Whole Foods CEO John Mackey Still Not So Sure About Climate Change

34
by Michael Parrish DuDell January 4, 2010
Categories:
Tags: .

john-mackey-1008-def-71608410I’m a big John Mackey fan and so it pains me to write this, but…Mackey you wacky!

The CEO of Whole Foods recently told The New Yorker that he is currently reading “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming—the Missing Science,” a book debunking climate change science.

Mackey confessed to agreeing with the message of the book, stating that: “no scientific consensus exists.”

Further, the Whole Foods founder commented that it would be a pity to let global warming, “raise taxes and increase regulation, and in turn lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty.” And that, “Historically, prosperity tends to correlate to warmer temperatures.”

Yikes!

What do you think about Mackey’s thoughts? Check out the article in The New Yorker and comment below with your thoughts!

  • jeanruss

    First it was called “Global Warming” and when it became obvious that this wasn’t true, it is now “Climate Change”. Why not call it what it really is? It is “Weather Change due to pollution, especially Nuclear and Radiation Pollution”. Why is there no discussion about the impact of radiation fallout and our droughts, dying oceans and terrible air quality? Where is the research into the environmental impact of nuclear tests in the ocean, underground and the atmosphere? Is it because the truth would hurt the military agenda?

    • http://ecorazzi rockfordtruthman

      There is not, and there never has been any evidence that increases in CO2 precede a period of global warming. Ice core data always shows that warmer temperature come before increases in CO2.
      There were 5,000 adult polar bears in the 1950s. There are now 22,000. Appears they like warmth. And Inuit and Eskimo people reported male polar bears ate cubs long before the Eriksons left Iceland. Killing cubs causes the mother to come into heat. Like lions in Africa.
      Water vapor provides 91% of greenhouse gases.
      Ice cores show CO2 at 4500-5000 ppm in the past. Afterward, the earth experience ice ages.
      About 99% of earths energy balance is about our sun. Active sun, warm, inactive sun cold.
      Melting glaciers in the Alps reveal villages from 700 years ago.
      surely they didn’t build homes under the ice.

      • tk

        Ok, let’s waste more time going through each of your claims why climate change is bogus.

        “Ice core data always shows that warmer temperature come before increases in CO2.”

        You’re leading with this one? Really? http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/

        “There were 5,000 adult polar bears in the 1950s. There are now 22,000.”

        The 1950s information is based on very rough numbers. Populations rebounded only b/c restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place. It’s a conservation success story why there are more polar bears today. Unfortunately, they now face a new threat that cannot be managed as easily has curtailing hunting. The loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.

        “Water vapor provides 91% of greenhouse gases.”

        Um, ok — sure it’s between 66% to 85% when you include clouds. But what happens when you add more water vapor to the atmosphere? It rains out. CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system.

        “Ice cores show CO2 at 4500-5000 ppm in the past. Afterward, the earth experience ice ages.”

        Sure, but that cannot explain the extremely dramatic rise in CO2 that we’re seeing today. There’s absolutely nothing natural about it — and the temperature changes we saw in the past happened over thousands of years. Today’s rapid increase is staggeringly different from all others.

        “About 99% of earths energy balance is about our sun. Active sun, warm, inactive sun cold.”

        Not really. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

        “Melting glaciers in the Alps reveal villages from 700 years ago. surely they didn’t build homes under the ice.”

        Need a source on the “700 years old” claim. True, there have been artifacts found under retreating ice, but they’re generally much older than 700 years old and indicative of a natural cycle where glaciers grow and retreat. Unfortunately, that natural cycle is now completely altered and intensified.

      • CableGuy

        tk…

        Did you lead with this… really?

        “You’re leading with this one? Really? http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/”

        I read links, because I am interested in the debate, but this one is weak… this is the rest of the title:

        “Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming”

        “[A] closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.”

        What this article reveals is that climate science is a complex and only incompletely understood thing–not exactly a ringing endorsement of “settled science” in either case.

        Your second link references a single study about a computer model that predicts that solar variation is too small… pardon me if I take any computer model’s predictions with a grain of salt, particularly on something as complex as the interaction of the sun and our atmosphere. Given the Climategate scandal, I will also refuse to believe a single computer model until the source code and the raw data is released.

        I think the science is unsettled enough to cause serious pause, particularly when we talk about specific carbon taxing schemes and definitive sources of energy.

        I always ask these questions: What is the perfect global temperature, and on what time frame do you base it? If you’re wrong, and the world starts cooling (as the cycles you reference suggest we are due for) or if we drop a half a degree below the mythical “perfect global temperature” will you then advocate the burning of fossil fuels to warm the planet?

      • http://jastover@aol.com Jim Stover

        In simplest terms, AGW remains an unproven computer-model based hypothesis about what MIGHT happen in the future if the warming of the late 20th Centruy continues well into the 21st.

