in early stages with a lot of others. But what he is doing now is unconscionable."

his status as co-founder seems to be less debated because of lack of involvment but rather that he has seen what greenpeace became and didn't like it. too many people on wiki are editing out of the wrong motives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like some people try to deny Moore's early role in Greenpeace. He was a co-founder, and the official Greenpeace website says so. [8] But anyway, aren't there signed documents and other bureaucratic stuff that can prove whether or not he is a co-founder? 77.49.215.162 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading your link once more - it doesn't say that Moore was a co-founder. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Try reading an older version of the Greenpeace website before they edited Patrick Moore out of existence. Greenpeace September 2005 until somewhere around the end of 2008. You'd have to ask Greenpeace why they changed their story about their founders and edited out Patrick Moore, but there can be no disagreement that he was indeed a founding member.Pl77 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The facts, as presented and cited are very clear: Moore is not a "founder" of Greenpeace in any sense of the word, and yet he continues to promulgate the myth. His own claims to involvement in 1971 are a full year after the founding of the organization. The only claims that are made for his "co-founder" status are an off-hand statement by Paul Watson, and a long since corrected mistake on the Greenpeace website. He must know this and yet promulgates this myth of being a "co-founder" to boost his own bottom line in his for-profit anti-environmental efforts. This makes his consciously false assertions a major part of his biography in the same vein as Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that women" and John Edwards' "That is not my baby". The neutrality is to be maintained in the way the facts are reported, not in the selective removal or non-inclusion of facts. A clear delineation of a lie is not automatically biased reporting.TheForrest (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@The Forrest - I would disagree that "The facts, as presented and cited are very clear". I understand that there is strong feeling around the claims and counter claims but I think that the place to outline these are in the Controversy section - not in the lead. As an adult encyclopaedic entry it tries for neutrality and a pointing to different sides of the dispute. Citing an essay and Greenpeace's own website as sources are not very useful as they opponents in the dispute. I was in the process of shifting some of your sources down to the controversy section when you reverted the edit. As the article now reads I think it's confusing to anyone coming from the outside - like stepping into a war we know nothing about. It sounds like a rant. I understand a lot of people are upset. But this is not a propaganda or counter-propoganda leaflet. Spanglej (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
@Spanglej - I disagree about removing the entire "co-founder" thing to the Controversy section. It is relevant as Moore trades on it, and ANY mention of him being a co-founder needs to be framed accordingly. And I reassert that the facts are very, very clear. The cites I reference are PRIMARILY from third party media outlets, published books, legal records in Vancouver, and Moore's own biographical timeline. (If the organization was founded in January of 1970, and Moore lists the beginning of his involvement as 1971, how can he possibly be a "co-founder" unless he's somehow cracked the whole time-space continuum thing?) I find it ironic that you say "Citing an essay and Greenpeace's own website as sources are not very useful as they opponents in the dispute." when that is ALL the evidence (and a corrected Greenpeace website archived somewhere else at that) there is to support Moore's claim to co-founding. —Preceding TheForrest (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC) comment added by TheForrest (talkcontribs) 17:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Forrest- I am not arguing for or against Moore - I have no interest in doing so. It is not 'ironic' that I question Greenpeace sources as I have no wish to defend or undermine him. I understand that the politics are still playing themselves out - that Moore is still using his co-founding claim as a platform with business and that he is enraging environmentalists the world over. I imagine that, much like articles on Rwanda, Stalin, Hitler and the colonisation of Canada a balance can be found in framing the debate. I'd say that - when in doubt - it's best to state that there is deep controversy and say what it is. I would also question the use of blog as a source.
As someone commented above, 2005 Greenpeace web archives do state (clearly)
"In 1970, the Don't Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop a second nuclear weapons test at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. The committee's founders and first members included:
• Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia
• Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy
• Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer
• Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia
• Bill Darnell, a social worker"
I don't disagree with the mentioning of the co-founding question in the lead but I'd say the detailed narrative of concerts, ships, founder letters and things is better framed in a full section on the subject. The lead is a synopsis of the key points in the whole article, not an argument. Onwards and upwards! Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
@Spanglej- I can see your point that a substantive deliniation of the falsity of Moore's co-founding assertion may be better suited in a place other than the lead. I still assert though that giving any credence to the "co-founding" myth would be an complete aberration of objective truth. I continue to submit, and explain in following, that while "deep controversy" is an accurate description, to give any credence to Moore being a co-founder flies in the face of all available evidence, including the archived website and Moore's own resume.
There is very little clarity to the archived website posting. The "archives" do state clearly the term "founders and first members". Even that, though, is ambiguous wording. Leaving aside the point that this was an erroneous fact on the website, which was corrected, could this list be people who are either a founder OR first member, and not both?
The archived website also does not state Moore's involvement clearly as to when he started. Moore's OWN resume and website list his starting with Greenpeace in 1971. Right there it says in this archived website listing that the "Don't Make a Wave Committee" started in 1970. So even the most credible source for Moore's co-founding contradicts Moore's very own timeline.
To further bolster the point that this "archived website" is erroneous, the list of "founders and first members" is obviously not complete as it does not include Dorothy Stowe or Marie Bohlen. Further torpedoing the Watson statement as any kind of evidence for Moore's co-founding, Paul Watson is not listed either.
Furthermore, there is ample testimony from numerous sources, not just blogs, contradicting this piece of information being any credible listing of Moore being a co-founder. And what has more credibility? An archived, since corrected, website entry or a blog? This archived and since corrected website, other than Moore's unsubstantiated assertion, is the ONLY evidence "supporting" Moore's co-founding, and I trust you can see, this evidence is exceedingly tenuous, as much, if not much more so than a blog entry. And if a blog entry is a first person witness account, what is to say that is completely illegitimate?
I'll work on it more along the lines of our discussion. Thanks for your cogent and rational exchange on the subject. TheForrest (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this article does not show enough of the good things Moore has done as a member of CAS Energy. The second paragraph makes it seem as though the nuclear industry is evil and Moore is receiving compensation for helping their agenda. The nuclear industry should be treated with the same dignity as the renewable energy businesses if not more so since it is scientifically proven that nuclear power is the most efficient non-polluting energy resource. Phenix00 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This is why this article will never rise beyond divisive argument and be any good. Spanglej (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reworking a recent batch of edits[edit]

