Confessions of a 'Greenpeace Dropout' to the U.S. Senate on climate change

Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.

UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see below.

Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

February 25, 2014

“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.

=================================================================

For that chapter, please see the PDF of his testimony, here: 22514HearingWitnessTestimonyMoore

=================================================================

UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore adds this comment:

Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)

Submitted on 2014/02/27 at 2:53 pm

Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.

For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/

I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7

OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.

If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op

0 0 vote
Article Rating
420 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Ricket
February 26, 2014 7:45 am

Bravo Dr. Moore!

Forrest
February 26, 2014 7:46 am

Brilliant, well spoken, and the heart of why we a re skeptical over the math of the IPCC and people who are afraid of a warmer climate.

Lancifer666
February 26, 2014 7:46 am

Wow, what a fantastic synthesis of the important facets of the climate change controversy.

bilbaoboy
February 26, 2014 7:47 am

Nice one.
Simple enough even for politicians.

Peter Miller
February 26, 2014 7:47 am

No wonder the Greenpeace politburo are spitting nails about Patrick Moore.
One of its founders has seen the light and spoken out. His statement is riddled with common sense and facts, both are things which are abhorred by the Greenpeace hierarchy.
However, he will be outnumbered by alarmist stooges at the hearing, who will be primarily interested in preserving their comfortable lifestyles and basking in their own fame, rather than providing any scientific objectivity.

February 26, 2014 7:48 am

Do we know what the response is to this yet?

February 26, 2014 7:48 am

Excellent.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”
Well, that’s debatable.
No, wait, no it isn’t – the debate is over!
[Vinnie Barbarino]I’m so confused![/Vinnie Barbarino}

Doug Jones
February 26, 2014 7:52 am

Typo in the title: dropout, not droput. Meta: a dropout in the dropout!
[Fixed, thanx. ~mod.]

JimS
February 26, 2014 7:53 am

Dr. Moore will obviously be relieved of his position in the 97% consensus.

Steve Keohane
February 26, 2014 7:55 am

Seems reasonable to me from what I’ve read of paleontology and paleo-anthropology for the past 50+ years.

Peter Whale
February 26, 2014 7:55 am

The dirty trick brigade will be out with lies and innuendos in no time. Best to ignore until they step over the line and then back Patrick Moore with funds to sue.

John West
February 26, 2014 7:58 am

“Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970.”
Uh, no. Then there was a 30 year cooling trend that caused many to raise the alarm over global cooling due to burning fossil fuels that has since been adjusted out of the record confounding any attempts at pattern recognition analysis.

George
February 26, 2014 7:59 am

I am glad to see that Dr. Moore takes the viewpoint of Geology, and recognizes the magnitude of time that we have to work with. Such a perspective results in his observation that “warmer is better” for life in general. The lush and verdant Earth we see in the geologic record was a result of average global temperatures at least 10 degrees Celsius warmer than the present.

February 26, 2014 8:02 am

There is an error in the transcript.
Where he said “man” he meant “Mann.”
Time to sue.
/Mann off

Box of Rocks
February 26, 2014 8:06 am

Heretic.

John V. Wright
February 26, 2014 8:06 am

An absolutely first-class exposition of the skeptic viewpoint from someone with a scientific background who witnessed at first hand the left’s politicisation of global warming and other issues. Keep this essay to hand and send it to people who ask you as to why you do not share the “consensus” on global warming.
As ever, thank you to Anthony for publishing this on his website. Polite, calm and factual is the only way to go.

Ossqss
February 26, 2014 8:13 am

Good to see additional efforts at the government level to bring forth facts. Bravo!
Now , as I placed this in tips and notes also, here is an opportunity to do the same at a local level. Of those qualified readers of this blog, how many would be accepted into the program referenced in the last paragragh of this blog post? http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2637

Henry Galt.
February 26, 2014 8:19 am

He obviously reads WUWT. Often 😉
The primary problem – his, ours and all those yet to discover the extreme crapulence embedded within the-climate-nonsense – is that many have stated exactly what he states, multiple times. It is nauseating and wears us all down.
Governments, the once-venerated societies and the meeja will turn a deaf eye. Yet again.

Alan Robertson
February 26, 2014 8:20 am

21st Century Pleistocene man

David L. Hagen
February 26, 2014 8:21 am

Dr. Patrick Moore gave a well reasoned presentation of the scientific evidence on climate.
PS Correction Re: “This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists”.
Those were 31,478 signatures were by persons with university degrees in science, including 9,029 with PhDs. They were collected by the Global Warming Petition Project . Those signatures were appended to the 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered as Appendix 4, The Petition Project.

Mike H
February 26, 2014 8:22 am

His book is worth the read if you haven’t done so yet. Very interesting perspective.
Cheers

February 26, 2014 8:24 am

It is about time.

cnxtim
February 26, 2014 8:25 am

hear hear…

cnxtim
February 26, 2014 8:26 am

BTW typo in heading ‘droput’
[thank you, fixed – mod]

February 26, 2014 8:27 am

Ossqss says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:13 am
Of those qualified readers of this blog, how many would be accepted into the program referenced in the last paragragh of this blog post? http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2637

How many would be accepted?
Answer: None
Why?
“…goal of bringing scientists and their local communities together for real dialogue on climate science that speaks to citizens’ current and future well-being and responsibility as members of a community and democracy.’
Real “dialogue on climate science” would probably be boring to most and other than “be prepared” for changes in weather (a service provided by most TV networks already), what else needs to be said to the general public? Well, other than ignore the alarmism.
Besides, wouldn’t most of us here in the US want folks to be responsible members of a community and a republic?

Bernd Palmer
February 26, 2014 8:28 am

Excellent chain of logical arguments for a sustainable result. “Warmer is better” fir mankind. Sure is, we are the only living species (living in the atmosphere) without feathers or furs, Our life depends on the availability of green plants.

Insufficiently Sensitive
February 26, 2014 8:28 am

Lovely to hear him speak as a real scientist would, furnishing perspective and readily admitting lack of sufficient data to draw the conclusions that so many politicians have done – and many so-called ‘scientists’ as well.

February 26, 2014 8:31 am

David L. Hagen says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:21 am
Dr. Patrick Moore gave a well reasoned presentation of the scientific evidence on climate.
PS Correction Re: “This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists”.
Those were 31,478 signatures were by persons with university degrees in science, including 9,029 with PhDs. They were collected by the Global Warming Petition Project . Those signatures were appended to the 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered as Appendix 4, The Petition Project.

Even if only signed by one “scientist”, these words:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
bear repeating early and often.

February 26, 2014 8:36 am

Really well said.