  • http://www.vegangrub.com Eric

    Are humans so arrogant and removed from nature that they think global warming has never happened before, without the benefit of human impact?

    The earth is coming out of an ice age, the globe is on a warming trend, it has been since the ice age ended. It has done this for millions of years. While we *may* be adding to the effect, we aren’t the cause.

    In no way do I think we should be polluting, but I think humans really aren’t facing the real problem. We simply don’t have the technology to stop nature in its tracks and prevent something that is entirely natural.

    Instead, why don’t we do something that will make a difference and prepare for these inevitable changes, and plan how we are going to adapt so that our way of life can continue?

  • http://www.souzasounds.com Steve Souza

    How could ANYONE with a straight face say that our environment and planet are not, at least,JUST A LITTLE BIT SCREWED UP! All of the Democrats’ climate change proposals would start to fix ALL of the damage we have done to Gods green earth! Even IF climate change wasnt true, THE WORLD NEEDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE APPROACH!

    • AStarSpangledGirl

      I don’t think most people are saying it’s not at least a little screwed up…but the problem is that it’s not SOOO screwed up we all have to panic and give all our $$$ to the GOVERNMENT.

      THAT is the difference.

      PS…IF you are still playing party politics then you are more than blind.

      *****still laughing at “the dems wwould fix ALL the damage done”****** I have a bridge in London….wanna buy it??? lol

    • AnnaB

      You have been brainwashed, and you are asleep.
      The world I live in has been recycling, reforesting, limiting agricultural stocks and developing new technologies for over 30yrs.

  • http://getstarted.nexyoo.me/ Nexyoo

    It’s really unfortunate that such a prominent figure would say something like that. There isn’t any question that there’s scientific consensus. I guess better education is necessary.

    • ontheright

      Unfortunately for the “AGW” crowd, there never has been, and never will be “consensus” in science. There is either theory, or fact…the laws of nature/universe determine fact, not a “consensus”

      BTW – ever heard of Climategate? Seems there isn’t a so-called “consensus” after all…

    • AStarSpangledGirl

      THere isn’t????? Then why are there so many calls for debates???

      • Rich

        Why are there so many on the AGW side (Al Gore, for example) who are avoiding debate?

      • ontheright

        Because the liberal loons have force fed this junk science down everyone’s throats (for years) and the only way to slow this train wreck is to bring the cockroaches into the light. Debate. But the AGW crowd refuses to debate…kinda makes you go hmmmm.

        As it stands, no one in the pro AGW crowd is willing, or has the scientific conviction, to have a discussion, much less a debate.

        It’s amazing how the facts get in the way and undermine a liberal’s hyperbole and/or “consensus”…

  • VeggieTart

    Eric, you might be right that these things go in cycles, but you have to be REALLY arrogant to think that what we do has no effect on the climate. We may not be *causing* climate change, but we are at least exacerbating global warming.

    • Val

      Really? We’re exacerbating global warming? Is that why the temperature has dropped steadily over the past decade? (You know, the decline that was talked about in the emails from the CRU? The ones that talked about “hiding the decline”?)

  • Kelly O

    I applaud John Mackey for being brave enough to make this statement. Many of us agree with him and most of us are sick and tired of being called names like “wacky” and “loony” just for disagreeing with the majority who believes in the global warming hysteria. Just because most skeptics spend lots of time researching the facts about global warming to come up with different conclusions that people who support the Green movement, it’s unacceptable to be called “wackos” etc.

    • AStarSpangledGirl

      AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I second that!!

      He is my hero!!

      Willing to stand up to half of his WACKO CRAZY clientelle and stick to his guys.

      PS…It cracks me up how BACKWARDS these progressives/liberals/democrats (or whatever they want to call themselves these days)don’t realize how their stupidity will make them shoot themselves in the foot.

      They have NO clue that the same government they are helping EXPAND is THE same government that will put regulations on a lot of the local/organic farms….making it so much harder, so much more expensive to grow their own food that eventually we are going to have to revert to buying things from the BIG FARMING companies and end up with all kinds of crap in our food. You know….because it is the gov that wants CONTROL…and if we grow our own local food with small farms…they will not have control over us.

      This top progressive from the HOME GROWN REVOLUTION is having to face that soon cause the gov is telling him he can’t grow his own food and raise his own animals unless he jumps through HOOPS of bureaucratic processes. HOW is THAT for “CHANGE”????

      FOOLS!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iZ8TcrDT5g

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPswlAmEvoM

      WAKE UP “GREEN PEOPLE”…stop helping the expansion of government or else we ALL lose!!!!!

      • tk

        You have officially lost touch with reality. Please crawl back into your hole and spare us this “wacky” conspiracy-theory BS.