A series of recent edits by User:Pmooregreenspirit has created a number of problems with this article. See diffs here [9] Much of what was added may be factual. However, since this is a biographical article and no sources were cited, this material needs to be verified or removed. Some of the new material makes statements as to the beliefs of Patrick Moore, there are multiple NPOV problems, some of the language is unencyclopedic and reads like a narrative. I am also troubled by examples of sourced material which was deleted in this batch of edits and by the fact that some edits were inserted inline with existing citations, which give the appearance that the new statements are also cited.

The sourced material which was deleted should be restored and that citations should be requested on the recently added material. After that, the whole article could use a neutral re-write. I'll see how much effort I can put into it in the next few days, but I would appreciate any other advice and input. - Justin (Authalic) 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Essential information for balance[edit]

To me, the whole issue of Moore's non-foundership of Greenpeace is a major/core issue for his biography because Moore himself so flagrantly uses the title as "co-founder of Greenpeace" in all his self-promotion. He could use the tags "former President of Greenpeace Foundation" or "former director of Greenpeace" or even "crew on first Greenpeace direct action", but he does not. The evidence is so massively convincing that he did not show up in the Greenpeace organization until over a year after its founding, and yet he continues, despite being "outed" on the subject, to promulgate himself with these falsities. That is a core indicator of his character and lack of integrity in dealing with the media and the public, and indeed of his intellectual bona fides. TheForrest (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


there is a great deal of internet and media interest in Patrick Moore; it appears that he was not a founder of Greenpeace, although a founder of Greenpeace International. He is regularly denounced publicly in the strongest possible terms, frequently by those that have unimpeachable status within the environmentalist movement. Any balanced wiki on him must include both sides of this portrait: to call him an environmentalist ("a person who is concerned with the protection of the environment", askoxford.com) without for example quoting David Suzuki ( "Patrick Moore is an eco Judas" ) would be at best misleading. GarethHD 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Greenpeace v. Greenpeace lawsuit[edit]

This is a minor point, but it is inaccurate to state that I (David Tussman) announced that the San Francisco office of Greenpeace intended to break away from the original Greenpeace Foundation in Vancouver. I never made such an announcement, nor in fact did the San Francisco organization. What is true is that in the early days Greenpeace grew internationally in a rather chaotic and unstructured way, and that in an attempt to restore some order and reassert its authority the Vancouver office initiated a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement against myself and the San Francisco group after several efforts to reach a negotiated settlement (in which I had generally been supportive of the Vancouver position) had failed.