Vince Causey
February 26, 2014 8:39 am

An excellent concise summary of the skeptic’s position. All the arguments are there, even challenging the ridiculous 95% probability that the warming is caused by humans.
I am especially pleased that Patrick Moore explained that when you look to the IPCC report for the calculation behind the 95%, there is none. This fact alone is enough to blow the probability assertion out of the water.
Look, you can say for example that you have a 1/14 million probability of winning the National Lottery and know that it is based on the number of possible combinations of numbers that exist. You can even bring in real probability values for natural events such as being killed in a car accident. This would be a function of the number of fatal car accidents and the number of journey’s made.
But how would you go about finding the probability that the current warming is mostly caused by humans? If it could be done, you would need to know the number of ways that the planet could warm and by what proportion each of these ways would account for the total warming. There would also be the number of ways that the planet could cool which would act in the opposite direction and all these values would need to be combined with each other. It is clear from our present understanding that we have little idea about any of these things so it is impossible to supply a probability value to any particular one, including human causes.
The claim that they have such a figure and it is 95% is the greatest lie of the climate scam.

JimS
February 26, 2014 8:40 am

@Jeff Id
“Really well said.”
I agree. It is a keeper.

Jim Brock
February 26, 2014 8:41 am

Very good presentation. Short. Simple. To the point.

February 26, 2014 8:45 am

Amen Dr. Moore. Could not have said it better myself. I read your book and agree with most of what you say in it. It is so refreshing to see someone like you giving us the scientific facts today about climate and environmental protection rather than the campaigns of lies and scaremongering we are getting from the eco-left. Climate and environmental protection need to be based on science, facts, logic and reasoning — and nothing else.
If you were an American rather than Canadian, I couldn’t think of anyone better than you to head up the EPA. You would be a major improvement over the woman in charge of it now. God bless you sir.

John Tyler
February 26, 2014 8:46 am

Good to hear that some folks are honest and simply seek the truth.
Patrick Moore will now face extermination by the AGW Nazis and our GOVERNMENT media. He will disappear from public view . Recall that some newspapers have decided they will PROHIBIT any articles or op-ed that counter the AGW Nazi propaganda. Expect very soon that the Government propaganda TV “news” networks will do likewise. Also, the Harvard Crimson ( soon to be renamed Die Sturmer) is agitating that all research not “socially responsible” be terminated at Harvard, where the definition of “socially responsible” is determined by those who declare themselves ” socially responsible progressives.” This, of course is in the spirit of the Bolsheviks who declared that the ” kulaks” be exterminated or the policies of Hitler, in which his National-Socialist party DEFINED the untermensch and their role in society ( i.e., be killed ).
We ALL must understand that the AGW mindset is IDENTICAL to that of the Nazis or Bolsheviks, and neither of those two ideologies was beneficial to mankind. It is very disheartening to see that the major scientific organizations have jumped on the AGW wagon and have remained silent as the AGW Nazi thugs destroy any skeptic of the AGW thesis. The mainstream scientific organization wiill rue the day they chose to join hands – explicitly or, via their silence, implicitly , with the AGW thugs.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

James Ard
February 26, 2014 8:56 am

That had to make Senator Whitehouse squirm in his seat. Well done.

Harry Passfield
February 26, 2014 8:57 am

Patrick Moore: “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see.”
That, for me, says it all. I shall use it on many occasions, I am sure. And the first occasion is when I send a copy of this to my MP with a request that he pass it on to David Cameron and Ed Miliband – who has said in Parliament that “Climate change deniers should not be allowed in to positions of power within government” (PMQs, 12:25-ish, 26 Feb 2014)

DavidG
February 26, 2014 9:00 am

A wonderful development, the ‘rats’ are jumping ship!! Now let’s remove their tax free foundations and seize their money!!:)

crabalocker
February 26, 2014 9:01 am

Sadly, Dr. Moore will be another victim of the big oil fallacy!

February 26, 2014 9:03 am

i knew someone who was on the original boat for a short time and he said on the boat they had a form of autocratic democracy. Often they would have a meeting where they would discuss everything that needed doing and have votes then at the end an intimidating earth mother type would over ride all that and then proceed to TELL them what they all were ‘really going to do’ lol

Nancy C
February 26, 2014 9:04 am

Sean P Chatterton says:
February 26, 2014 at 7:48 am
Do we know what the response is to this yet?
Yes, Sen. Whitehouse said something about the bay by his house being really deep. I didn’t see it, but that’s what happened.

February 26, 2014 9:06 am

Great Essay! Hits upon several ignored facts.
“these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report”
The money line right there. I still can’t believe we’ve come so far on so little evidence!

albertalad
February 26, 2014 9:18 am

So simply and yet so brilliant even a politician can understand. His words resonate, and linger in your mind – that is their awesome power. They linger and disturb – and come back at you ringing with a beauty and elegance that is at the very heart and soul of science itself. Indeed we are that tropical species – “The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”
I know exactly what that means here in my Northern Alberta climate – its special elegance is talking to me where I live. The first time any scientists of today reminded me of how I can live in a beautiful country like Canada. As he did with every sitting member in that room. These words linger long after the speaker leaves. That is their power.

Robertv
February 26, 2014 9:25 am

By now we all know that climate never was a problem but only one of the many means to change the world in a police state. For the State we no longer are humans we now are reduced to a number and numbers don’t have human rights.

mick
February 26, 2014 9:26 am

I live in the Fraser Valley near Vancouver and it has been cold. The Daily weather app that I have on my palm device and Environment Canada are reporting 4 Degrees C. The thermometer is telling me 1 Degree C. It feels like freezing so I will trust the Themometer and my good sense. I wonder if these inflated temperatures are the ones that are used to calculate the year average.
The high yesterday was predicted to be 12 Deg C yet it was observed to be about 4-5 Deg C. today they have given the same 12 deg high predicted. No way we will see 12 degrees out here today.yet this is what they are reporting.
In other laughable news The Vancouver sun is saying that the Acidity of the ocean is killing scallops. This is the Bold headline across the top of the newspaper. Very scary stuff.

Peter Kirby
February 26, 2014 9:32 am

If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?

Alan the Brit
February 26, 2014 9:34 am

Excellent presentation! Dr Moore is very wise & solid & practical.

Jenn Oates
February 26, 2014 9:38 am

Exactly. Well-stated, three huzzahs, a big standing O.
Thank you.

John Greenfraud
February 26, 2014 9:39 am

Checkmate:
“We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.”

February 26, 2014 9:40 am

peter kirby
lol i doubt if ‘sky at night’ Patrick Moore ever went near an environmentalist boat although he was a navigator in Bomber Command
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore

Greg
February 26, 2014 9:41 am

Thanks to Dr. Patrick Moore. That CO2 was 4000 ppm in the past and the seas did not boil is a fact most people have never heard of. It really does make a mockery of the whole idea that we may be on the verge of some dramatic “tipping point” at around 400 ppm.
I myself was a registered GreenPeace supporter in the early 80s. That involved sending a regular payment. I left in the mid 80s, when I realised that they were becoming more interested in glossy merchandising than the inspiring and courageous direct action with which Patrick Moore and his group caught the public imagination and inspired a generation.
I can only imagine that when he looks at what has become of the movement he started, he must feel like a parent whose teenage son gets arrested for mugging an old lady and stealing her purse.
I hope some day to become what he calls a “sensible environmentalist” but right now I’m more inclined to spit and curse when I hear that word.
I felicit him on his courage, past and present and on getting this message where it matters.