  • Russ Brown

    Mr. Mackey could not have chosen a better source of misinformation.
    Such is life in the corporate world.

    russ

    • AStarSpangledGirl

      Right…cause YOU are smarter than him…right?

      it’s HIM that is misinformed…not you..right? lol

  • Bill

    I believe the book is a debunking of AGW resulting from incresed levels of CO2.

    It is not without note that Mackey may have trouble getting past his personal bias TOWARD AGW.

    Rationale:

    Data show that increased CO2 increases plant life.

    Mackey is a vegan.

    AGW, if true, will result in increased plant life and more food for Mackey.

    By all accounts, Mackey should hope AGW is true.

  • L Nettles

    If Mr. Mackey doesn’t stop thinking for himself and answering questions truthfully he’s going to be in more trouble. Somebody please tell him what he is supposed to think.

    • AStarSpangledGirl

      Lets ask Al Gore, the UN and the Dems for the script. Might have gotten lost in his spam…lol

  • AStarSpangledGirl

    To the poster of this article…that says it pains him to write this…can you PLEASE tell us YOUR point of view and resources that makes you disagree with Mackey?

  • Edward

    As a both a vegan and environmentalist, I agree with Mackey. There is absolutely no proof that human activity causes climate change. There is more proof that ‘global warming’ is simply a propaganda tool used for governments and corporations to increase power and profits. It’s a complete scam, and it sickens me that otherwise intelligent people just scarf up this crap.

    • Rich

      Sounds like you’re on the same page as Michael Crichton in “State of Fear.”

    • tk

      Yea, it’s one giant conspiracy theory that all the scientists are involved in. Gimme a break. You’re either paid or played, my friend. And you sir, are definitely being played.

      • allswell

        It’s not all scientists, it’s just the ones involved in the CRU and the bogus “Hockey stick graph” and all the ones who are getting billions in grant and research funds and who are getting flown all over the world to UN Climate conferences. Most scientists show the raw data that they use. So why wont the climate “scientists”?

      • Edward

        All climate scientists have picked an occupation that intrinsically pays very little. If they milk the “global warming” armageddon theory, they can quickly make quite a bit of money from grants, the media, and other outlets, in the same way Weekly World News makes a lot of money if they run a headline like, “Jesus to Return in 2012″. Is it a conspiracy? Sort of. Really, it’s just a way for these scientists to make money. It is incredibly dishonest, sure, but I believe that most of these scientists have probably convinced themselves that man made global warming exists just so they don’t have to live with the guilt. Just like a defense attorney struggles for a loophole, playing devil’s advocate, to vindicate the man with blood-stained hands, the climate scientists play the same game, looking for a loophole or some minor correlation to prove their point and to continue the gravy train that heats their home. But, do they have any real evidence? No! If they did, it would be readily available to us. While there are many scientists who say that global warming is real, there are plenty of scientists, who are more interested in truth than money, that have conducted their own experiments and found no relation between carbon dioxide and global warming. So why has global warming become the general consensus? Money, profit, and money. That’s it. The news agencies who spread this BS have profit in mind. They want to make a good living by spreading these myths. People pay attention, and buy accordingly when the news is apocalyptical. Furthermore, the “green” movement is a trillion dollar industry. It gives every business imaginable to sell more “green” stuff, and it works. Everyone from the hillbilly in Eastern Kentucky to the graduate student at Harvard accepts this story as truth for several reasons: one people require very little before they accept something as fact (i.e. religion) and two, people don’t want to ostracized for being the lone wolf in a matter that every business projects as fact. It’s all about profit. There is very little honesty and truth involved. While I believe there are many good reasons to be green and earth-conscious, I think that global warming is a complete scam propagated by government officials and business executives. Go vegan, go green, but not because people are warming the ea, that’s f-ing crazy.

  • rob Bradley

    John Mackey is right; Ken Lay wrong on climate change.

  • walt

    politics and science are not good bedfellows. It gave people a century of alchemy, the near ruin of soviet agriculture and now this. manbearpig

    W

  • Neil Craig

    Obviously anybody who mhas made the claim about there being a “scientific consensus” is simp-ly a wholy corrupt, lying, theiving, fascist parasite. I do nopt exclude the possibility that there are some honest people in the Green movement but have yet to hear of them.

    Of course if I am wrong it will be easy to prove this. 31,000 scientists have said that not only is global warming a lie but that CO2 rise is possible. If there is a “scientific consensus” it will bge easy to find 310,000 scientists, not paid by government, who say so. If the eco-fascists are only 90% cotrrupt they will be able to find 31,000. If every single “Green” who has supported this is is as much as o.o1% honest & only 99,99% obscene thieving scum they will be able to name 2 such scientists. Which will be a unique achievement.

    • tk

      You’re obviously being played, Neil.

« PREVIOUS POST
NEXT POST »