A second inaccuracy is the statement that Paul Watson "resigned" from Greenpeace. In fact, he was removed from the board by a vote of the other directors in 1977 because of his actions during that year's seal campaign where he had taken sealing implements from one of the hunters. This may seem like a small matter but it was at a time when Greenpeace was applying for tax exempt status in the US and the IRS had specifically questioned whether Watson's actions were consistent with Greenpeace's philosophy of peaceful nonviolence in the tradition of Gandi and Martin Luther King. Probably that was not the only reason for his removal, but in any case Watson went on to have a very successful career leading his own organization, as did others who found Greenpeace a bit too tame and timid.

In general this is an excellent and balanced article. Some have tried to create meaningless controversy about whether Moore was an actual "founder" or whether he deserves to be called "Dr." One of the ironies of the environmental movement is that some of its members demonize others in the movement with whom they disagree more than they demonize the other side. Patrick Moore may not have always been the most liked or diplomatic of Greenpeace leaders, but at least he was not guilty of that sin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.198.116 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you - I for one am glad to see that someone directly involved in the events has stopped by to clarify matters. I'm not quite sure how to take Patrick Moore - his motives may be unclear but I believe the approach he takes is needed to bring balance to the environmental movement. It is offensive when someone who disagrees with him starts questioning his credentials, hoping to discredit him. Disagree with him if you will... everyone is entitled to their opinion. I agree with many things he says, but not 100% of what he believes. I feel exactly the same way about David Suzuki. Do I get to put up a website now claiming David Suzuki is not a doctor and is nothing but a talking head who got famous by being on CBC? He is viewed as an environmentalist but his doctorate is in zoology. ZOMG- Patrick Moore is an environmental scientist, and David Suzuki is a glorified vet! Ridiculous. --CokeBear 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV in Statement[edit]

I am removing a POV part of a statement. The full statement is: "He is an effective and polished lobbyist and media interviewee, much to the chagrin of his opponents who often turn apoplectic in media-recorded debates with him". The part I am removing is "much to the chagrin of his opponents who often turn apoplectic in media-recorded debates with him". This sounds like it came from Moore himself. The fact is that he is also subject to temper tantrams. "Moore lost his cool, for example, when a Canadian journalist asked him about Burson-Marsteller's role in conducting a public relations campaign for Argentina when the Argentinian military's death squads were murdering thousands of citizens and political dissidents. Moore rose to the bait by responding that 'people get killed everywhere.' ... In Tasmania, Moore finally showed up for a radio debate. He demanded a retraction of the briefing materials that cited his defense of Burson-Marsteller in Argentina. His demand was refused, and instead his statement about Argentina ended up being broadcast to a statewide audience. At the end of the debate Moore stormed from the studio, leaving journalists bemused" As to his debating abilities, I note that he has refused lots of them, "he would only participate in interviews that allowed him to appear separately from his critics" [10]. "Over the years, Captain Paul Watson has challenged Dr. Patrick Moore to a public debate on numerous occasions. Pat has always refused" [11]. 4.246.206.76 07:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag[edit]

See #Reworking_a_recent_batch_of_edits above. Nurg (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote for removal of the tag. A quick check of the authors on the article's history shows that many different people have been involved in writing the aerticle. I suspect that this tag was placed as an objection to his view, an action that is definitely not NPOV. Pustelnik (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

?what are you talking about? keep that link in, it shows the bias put in by one user, pmoorespirit! let me guess, you're a moore supporter. 142.25.141.91 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


"Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian ecologist, lays claim to being an environmentalist while speaking and promoting logging, nuclear, and chemical industry efforts against all established environmental organizations." This opening statement seems very biased and definately not neutral like the NPOV suggests it should be. It blatanly uses the term "lays claim", implying that Patrick Moore is not an environmentalist, and only he believes this to be true. Yes, maybe he wasn't dubbed the title of being a "co-founder" of Greenpeace, but the aritcle's opening paragraph shouldn't discredit his work on environmental issues. For the most part, the majority of the article remains neutral; however, this first sentence needs revision due to the biased tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcroteau (talkcontribs) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Views[edit]

The "Views" section of this page should reflect the extreme change in his views over time. For example:

"Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet." -Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, 1976