A C Osborn
February 26, 2014 9:47 am
alacran
February 26, 2014 9:47 am

That’s it Mr. Moore, thank you!
And:”Hello Ms. Costello of CNN, any more questions why science is not settled!”

Questing Vole
February 26, 2014 9:50 am

I wish I had been able to express myself as clearly, but Dr Moore has said it all for me.

Peter Kirby
February 26, 2014 9:55 am

Re Jauntycyclist at 9.40 am. Thank you for correcting a misapprehension of mine. I have obviously been more confused than I usually am,

Tom G(ologist)
February 26, 2014 10:03 am

Well said Dr. Moore: As a geologist I have been dismayed for decades by the mad race to sub-categorize our time of Earth history and to aggrandize our own little sliver of time. I particularly like the bit about NOT being out of the Pleistocene yet. IN fact I have blogged about it several times. If you are interested:
http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2009/08/holocene-well-perhaps.html
http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2011/10/anthrop-obscene.html
http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2009/08/make-mine-on-rocks.html
There are few other related posts in the main blog page as well, but in those few I address the whole Pleistocene/Holocene thing directly.
Enjoy

chinook
February 26, 2014 10:04 am

I’ve been debating with folks for years now, using as much science and expert opinions as I can dig up in order to give them a head’s-up that they’re being scammed. To many though, it matters not what the science actually says or shows, since for many everything in life is a political issue. For those, no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. But, this is encouraging and rational people don’t like being hoodwinked and do keep an open mind, unlike the so-called tolerant ones who treat CAGW as their ersatz religion.
Let CAGW die from a million pin stabs then, as it seems that’s the only way some will ever change their brainwashed minds. An ice age might change their minds too, but I can picture President Obama and his merry advisers still ignoring the obvious for political reasons only—something they’re really good at.

Keith Willshaw
February 26, 2014 10:12 am

> Peter Kirby says:
> If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave
> evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?
That was a different Patrick Moore – see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
Keith

Tim Churchill
February 26, 2014 10:18 am

“This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.”
I thought they were slowly increasing, not accelerating?

February 26, 2014 10:21 am

Peter Kirby says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:32 am
“If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?”
****************
I think you are getting your Patrick Moores confused. The one you are thinking of was a British actor: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601716/
This Patrick Moore is a Canadian from Vancouver. He has a PhD in ecology/environmentalism.

David L.
February 26, 2014 10:22 am

This is an impressively succinct summary of the important points of the climate debate. I will definitely forward to folks I know, on both sides of the isle

Jimbo
February 26, 2014 10:25 am

The 1910 to 1940 near identical warming is the fly in the ointment. The 16+ year temperature standstill is the doggy doo in the ice cream. “It is extremely likely” that the longer the standstill the hotter the debate, yet they tell me the debate is over. Really? LOL.

Mindert Eiting
February 26, 2014 10:30 am

Vince Causey at 8:39 am.
Yes, the best description of the probability estimate is Cargo Cult Statistics (CCS).

February 26, 2014 10:31 am

Tim Churchill
Acceleration of Atmospheric CO2 is a commonly used term in the co2 deathstar. world ? eg
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/acceleration-of-atmospheric-co2.html
I’m only surprised they don’t use ‘runaway train’ lol

Jimbo
February 26, 2014 10:32 am

As I have pointed out elsewhere the climate change worry is not new. People have worried about changes in the climate before 1950 and they noticed the early 20th century warming too.

Camperdown Chronicle 1903
THE ENGLISH CLIMATE. IS IT CHANGING?
“In the face of the facts it seems hardly worth while to answer the question, Is the climate changing? Every one knows that we hardly ever have a real old-fashioned, snow-clad Christmas in these times that fires are often welcome on Midsummer Day, and that September— after the cricket season—often turns out to be the best month of the year…”
____________________
Examiner (Launceston, Tas.) 1906
IS THE EARTH GETTING WARMER?
That the earth is growing temporarilly warmer is shown by the mountain gla-ciers….The latest report includes 90 glaciers in the Swiss Alps, in Norway, Greenland, the Caucasus, the Pamir, the North West United States, Western Canada. and Africa, and practically all are grow-ing smaller. In the Savoy Alps and the Pyrenees small glaciers have quite dis- appeared.
____________________
Cairns Post 1923
TEMPERATE ARCTIC
“The discovery by American seal fishers that of late there has been a remarkable increase in the mean tem-perature of the Arctic, and that in some parts of the Polar basin no ice has been seen less than 9 degrees from the North Pole, agrees with the ex- perience of many Arctic explorers in recent years…”
____________________
The Sydney Morning Herald 1926
CHANGING CLIMATE. AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. RECORDED FACTS
“Although the temperature year by year fluctuates widely from the average, there is an underlying upward trend in the northern United States and Canada like a slowly rising tide, while in the south of the United States the trend is the other way. Thus the con-trast between the weather of the north and south is diminishing, and the climate ot the country as a whole is ameliorating…”
____________________
The Register News-Pictorial 1930
WARMER WORLD Weather Physicist Looks Ahead
The world is growing warmer. Dr. J. W. Humphreys, physicist of the Weather Bureau,…..”There is evidence, however, that the world as a whole is very slowly growing warmer,” he said. “The evidence is that glaciers in all parts of the world have been on the average slowly retreating since the culmina- tion of the Ice Age, and they are still slowly retreating….”
____________________
The Courier-Mail 1934
WORLD’S CHANGING CLIMATE Unsafe To Generalise
“The fact that during last year 81 of 100 Swiss glaciers decreased in size did not in any way indicate that the earth was becoming warmer and drier, said professor H. C. Richards, Pro- fessor of Geology at the Queensland University, yesterday, commenting on a message from Geneva concerning a world-wide drought. Even if the ob-servations of Swiss glaciers were con-tinued over a period of 50 years, he said, the data obtained could not warrant any general statement that the world as a whole was becoming drier or warmer…”
____________________
Camperdown Chronicle 1937
THE WARM ARCTIC!
“We are usually inclined to regard the Arctic as a region where it is always cold. Actually, this is an erroneous belief. In the summer quite a large part of the continental Arctic has temperatures of 80 degrees F. in the shade
____________________
The Courier-Mail 1939
WORLD CLIMATE CHANGING Scientists Puzzled
“Scientists’ investigations show that the world’s climate is changing. But whether it is becoming wetter, warmer, drier, or colder they can’t say with certainty. Dr. F. W. Whitehouse, University geologist, said this yesterday in an ad- dress to the Constitutional Club…”
____________________
Western Mail 1941
Impending Climatic Change.
“The report was made by Halbert P. Gillette, of Chicago, to the association’s geology section….”Three of the long climatic cycles.” he reports, “have produced a downward trend in rainfall in many regions, cul-minating in a series of droughts begin-ning about 1920. This series of cycles probably will continue until about 1990. In many regions these droughts bid fair to be more severe than any long series in the last 20 centuries. It will therefore prove futile to continue the present policy of relief in the dustbowl regions. Wholesale migrations from these regions seems advisable.”…”

