Comments on: John Mackey on Global Warming: “no scientific consensus exists.”

By: Go Green Energy, Use Green Energy, Global Warming Solution

Go Green Energy, Use Green Energy, Global Warming Solution — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:04:13 +0000

Hello very nice website!! Man .. Excellent .. Superb .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds also?I’m glad to find a lot of useful info here within the put up, we’d like work out more strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

By: John Mackey is at it again | InsideCatholic.com

John Mackey is at it again | InsideCatholic.com — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:26:24 +0000

[...] to see some smack-downs of John Mackey this week. The Huffington Post already posted a reaction by Waylon Lewis, founder of elephantjournal.com, who appreciates Mackey’s eclectic ways, but now feels [...]

By: Don't Bring a Coffee Cup to a Gun Fight. ~ Andrew Michler | elephant journal

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:02:48 +0000

[...] of generations at risk to keep their income source intact. We all know this. We have seen the bizarre and embarrassing denial of the science behind atmospheric carbon. That is giving way to the predictable explanation that, [...]

By: "Top Ten Reasons Why It's Silly to Boycott Whole Foods." | elephant journal

"Top Ten Reasons Why It's Silly to Boycott Whole Foods." | elephant journal — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:15:36 +0000

[...] Although John Mackey may not understand the repercussions of his influential statements, everyone is entitled to their opinion. He only earns $1 a year! He does not make a salary! Any [...]

By: SweetJane

SweetJane — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:38:08 +0000

I agree with Joel M. that Mr. Mackey shouldn't be dismissed as a nut. Common sense and history tells us that the earth's climate has changed several times during recorded history, and obviously much of that happened prior to the Industrial Revolution. Having said that, issues such as pollution and deforestation do deserve our attention and concern, because we can control those activities. The warming or cooling of the earth is likely to happen with or without our consent.

Also, I want to comment EJ on publishing a dialogue about Mr. Mackey, noting agreements, disagreements, and accomplishments. Unlike the totally disingenuous HuffPo, EJ clearly understands the thrill of the First Amendment!

By: ndsmith

ndsmith — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:15:19 +0000

Nice to see you gettin' props from Treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/whole-foo...

By: elephantjournal

elephantjournal — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:00:55 +0000

Joel M
Actually, the whole issue is confused. Despite the sensationalized headline, Mackey doesn't say whatsoever that he doesn't believe in "climate change". And there isn't a climate scientist in the world who doesn't believe in it, I'd wager. What MANY climate scientists (mostly those not on the UN payroll) don't buy is the idea (falsified over and … See Moreover) that CO2 is driving climate change. The true "climate change deniers" are not the skeptics here, but the believers who have bought hook, line, and sinker, Mann's falsified "hockey stick graph", which actually DENIED the climate change of the past to give the false impression that the recent increases in temperature are not wholly natural. In reality climate change is indeed natural, and the data shows that the recent upward trend is no exception… That's what these fear mongers don't want you to understand, and it's why they've framed the debate in such a misleading way, with wholly misleading labels such as "climate change denial" for those many scientists and skeptics who CHAMPION climate change, and who are rightly skeptical of the THEORY (falsified) that CO2 is the driver.

Ben Wyskida
Well, clearly we're going to disagree – there is a scientific consensus, from well beyond the U.N., that CO2 is the driving force. You will never find a unanimous conclusion about anything like this, but its close. Not to sound disrespectful, but I would categorize a belief that CO2 isn't causing climate change in almost the same realm as believing the earth is flat.

What nobody who believes its a hoax has ever been able to explain to me, though, is what's the harm in pursuing these solutions? If we made all the policy changes I wanted us to make and it turned out that I was wrong, than what we'll have done is phased out a range of pollutants and transitioned the global economy to a greener, more sustainable, healthier system. The "green" solutions to climate change have benefits well beyond just limiting C02 emissions.