He has gone from this view to actively supporting nuclear. This kind of information can be presented in a completely neutral factual way and guide people to their own conclusions regarding his sincerity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.210.149 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the fact a man changes his mind on a topic after 32 years has no bearing on his sincerity whatsoever. You would also need more information concerning why he made that change. Does he actually believe that he was scientifically wrong 32 years ago or is he just a puppet of corporations. It is not necessary, nor ethical, for wikipedia to make those determinations. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this helpful? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html - Brad Kgj08 (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Brad, I think that's why 82.45.210.149 used the words "completely neutral factual way and guide people to their own conclusions..." Your thoughts on his sincerity after changing his mind are perfectly legitimate, but others may have suspicions about his reversal that are just as justified. You're right in that Wikipedia should not be making determinations of these kind. Accordingly, I don't think it is necessary or ethical for Wikipedia to leave out his prior views based on anyone's conclusion that those prior views do not discredit his current ones. Alhead (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could this be why he changed his mind? He's chairing the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, run by PR firm Hill &Knowlton on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. Now is it worth mentioning? source: Utne Reader Jan/Feb 2008 reprint of Earth Island Journal article "Atomic Dreams" by Jason Mark. 66.183.81.190 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming section[edit]

The two indented quotes in the Global Warming section do not look like they belong whatsoever. They would better fit in a section titled "Opinion of Modern Environmental Movement" or something like that. Anyone agree? -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone?[edit]

The tone of this article is completely inappropriately critical. A re-write is needed, urgently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.239.28 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GREEN POLITICS AND BIAS CLOUDS THIS ARTICLE.[edit]

Too much of this article is about petty environmental politics and in-fighting, with a bias against Moore.

The article should be about the man and his views, not about why some environmentalists disagree with him. Much of the latter part of the article has the tone of putting up Moore for criticism and then criticising him. The section "Criticism by other environmentalist" does not belong at all, certainly not as a seperate section. The article should not be a "for" and "against" debate.

It is petty politics when some environmentalists object against describing him as an "environmentalist" simply because he has alternate views on method and tactics (albeit critical views).

Example of bias: Under the heading "Views", we do not get an insight into Moore's views, (vision, ideology, tactics, philosophy etc), what we get is only Moore's views in opposition to the environmental movement.

An example of subtle bias:

"Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national organization of pro-nuclear industries which hopes to enlist Moore's help in bringing about a nuclear renaissance.[22]"

(Note that the link [22] is broken). The fact that an organisation supports Moore, and "hope" to enlist him, does not establish any alliance between Moore and them. This is clearly an attempt to establish guilt by association, by those who are against nuclear as a green option. The factual information is as follows (from Wikipedia): "NEI founded the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy) to help build local support around the country for new nuclear build. The co-chairs of the coalition are Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.."

The statement in this article should be replaced by stating Moore's proper association and the relevant context i.e. why he supports them or what they stand for, e.g. Clean and Safe Energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.168.193 (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jan 16 '10 edits[edit]

I added some newspaper refs and subheadings and edited for concision - taking out some repetition. It now seems that most statements are now ref'ed. The article is clear that many env'ists are v unhappy with him - that there is controversy - but I don't think that biases the article. It outlines some of the debate that surrounds his work. Some most personal detail on his life might help to round out the article rather than being all about controversy... Spanglej (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I find it amazing that Wikipedia frequently feels the need to reveal criticism for scientists who disagree with the so called status quo, but don't reveal criticism for other so called status quo scientists. Patrick Moore and David Suzuki are both respected but controversial practitioners of science, but Moore gets the criticism and Suzuki (who has plenty of critics) does not. Either controversial left leaning scientists should receive criticism or controversial right leaning scientists should not!Trillium3d (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

title change[edit]

Title: I suggest changing the title from "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)" to "Patrick Moore (Greenspirit Strategies)". That is current, uncontroversial and more accurate, and is sufficient to identify him unambiguously. Unfortunately, I cannot find a way to edit the title, but will gladly do so if someone can instruct me.

Dagme (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and don't know how to do it either - but second the move. Spanglej (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

article has deteriorated[edit]

This article has substantially deteriorated since I last checked it. It is full of meaningless and endless discussion about whether or not Patrick Moore was a "founder" of Greenpeace. Regardless of what that means technically, there is no disputing that Mr. Moore was one of the leading figures during the early years of Greenpeace. Much of the historical narrative is also inaccurate, although it is not worth the effort to try to clean it up since someone will just change it again.