February 26, 2014 10:35 am

Thank you Anthony for sharing this wonderful submission by Dr Patrick Moore with us. He was in South Africa a few years ago and made some very significant contributions to the debate on nuclear energy. He was forthright in admitting that in the early days Greenpeace had got it all wrong when they associated the nuclear concept with bad things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead of good things like electricity generation and nuclear isotopes used for medical diagnosis and treatment and many other peaceful and very useful purposes. South Africa is today an important manufacturer of medical treatment and diagnostic radio-isotope products that are exported around the world. The South African government remains committed to building new nuclear electricity generation capacity, but the high costs of doing so remain a concern for some, while others are suggesting that our proposed nuclear build could be delayed while the huge finds of natural gas in our neighbouring Mozambique are channelled into electricity generation.
Regrettably the organisation that Dr Moore helped to found has become a rather pathetic and ignorant bunch of green activists in this part of the world. Our local chapter of Greenpeace last year dumped a truckload of coal on the doorstep of our national electricity utility, Eskom. They said this was to protest Eskom’s bad behaviour in burning lots of coal and so catastrophically changing the climate, but also because Eskom’s two new coal-fired power stations would use vast quantities of cooling water, which Eskom would steal from the poor citizens of the country. Somebody at Greenpeace did not do their homework: both new South African power stations (called Medupi and Kusile) are dry-cooled and do not use lots of water at all. And when I tell people that Germany is building more coal-fired power stations than South Africa to back up their renewable energy largesse, their eyes glaze over in disbelief. Thank you to Dr Patrick Moore! It takes a lot of courage to tell the world that your mind has been changed by a new perspective on things you once believed in.

D.J. Hawkins
February 26, 2014 10:36 am

Tim Churchill says:
February 26, 2014 at 10:18 am
“This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.”
I thought they were slowly increasing, not accelerating?

I think he misspoke; it’s common enough to see people confuse “accelerate” with “linear upward trend”. Actually if you go to WoodForTrees and plot the Mauna Loa numbers from 2000 to present, take the derivitive and then the linear trend from that, there is a very slight negative trend. This means that although the CO2 is still increasing, the increase is starting to slow, at least based on this particular data set and time interval.

pokerguy
February 26, 2014 10:45 am

Nice presentation…
2 suggestions though. For maximum effect, he should have mentioned the failure of the models to predict the pause when he first discusses them. More compelling that way.
Second, he should have attacked the supposed 97 percent consensus. This is a false belief, perpetrated by dishonest, agenda driven people. And it’s quite damaging. It needs to be challenged at every opportunity!

Rex
February 26, 2014 10:49 am

Henry Galt sez :
>> The primary problem – his, ours and all those yet to discover the
>> extreme crapulence embedded within the-climate-nonsense
‘crapulence’ : “sickness caused by excessive drinking”
However, we know what you mean !

Robert W Turner
February 26, 2014 10:50 am

It’s refreshing to see that there are actually other sensible environmentalists out there.

February 26, 2014 10:51 am

@John West – You are exactly correct. For now. But then the “team” has not finished adjusting the temperature records.

February 26, 2014 10:54 am

chinook says:
February 26, 2014 at 10:04 am
… An ice age might change their minds too, but I can picture President Obama and his merry advisers still ignoring the obvious for political reasons ….
waving hands in front of glacier, “There is no glacier in DC…”

george e. conant
February 26, 2014 10:59 am

Great testimony Dr. Moore! I wonder where HAARP and Chemtrails fit in the non-debate of climate change? 🙂

JRM
February 26, 2014 11:00 am

The other side came in with what every life long politician wants to hear, more growth and spending on bureaucracy.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83640914-a91e-481a-bed5-7c87ab9d4806
Careful, it can put you to sleep reading it!

MLCross
February 26, 2014 11:03 am

It’s going to be sad to see such a nice, well-spoken man deal with all those IRS investigations and audits that are certainly on their way.

James at 48
February 26, 2014 11:14 am

I am an Earth First! drop out.

Resourceguy
February 26, 2014 11:21 am

Yes, this is a keeper. It’s also another inside look at how revolutions are commandeered.

February 26, 2014 11:22 am

I try to stay out of politics on the left leaning Facebook, but I had to share this on my timeline. One of the best things I have read on WUWT. Easy for the uninformed to understand. Their eyes glaze over with some of the things I try to post to my friends.
People just don’t want to get into the weeds in this fast and furious world of information.

john robertson
February 26, 2014 11:29 am

Now he is really gonna qualify as an “Unperson”.
Very coherent presentation.
I am proud to be on side, with Dr Moore.
Science.
Believe whatever you want,but prove your policy.
No amount of posturing, intimidation and emotional blackmail, can override the cruel cold facts of reality.

Perry
February 26, 2014 11:38 am

Here is the entry for the environmentalist. Perhaps everyone should read it before it’s “Desaparecido”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Chad Wozniak
February 26, 2014 11:41 am

Dr. Patrick Moore – not only everywhere spot on, but a brave voice facing a pack of hyenas in the Senate committee meeting. Kudos and more kudos.
@John Tyler –
Excellent followup comments on Dr. Moore’s presentation.
@David G –
And take their money, and use it to pay for removing the blight of “renewable” energy installations and for compensating the poor people who suffered from the resultant needlessly high electric rates.
@Jimbo –
As I understand it, the 1910-1940 heatuing was much more than the 1980-1996 heating.
BTW – the newsbytes are great!
And just about everyone else here, as well – this thread has been a tour de force. Now if only we can make the Climate Nazis pay attention. And well done, Anthony!

mwhite
February 26, 2014 11:47 am

Any comments from the committee? Any one with their fingers in their ears singing La La La.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 26, 2014 11:49 am

Excellent.

RHS
February 26, 2014 11:51 am

His intro on Wikipedia is far from neutral,luck for Wikipedia, he isn’t Micheal Mann:
Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian greenwasher, whose PR firm is often hired to obfuscate wrongdoing. He capitalizes on his former membership of Greenpeace, in an attempt to give him legitimacy. Today he is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, a greenwashing firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.
He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[2] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[3] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.[4]

Gerry
February 26, 2014 11:51 am

This is the most readable and succinct overview of the Earths climate change and the place of CO2 in it that I have ever seen. Thank you Dr.Moore. And thanks WUWT for posting it.