So. IM wrong = world transitions to greener, more sustainable place with all the benefits that entails. … See More

If you're wrong, which most of the scientific community would argue that you are, than the Earth is plunged into droughts, rising sea levels, global insecurity and an avoidable famine.

We should be transitioning to a greener, more sustainable economy regardless of what the cause of climate change might be.

Joel M
Science isn't about consensus. It's about prediction. And the so-called consensus is indeed debatable when it's generated exclusively by poll numbers, which have a history of being used for setting a political agenda far more often than gauging one. And the climategate report demonstrated that the main AGW proponent scientists were well aware of the failure of their models to predict the reality of our situation. That's what the "hide the decline", substituting real data for their failed proxy data, was all about. Their models failed the only test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction. And they were caught trying to hide that falsification along with attempting to hijack the peer review process to keep any challenging data out of the publications. Other than theory (falsified by reality) there is no data to show that CO2 is driving climate change. And indeed, quite the reverse when the ice core data shows the 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature.

Joel M
The harm in pursuing the current solutions is that they are being funded by the globalist banking system which, on the record, has a history of attempting to put itself in the position of a global government. That's what they are using this climate catastrophe fear mongering for. The Rockefeller Bros. fund is the economic driver for the 350.org … See Moreprotests, and the Rockefellers funded the UN into existence for this purpose, to act as the front for their attempt at world government.

The point of questioning the so-called "consensus" is to understand who is funding it, why the scientists and the corporate media is lying to the public, and what the costs of going along with their deception are. It doesn't mean NOT being proactive with limiting pollution and REAL environmental causes. It just means getting smart about who is hijacking them and why.

By: elephantjournal

elephantjournal — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:00:50 +0000

Via my FB page
Liz Brown likes this.

Seth Braun
You have to consider the possibility beyond emotionalized positionality. Both sides of the debate.

Joel M
thank you, Seth. And the biases inherent in the corporate media, as well as in the UN-paid scientists as revealed by climategate (and whitewashed by a compliant and complicit corporate media).

Joshua
I think there's an assumption that just because a guy starts an organic oriented grocery store chain then he must have a clue and a heart, but we know what happens when we ass-u-me something. I had the same experience a few years ago with a meeting with one of the founders of Horizon Organics. They're just entrepreneurs who dropped in early on the green-biz wave…

Ben Wyskida
Its not an opinion. He believes in a complete factual inaccuracy. I suppose I'm entitled to believe the world is flat, but that's not an opinion – its just me believing something that isn't true.

The problem, of course, is that because he runs an organic grocery and a "green business," he lends some legitimacy to the dangerous and factually … See Moreinaccurate view that climate change may not be real.

His platform – as CEO of Whole Foods – gives some cover to people who don't believe in climate change, and that's very dangerous.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:47:30 +0000

Seems that an immature goof like Mackey has had his 15 min of fame and it's time for him to get off the stage.
Do his actions in 2006 also warrant respect????
"Using the pseudonym Rahodeb — a variation of Deborah, his wife’s name — Mr. Mackey typed out more than 1,100 entries on Yahoo Finance’s bulletin board over a seven-year period, championing his company’s stock and occasionally blasting a rival, Wild Oats Markets. He said the FTC discovered his alias “through one of the millions of litigation documents that Whole Foods provided to them. I posted on Yahoo! under a pseudonym because I had fun doing it,” he wrote. “I never intended any of those postings to be identified with me.” "

Yes, this is some people's cause…a cause based on sanity. Stop playing Mackey's enabler.

By: CouncilmanH

CouncilmanH — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:19:54 +0000

Seems that a man who built an 8 billion dollar business, revolutionized an industry, pioneered mainstream organics / fair-trade, and did so while capping his salary at 17 times mean pay should probably get our respect. If I judged my friends based upon two isolated political topics, I wouldn't have any, which wouldn't be so great.

That said, adding some context to purchasing decisions is probably a good thing and I guess this is some people's cause.