There is no doubt that the disputes are hurting the article. I'd say it needs an objective re-write with some objective citation, but there seems to be little objective sourcing out there. Most of it is Greenpeace, blog material or "polemic" from the figures involved in the dispute. Feelings run high were Patrick Moore are concerned, it seems. Was it not always so? Answers on a postcard please. Spanglej (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

explanation of revert...[edit]

I've reverted this[12] revision from Francis17340. It was mislabelled as vandalism reverts, and to my first glance Francis' version seems to be less WP:NPOV by taking a stand on which version of reality to describe. It really should be enough to describe this whole thing as something like: Moore is sometimes stated to be a co-founder of Greenpeace, this is contested, with some arguing for<refs for this> and others, including Greenpeace, contesting it<refs for this> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Concision[edit]

Thanks Nightscream for the concision of the article in form, syntax, refs etc. I support the changes. Spanglej (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have edited for concision of sentences and paras for syntax not content. Spanglej (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Introduction[edit]

I believe that this statement adds nothing to the article introduction: "He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups." The article paints Dr. Moore as an anti-environmentalist on the topics of forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants without any explanation. The citation for this sentence refers to an article that is subtitled "Anthony Browne reports on the Greenpeace founder who now denounces 'extremism'". Saying that Dr. Moore denounces extremism is a much more helpful statement for this introduction, rather than saying that "many policies of major environmental groups" disagree with him, with no relevant citation. It is very important to say why some groups disagree, with some explanation of his views. ~Kruck (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AzureAnt Edit[edit]

As I also commented on [13], I "note an edit to the Patrick Moore article in which User:AzureAnt removed a bunch of referenced text [14]. WP:BLP states "We must get the article right." I am a bit concerned that you changed the article to say that he "opposes renewable energy" rather than what he said in the Washington Post article ("Wind and solar power have their place" where he talked about baseload power). I will probably try to incorporate the ref you added, but restore at least part of the deleted referenced text." I would like some input from other editors on what extent they think the new ref added is compatible with/contradicts the old one. -- Limulus (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page
Actually, you posted on my user page; as it doesn't belong there and would rather have this conversation here, I've removed it. In case anyone is curious, here's the content: [15] -- Limulus (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
and as is obvious from the edit, Moore has given a more recent interview just a few weeks ago which makes very clear his anti-renewable energy views. I don't understand why you think we should include obsolete information. AzureAnt (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Has he actually changed any views since the Washington Post article was written? To me the LFP article is basically saying that Moore says wind is not an economical replacement for baseload power, which as I recall was part of the gist of the WP article. -- Limulus (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how you can believe someone who says something is "ridiculously expensive and don't work half the time" is anything but opposed to it. Unfortunately, SpangleJ reverted my entire last edit rather than what he considers "editorialising", so the word "opposed" has replaced the more neutral "critical of". I'll put it back now and correct the typo he re-introduced. AzureAnt (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed "opposed" to "critical" to remove any debate and allow the reader to decide what Moore's position is. AzureAnt (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is to outline Moore's views not promote one view about the rights or wrongs of his environmental standpoint. We are not here to editorialise. Span (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
From editorialise, editorialising is "highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion". My emphasis. I added facts from credible sources that provides the reader with pertinent information. That is not editorialising. Also, why did you revert the "need genetically engineered crops to this end" when the source does not say that? That is editorialising because it offers "implications not supported by the sources". AzureAnt (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about this for a while, sorry.

2006 Washington Post [16] says: "Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric."

2012 LFP [17] "no matter how many [wind farms] are built, they won’t replace coal, gas or hydro or nuclear plants, because they are continuous and wind is not always reliable."

It is thus really more a question of what Moore thinks is 'the place' for wind+solar. In WP he said "When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear." BUT here currently quotes him as saying that CO2 not directly linked to global warming... so then he doesn't support "an aggressive program of renewable energy sources" but was telling the people listening to him (who presumably DO accept a correlation between CO2 and GW) that they need to consider nuclear too. I will attempt a rewording with reincorporation of the WP ref momentarily. -- Limulus (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

Fixed external link for 2005 article "The Environmental Movement: Greens Have Lost Their Way" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWOldfield (talkcontribs) 11:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This link leads to a dead link: UK Channel 4 Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.183.201 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Glyphosate[edit]

He tried to promote Glyphosate (in 2015). See here: http://www.canalplus.fr/c-infos-documentaires/pid3357-c-special-investigation.html?vid=1122650&sc_cmpid=TWShareInfo - it should be added to the article. 2A02:8388:1601:E000:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Section of Canal+ Interview with Dr. Patrick Moore.

Dr. Patrick Moore: "I do not believe that Glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you."

Interviewer: You want to drink some? We have some here."

Dr. Patrick Moore: "I'd be happy too actually... Not really, but."

Interviewer: "Not really?"

Dr. Patrick Moore: "I know it wouldn't hurt me."

Interviewer. " If you say so, I have some Glyphosate..."