Adam
February 26, 2014 11:52 am

There is no debate. The computer model predictions were wrong. It did not warm by as much as they said it would due to CO2 increasing despite the fact that CO2 did increase. It is true, there really is no debate anymore. They laid out a hypothesis and said “wait and see”. Well, we waited, and now we can see. What is left to debate?
What a shame that all of the major universities have stuffed themselves with “Professors” who still believe that the models were correct even in the face of the indisputable fact that they were incorrect. At best it can be described as “embarrassing”. At worse?

Aletha
February 26, 2014 12:01 pm

A tropical species. Indeed. There’s nothing like a bit o’ truth, is there?

Espen
February 26, 2014 12:04 pm

Thank you Dr. Moore! A wonderful summary of why there might not be much reason to worry about “carbon pollution”. I posted a link on my Facebook wall in the interest of both skeptic and warmist friends.

Kurt in Switzerland
February 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Excellent sticky post.
Some observations:
1) try an internet search on “Patrick Moore Senate Testimony” or something similar –
Not a single MSM outlet reporting this — fascinating bit of self-censorship!
Perhaps his testimony was “too inconvenient” for the MSM — but wouldn’t it be a treat to have Patrick Moore debate David Suzuki or Al Gore?
2) ref. the IPCC assessment (of 95%+ certainty that most of late 20th century warming was due to [human GHG emissions]): not only is this not supported by any evidence, it it patently incoherent with the IPCC’s OWN statement on probable Climate Sensitivity range (approx. 1.5-4.5 or possibly higher). How can one have 95% certainty in anything where you admit a probable range of a factor of three (or more) in a key input parameter! Additionally, any blaming of the current ‘pause’ on natural oscillations begs the question whether the prior warming wasn’t also the consequence of natural oscillations, which of course reduces the relative strength of the anthropogenic signal.
Kurt in Switzerland

Ben
February 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Anthony – Please also add or link to the chapter that was added to the testimony by Dr. Patrick Moore. Thank you. He ended with the following:
“Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”.
I would request it be made part of the record.”
REPLY: It’s right there, see it in the PDF – Anthony

Jimbo
February 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Peter Kirby says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:32 am
If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?

Interestingly the other Patrick Moore, who actually did die in 2012, was sceptical of man-made CAGW. I don’t know how he survived at the BBC for so long.

Ben
February 26, 2014 12:13 pm

Article addressing Dr. Moore’s Senate testimony:
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate
Published February 26, 2014 FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/

SineWave
February 26, 2014 12:14 pm

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.” -Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace.
That’s an impressive quote. It should be used often in the ongoing public climate discourse.

February 26, 2014 12:18 pm

Oh, and I just tweeted a link to this post to that CNN gal Carol (who I’d never heard of before reading about her here at WUWT today), Carol the “why are we still debating” gal. I suggested that perhaps one reason we’re still debating is that we’re a “tropical species.” Seems like a pretty good reason to me, among the many ….
Of course another reason why we still debate is that we’re a sentient species. Some of us, anyway …

Chuck Nolan
February 26, 2014 12:51 pm

Dave in Canmore says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:06 am
Great Essay! Hits upon several ignored facts.
“these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report”
The money line right there. I still can’t believe we’ve come so far on so little evidence!
—————————————————————————————————-
I am reminded:
“One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
Mark Twain
cn

February 26, 2014 12:51 pm

Cartoon about Greenpeace disappearing Patrick Moore-
itsnotclimatescience.com/0010.html

February 26, 2014 12:55 pm

Here is the link for the cartoon
http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0010.html
I am adding this article to the references/links page for the cartoon.

James V
February 26, 2014 1:06 pm

the chapter from his book in the pdf is well worth reading

J Hekman
February 26, 2014 1:40 pm

It always kills me that IPCC only claims major human influence for the last 50 years, but the hockey stick gets it kick by showing temperature rise over 150 years!

February 26, 2014 1:54 pm

And Jim Hansen is going all out for more Nukey Power.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?
James E. Hansen

Chip Javert
February 26, 2014 1:59 pm

Bernd Palmer says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:28 am
Excellent chain of logical arguments for a sustainable result. “Warmer is better” fir mankind. Sure is, we are the only living species (living in the atmosphere) without feathers or furs, Our life depends on the availability of green plants.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Only species living in atmosphere without fur or feathers? Not so much: lizards (most reptiles), insects…assume you meant mammals (even there you have a problem with elephants)?

herkimer
February 26, 2014 1:59 pm

Dr Moore said “we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. ”
I agreewith him completely
Unfortunately in North America the planning focus seems to be on global warming only. However it is the winters that we should be focused on for the next 30 years.
Winters have been getting colder for 15 years now in North America. Winters like we used to have 30 years ago are returning as we have seen with this severe winter This colder winter weather spills over into a colder spring in Canada and colder spring in United States . Fall is also getting colder in United States. In summary the weather is getting colder for 7 months of the year, flat for another two and only slightly warming during three months. This cooler weather means a potential for more winter crop damage, winter snow and ice storms, more snow, floods from spring snow melts and significant thunderstorms, wind storms, tornadoes and power outages as the cold and warm fronts meet more often and at bigger amplitudes. The net result is many areas are unprepared for the current and more importantly the upcoming colder weather in terms of emergency planning, snow clearing infrastructure , heating fuel stocks( propane and natural gas) , local winter budgets , transportation needs , need to switch to more winter hardy crops , power outage repair capability and impact on local economy .
It is time to get off this global warming only focus and concentrate on the planning of real problems that confront us today. The cooler weather that we had 1880-1910 and again 1945-1979 is returning , not global warming .

dp
February 26, 2014 2:07 pm

“We take the man to be addled, there being not a word of sense in what he said”.
— The Consensus

February 26, 2014 2:12 pm

Greg says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:41 am
I myself was a registered GreenPeace supporter in the early 80s. That involved sending a regular payment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you Dr. Moore. And like Gary, I was a supporter of you and Mr Hunter before Greenpeace was born. My wife and I were at the Amchitka protest at the Peace Arch (Douglas) border crossing (Vancouver-Bellingham). We supported Greenpeace until it went Bolshevik a few years later. And like, Albertalad – thank goodness for carbon based fuels. Time to throw another log on the fire and wonder out into the snow and start the tractor to feed livestock. It’s a bluebird day outside but 20 below C.
Meanwhile, thanks for an enjoyable read. Next time into town, I shall buy your book.

NikFromNYC
February 26, 2014 2:22 pm

“Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?”
Graphics to accompany this inconvenient fact:
http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1895/to:1954
http://s22.postimg.org/h73fr7elt/NOAA_Update_B.gif

Victoria
February 26, 2014 2:22 pm

Gotta laugh at Obama’s “settled science”.