Dr. Patrick Moore: "I'm not stupid."

Interviewer " O.K., so you... Dangerous right?"

Dr. Patrick Moore: "But I know... People try to commit suicide with it and fail, fairly regularly..."

Interviewer: "Tell the truth, it's dangerous..."

Dr. Patrick Moore: "It's not dangerous to humans... It's not."

Interviewer: " So you are ready to drink one glass of Glyphosate?"

Dr. Patrick Moore: "No, I'm not an idiot. Interview me about [GMO] Golden Rice, that's what I'm talking about. O.K. it's finished, the interview is finished."

Interviewer: "That's a good way to solve things."

Dr. Patrick Moore: "Yeh... You're a complete jerk!"

Interview Ends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.176.26 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request regarding the relation between Dr. Patrick Moore and Monsanto[edit]

This article includes a false relation between Dr. Patrick Moore and Monsanto. Monsanto has issued a statement[1], mostly directed to Time, that he is not a lobbyist for their company. That means the Time piece[2] is no longer a credible source of information related to this. The same goes for all the spin offs including the Huffington Post piece[3].

Noxiousorchid (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Time piece now includes a correction. The wikipedia article does not currently describe Moore as a Monsanto lobbyist.Dialectric (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Tony Tan98 · talk 21:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"The wikipedia article does not currently describe Moore as a Monsanto lobbyist." <-- Except, of course, for all the sources cited that state -- usually in their headlines -- "Patrick Moore is a Monsanto lobbyist." 184.7.172.49 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, we cannot change the titles of sources for them; we will have to wait for the sources to correct their titles themselves. Tony Tan98 · talk 21:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, why don't you clarify Moore's professional career in this article and also include his business ventures, such as Globe Consultants, Inc and Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. Hoffmansk 00:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talkcontribs)

Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. is already mentioned. If you have additional reliable sources covering Moore's career, please add them here and we can most likely add the information to the article.Dialectric (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You can find them on the internet. Hoffmansk 23:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talkcontribs)

Title Change revisited[edit]

A potential move of Patrick Moore (environmentalist) to Patrick Moore (Greenspirit Strategies) was discussed in 2010. The issue was and is whether Moore is recognized primarily as an environmentalist, or would be better described in a different way. Moore is no longer associated with Greenspirit Strategies, so that option is out. I propose 'consultant' as a reasonable replacement. The article currently states that "Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups". Though he is often billed as a co-founder of Greenpeace, his recent work has been primarily defined by consulting.Dialectric (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved. "Consultant" is certainly an option, but are there better ways to describe him? Is he still an "environmentalist", or a "former environmentalist"? Tony Tan98 · talk 02:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The title of his 2010 book 'the Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.' suggests that he still considers himself an environmentalist in some sense, though I would need to read it. People are often described by their primary occupation, which in his case is more consultant than environmentalist, though he does work on environment-related issues. 'former environmentalist' is more loaded, and I would avoid it unless Moore self describes as such.Dialectric (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Consultant would be a good idea. Tony Tan98 · talk 02:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree; "Consultant" has so many different uses that it doesn't help people understand the topic. bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think 'environmentalist' should stay as the descriptor, then? My view is that 'consultant' is no more vague than 'writer' or 'author' which are used on dozens of bio pages. How does Patrick A Moore sound, given that his full name is Patrick Albert Moore? Patrick Moore (disambiguation) has a few middle initialed names but no Patrick A.Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That could be good; natural disambiguation is preferred. bobrayner (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be started again. Currently the article describes Moore as an scientist. OK, he has a PhD but I don't find any evidence for scientific work. A PhD alone doesn't make anyone a scientist, especially when that person has for decades engaged in antiscientific campaigns and as a pro industry lobbyist. Also the article doesn't mention any scientific work. Therefore the lead should be rewritten. Claiming he is a scientist is very missleading. 84.153.63.132 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Patrick Moore (environmentalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Health effects of Glysophate[edit]

This section mentions a controversy about Mr Moore's refusal to drink a product he claimed was safe, and it mentions that the interview happened shortly after the WHO placed glysophate on a list of "probable carcinogens", and the paragraph ends with "This list also includes emissions from high-temperature frying, working as a hairdresser/barber or shift work that involves circadian disruption". Is that final sentence relevant? It seems to be implying a POV of the quality of the list, rather than describing the event. The linked list also includes formaldehyde, Urethane, and Carbon Tetrachloride... were those 3 listed only listed in order give lay-people the sense that it's a silly list of "health & safety gone mad"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.115.246 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)