Lloyd Martin Hendaye
February 26, 2014 2:27 pm

By no means is Planet Earth “locked into a Pleistocene Ice Age”: Over approximately the last 12,250 – 14,400 years, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch has been a wholly normal remission in an unremitting 2.6-million year period, wherein Ice Ages lasting on average 102,000 years have occurred regularly as clockwork due to geophysical (plate tectonic) factors interfering with global East-West atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.
Since the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary some 65-million years-before-present (YBP), Earth has experienced five major geological eras lasting 12 – 16+ million years apiece. This means that,
for whatever reason, this Pleistocene Era has anywhere from 12 to 14 million years to run, during which time Gaia will experience recurrent continental glaciations until North and South American landmasses “drift” sufficiently apart to unblock Eastern from Western hemispheric interactions.
Climatologists ignorant of astro-geophysics may preach pro or con, but absent long-term scientific context and perspective they may as well be casting necromantic runes.

February 26, 2014 2:49 pm

Thank you Anthony for this great post. It is a perfect setting out of the true scientific point of view. Dr. Patrick Moore has witnessed, from the inside, at first hand the politicisation of the global environmental and ‘catastrophic’ warming. The Stalinists would have been proud of the recent disappearing of Dr. Patrick Moore from early Green Peace documents
I particularly liked the quote from Patrick Moore, regarding the powers of CO2: “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see.” It is not.

Mac the Knife
February 26, 2014 3:15 pm

Meanwhile, back at the AGW Ranch:
Stunning Map Shows What A Worst Case Climate Change Scenario Might Look Like
Business Insider
By Paul Szoldra 21 hours ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stunning-map-shows-climate-change-011154255.html
With a story link to the NASA web site:
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

John F. Hultquist
February 26, 2014 3:21 pm

This is a good thing and nicely worded. Some have quibbled with a bit of the phrasing and precise statement of facts. These are not of much importance.
It makes a good link-to statement because it is clearly stated, was presented to a US Gov. hearing, and done by a well-known activist / scientist. Many people will know of this and the “streisand effect” may even show up. The issues and concepts are not new here on WUWT. I could list (but won’t) a dozen posters, including the local host, and commentors (and some other blog hostesses/hosts) that have written quite similar things. We should all thank these lesser known folks for their contributions. I do. Thanks.

stan stendera
February 26, 2014 3:27 pm

This article is a number one example of why WUWT is the best wed site that exists, period.

4 eyes
February 26, 2014 3:28 pm

Lucid, easy for anyone to understand. I am sure this crystallizes the thoughts of many people who question CAGW.

February 26, 2014 3:32 pm

Moore’s prominence in Greenpeace has been downplayed for years. Here’s what some old newspaper clippings say.
WHALE CONSERVATION. (1976, May 28)
The president of the Greenpeace Foundation, Mr Bob Hunter, right, and Mr Patrick Moore, in Vancouver oh Tuesday with the foundation’s new ship, the James Bay, a former Royal Canadian Navy minesweeper, which with a crew of 28 will be used to harass Soviet and Japanese whaling fleets in the North Pacific. —
Harpoon ‘fired over’ dinghy. (1977, August 1)
Dr Patrick Moore, Greenpeace’s president who is aboard the James Bay, had said the whales killed had been under the nine-metre min imum set by the International Whaling Commission of which the Soviet Union is a member. [SEE IMAGE]
WORLD NEWS. (1978, March 16))
The anti-seal hunt campaign was also halted on Tuesday, with Mr Patrick Moore, head of the Greenpeace Foundation, which is leading the protest campaign, accusing the government of intimidating two helicopter …
Greenpeace leader arrested. (1978, March 20)
ST ANTHONY, Canada, Sunday (AAP UPI). — The President of the Greenpeace Founda tion, Dr Patrick Moore, was arrested in Newfoundland yesterday after throw ing his body over a seal pup to protect it from a hunter’s club.
And more (these are just from Australian newspapers) …
11 March 1980
Dr Patrick Moore, head of Canadian Greenpeace
1 March 1983
Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of the Greenpeace movement,
13 July 1985
A world director of Green peace, Dr Patrick Moore
10 July 1995
Dr Patrick Moore, founding father of Greenpeace,
22 July 1995
Dr Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace

Richard D
February 26, 2014 3:33 pm

It’s extraordinarily important for scientists of all political stripes to follow the data. Thanks Dr. Moore!

garymount
February 26, 2014 3:45 pm

I hate to keep saying this until I’m green in the face, but, the good doctor failed to mention the Carbon Dioxide is plant food. You know the rest…

Worc1
February 26, 2014 3:46 pm

When I read the “throwing bones” comment I spit my coffee all over the PC monitor. He must have been referring to Mikey Mann’s method to retrieve his data for the “Hockey Stick”, throwing bones at a chart.

February 26, 2014 3:49 pm

It is not just a matter of how articulate Moore is (and the above was one of the best arguments I have read in the climate debate), it is his credibility. The alarmists will find it much harder to cast the usual smears at him. If they try, their own credibility will suffer.

February 26, 2014 3:55 pm

Thanks, Dr. Moore for presenting your convictions.
I agree with most of what you said, but the role of CO2 is the ecosystem still seems to elude you. Please give this some more consideration.

heysuess
February 26, 2014 3:57 pm

Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some. Take a bow, Canada. You rock. The boat.

Ed, 'Mr' Jones
February 26, 2014 4:03 pm

I assume most of the other witnesses were dully costumed Parrots?

Pippin kool
February 26, 2014 4:10 pm

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

Rob
February 26, 2014 4:24 pm

An honest man.
Refreshing!!

PaulH
February 26, 2014 4:38 pm

Makes sense to me!

Pete
February 26, 2014 4:38 pm

Dr. Moore’s statement to Congress should be a headline item on the Drudge Report.
The more Drudge hears about it, the more likely he will feature it.

February 26, 2014 5:06 pm

Fox News should have Dr. Moore, on a regular basis.

Pamela Gray
February 26, 2014 5:07 pm

Excellent!

Larry Hamlin
February 26, 2014 5:31 pm

Wonderful testimony by Dr. Moore!! He deserves our thanks and appreciation.

oMan
February 26, 2014 5:50 pm

Great presentation. I hope it has a lasting and positive impact on the debate, but since the whole issue is now one of partisan politics (not science), I am not too optimistic.

February 26, 2014 6:26 pm

An excellent summary by Dr. Moore.
But there are entirely too many “skepticals” in the posts. As a matter of clear and correct communication this summary is an excellent summary of the scientific position. Being scientifically skeptical is the proper approach. Not relying on skepticism but on consensus is scientific nonsense.
The skepticals or deniers are the ones who deny the geologic record, deny the problem of computational limits in computer modelling, deny the problem of using equilibrium calculations to model non-equilibrium systems, deny the limited knowledge we have of all the climate processes, deny that the behavior chaotic, non-linear systems cannot be reliably predicted, deny that chaotic systems can have multiple semi stable states(i.e. ice ages and interglacials at least), and etc.

highflight56433
February 26, 2014 6:32 pm

Bravo Patrick Moore, Ph.D!
What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”
Interesting comment, as we must have had the same physics instructor (1960’s) who exclaimed man is not sufficient in capacity to affect climate. We see the urban heat island and where does it spread? By definition it is a local affect.
Where is MSM on this?

Mac the Knife
February 26, 2014 6:36 pm

David Ross says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:49 pm
It is not just a matter of how articulate Moore is (and the above was one of the best arguments I have read in the climate debate), it is his credibility. The alarmists will find it much harder to cast the usual smears at him. If they try, their own credibility will suffer.
David,
I heartily agree! Moore has ‘green’ street cred, making his statements hit the AGW crowd like a door knob loaded sock. They really have no defense…. that doesn’t also diminish their own credibility.
Distribute Dr. Moore’s congressional testimony widely, often, and to all sides of the issue, especially to your national and state Representatives and Senators.
Mac

Sean
February 26, 2014 6:36 pm

No doubt the democrats did not listen to a word he said.

highflight56433
February 26, 2014 6:43 pm

Sean says:
February 26, 2014 at 6:36 pm
No doubt the democrats did not listen to a word he said.
I would think the opposite. A well oiled machine listens closely, then defines a strategy to respond…if at all.

February 26, 2014 6:44 pm

The Moore statement represents what Mann’s position can never be viewed as, integrity wise.
Thank you for the conciseness of your integrity.
John

highflight56433
February 26, 2014 6:54 pm

garymount says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:45 pm
I hate to keep saying this until I’m green in the face, but, the good doctor failed to mention the Carbon Dioxide is plant food. You know the rest…
Well, with enough said, he might at this point be wearing a bullet proof vest…imagine the hate mail he will receive, the condemnation, … use your imagination. How many out there are of such to take his path.

Chad Wozniak
February 26, 2014 7:18 pm

@Espen –
Not to worry about “carbon pollution” but plenty to worry about from those who still believe in it.
BTW – as far as I can determine, the MSM completely ignored Dr. Moore’s testimony, and of course now CNN (presumably apropos to Ted Cruz’s cleaning Dana Bash’s and John Kerry’s clocks) says it will not allow any more discussion of the skeptic position – marking themselves as climate Nazis and dictator lovers for sure.
I’ll be watching Fox to see if they weigh in. They have hosted Climate Depot’s Marc Morano fairly regularly – let’s see if they mention it.

Dr. Strangelove
February 26, 2014 7:38 pm

Dr. Moore,
“The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis.”
This is correct. Using statistical analysis, the temperature anomaly data from 1880-2013 show no warming that passes the 95% confidence level, if you include the margin of error in the data. All warming since 1880 are within the range of “random noise.”
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”
Ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles. It’s possible to have ice age and high atmospheric CO2 at the same time. We are still in an ice age so it’s also possible to have global warming in an ice age.
“Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages”
This proves global warming can occur in an ice age and greenhouse gases can cause global warming. The GHE theory is sound.
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species.”
If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.

February 26, 2014 7:41 pm

The debate is over, among real scientists, that is.
The arm chair types can proceed, though. Bloggers are a gullible sort, so you can put your “brilliant analysis” in front of them, rather than a Journal, for example. Bloggers deeply wish to believe it’s all a hoax. I do too. But, I can’t.
Hey, it worked with Big Tobacco. There’s good money in this, I don’t doubt.

R. de Haan
February 26, 2014 8:32 pm

In Europe GreenPeace has become an Official Government Contract Partner driving our entire civilization back to Medieval times. It would be appreciated of the dear Dr. would take the trouble and convince our totally brainwashed political establishment they have it totally wrong and his beloved GreenPeace has turned into Green Poisson for modern civilizations causing damages to our economies on a scale comparable to the Hydrogen Bomb the dear Dr. protested in his early career.
The Dutch, the British and the German governments have the highest priority for now.
I gladly offer him a place to stay since I have a spare room left and if necessary I will personally drive or fly him to Berlin, The Hague and London.

February 26, 2014 8:44 pm

Thanks very much Dr. Moore. And thanks Anthony, a comment I could make on a daily basis.

February 26, 2014 8:44 pm

BEST EVER!
IMHO this article is the best article that has ever been written on WUWT or probably anywhere for that matter. Sums up all the bickering and statistical points that each side uses to advance their beliefs into a bottom line “this is the big picture” of the earths climate an what we DON’T know… since all the scientific papers try to show you what we do.

Mac the Knife
February 26, 2014 8:44 pm

More today, from the AGW Ranch:
Science academies explain global warming reality
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN 4 hours ago
http://news.yahoo.com/science-academies-explain-global-warming-reality-001622461.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.

February 26, 2014 9:19 pm

jfreed27 – Dr. Patrick Moore is not a real scientist? Instead of addressing Dr. Moore’s arguments you throw out cheap shots about AGW skeptics being armchair critics. Economist Martin Armstrong is developing a computer model that he says will be more accurate than anything out there, Armstrong thinks it is nonsense that human can affect such a huge system as the earth’s climate, he thinks the sun’s 300 year cycle has a lot to do with the climate which another woman scientist has detailed. go to armstrongeconomics.com and search global warming in his blog section.

philincalifornia
February 26, 2014 9:28 pm

Mac the Knife says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:44 pm
More today, from the AGW Ranch:
Science academies explain global warming reality
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN 4 hours ago
http://news.yahoo.com/science-academies-explain-global-warming-reality-001622461.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.
——————————
Jeeez, did you all read the comments on this ?
I read about 30, and it ain’t pretty for the climate parasites. Bye bye Seth. Have a happy retirement.

garymount
February 26, 2014 9:38 pm

I have now had a chance to download and read the PDF with the chapter from his book. There are plenty of references in that chapter to the CO2 benefits to plant growth. Never the less, it would have been nice to have at least one reference in the rest of his statement to one of the primary benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps an acknowledgment that so far the world may have benefited with an additional trillions dollars of extra wealth as a result, with a 10 trillion benefit expected by… I forgot when.
While I’m here; I have often read that the rich or advanced in development societies should pay billions of dollars to non as advanced nations because of our past use of fossil fuels. However, that usage created the advanced technologies that are now common place and saving lives in these still developing societies, making there lives far better off than they otherwise would be. In other words, we’ve already paid.
Also, a lot of the fossil fuel I use is for heating my home in winter, and fall and spring. Many of the still developing locations live in warm climates that do not require this type of energy use, so the claim that they will use the quantity of energy that I use once they get to my standard of living just doesn’t make sense, they don’t need much winter, spring and fall heating.

Brian H
February 26, 2014 9:39 pm

Henry Galt. says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:19 am
He obviously reads WUWT. Often 😉
The primary problem – his, ours and all those yet to discover the extreme crapulence embedded within the-climate-nonsense – is that many have stated exactly what he states, multiple times. It is nauseating and wears us all down.
Governments, the once-venerated societies and the meeja will turn a deaf eye.

Not to mention a blind ear! 😀
Heh-heh.

john karajas
February 26, 2014 10:43 pm

Dr Patrick Moore is in agreement with Professor David Bellamy as well as a whole host of excellent scientists, engineers and other fine intellects. Now that’s what I call a “scientific consensus”.

Catcracking
February 26, 2014 10:48 pm

Chad,
Dr. Patrick Moore is scheduled to appear on Fox soon on Hannity’s show which is on at 10:00 PM EST.

pat
February 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Patrick Moore says –
“As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.”
that’s the bottom line. great presentation. MSM will ignore.

Catcracking
February 26, 2014 11:01 pm

Dr Moore will be on Fox, Hannity This Friday 10;00 PM

Janice Moore
February 26, 2014 11:16 pm

Dr. Patrick Moore — Humans are part of the environment…”

@Patrick Moore — Good for you.

February 26, 2014 11:58 pm

I’d be interested in a poll of those who would describe themselves as “environmentally concerned” and a “CAGW skeptic”. To my mind the CAGW debate is a huge distraction from many real green issues and the “greens” will rue the day when they so firmly embraced the CAGW religion. Who will listen to them in 10 or 20 years time? Even if then they make a valid point?

Editor
February 27, 2014 12:20 am

Excellent presentation Patrick and thanks to Anthony for posting it.
Hopefully more “deniers” will come forward to inform governments that logically a 0.002% increase in CO2 is not going to destroy the planet, that the computer models that predict this are also wrong (as demonstrated by the Met Office’s total ineptitude at predicting the weather, and that CAGW has become a belief rather than a science. If, as Dr Moore states, we continue down the path of drastically cutting CO2 emissions we will have destroyed our economies for no reason and jeopardised our food production by concentrating on a warmer climate opposed to the possibility of a cooler or even a stable climate.
Despite the predictions of 20 years ago, I am still unable to grow Chardonnay grapes in NE England and there is still plenty of water and inhabitants in Southern Spain and Morocco!

Carbon500
February 27, 2014 12:21 am

Mac the knife – whilst browsing, I recently came across NASA’s reference and acceptance of the P.T Doran and M.K. Zimmerman ‘97%’ paper to which you’ve supplied a link. As you imply, a good example of what’s going on in the warmist camp.
I am amazed (to say the least) that an organisation such as NASA endorses such a – let’s be blunt – blatant and rubbishy fiddle as this (and for any warmists who are seething at this comment, yes, I have the the paper and have read it in detail).
It makes me wonder about the calibre of some so- called scientists, and what is really going on in the world of what professes to be science these days.

Cold in Wisconsin
February 27, 2014 12:46 am

Dr. Moore is alive and well. Please read his website at http://www.ecosense.me. He has some very interesting things to say. I thoroughly enjoyed his take on many subjects related to the environment and environmentalism and the Big Green Monster. I need to purchase his book.

somersetsteve
February 27, 2014 1:24 am

I forwarded Patricks statement today to the UK’s opposition leader, Ed Miliband. Ed was using the ‘denier’ word in Parliament yesterday and I suggested he should desist and use a more measured and mature approach to the issue as per Patrick. Some lackey in his office will no doubt respond on his behalf, I’m sure the word ‘concensus’ will feature prominently!

February 27, 2014 1:43 am

Previously posted at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/life-in-a-climate-cataclysm-box/#comment-1453028
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/steven-schneiders-1992-argument-against-balance-in-science-reporting/#comment-1083265
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.
When this worm turns, and it will, we can expect the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws will be put to good use.
As we confidently stated in 2002 at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist “
Earth has not warmed for 10-15 years. Continued absence of global warming or global cooling will finally put an end to global warming hysteria, after trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered…. and then the wheels of justice will begin to turn… Watch for early signs of climate rats leaving their sinking ship.
__________________
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

mfo
February 27, 2014 1:58 am

jfreed27 says:
February 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm
“I don’t doubt.”
That phrase is the heart of the problem with the CAGW hypothesis.
You should read the words of an honourable scientist who explained the role of doubt in science. I shouldn’t have to tell you his name:
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think.
Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that’s all — and not to be sure. …
….it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown.
It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.

johnmarshall
February 27, 2014 2:34 am

Dr. Moor, a truthful scientist. thank you.
But i disagree that both poles were ice free during the cretaceous. The altitude of Antarctica would mean that some ice would remain at this time. There were evergreen forests on the Antarctic Peninsular, witness the cretaceous coal found there, but ice inland.

rogerknights
February 27, 2014 2:40 am

heysuess says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some.

Lawrence Solomon; Rex _______ (a broadcaster)

Herbert
February 27, 2014 2:56 am

I read the report of Dr. Patrick Moore’ s evidence on Fox News.
Question: Do the other main stream media carry any coverage of this evidence? Where are the New York Times , the Guardian etc.
Not newsworthy ,I suppose ,they would claim but the MSM are prepared to cover any alarmist scientific paper no matter how preposterous.

Peter Stroud
February 27, 2014 2:59 am

Excellent piece. A copy of this submission should be sent to Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Davey and all the CAGW fanatics in the UK House of Commons.

NikFromNYC
February 27, 2014 3:41 am

The Fox News morning show covered this briefly just now, mentioning that there was no evidence and that he was a founder of Greenpeace, as a picture of cloud producing windmills was shown. They will likely feature it several times throughout the day.

Magma
February 27, 2014 3:50 am

Moore has been milking his long-ended involvement with Greenpeace Canada for over 25 years now.
By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia. Following is the complete list of Moore’s research output regarding any aspect of climate change:

Update as required.

Brandon Wagber
February 27, 2014 4:44 am

The “climate change” killer for me is the fact that all inhalers for people with chronic bronchitis, asthma or COPD have been switched by legal means to a product that does not emit any greenhouse gases from the propellant in the canisters. Those of us with chronic respiratory ailments were obviously at the top of the list of major offenders, most likely just ahead of internal combustion engines, volcanoes, and natural emissions from livestock. Our “deadly” asthma rescue inhalers must have been a formidable threat, indeed, because the change came swiftly, and without much warning. The result of this “environmental rescue” has been devastating to sick people. First, the medications no longer work as they used to, since there is no real or effective propellant forcing the medication into a patient’s lungs. Also, because there are countless “new” medicines, there aren’t any generic alternatives to reduce the cost of the inhalers (I take Combivent, which WAS approximately $140-150, has now increased to well over $300 and near $400+, effectively pricing it well above my limited budget. In fact, the hospital from which I was getting my medications through a charitable insurance program for indigents, the poor, and the disabled began refusing to stock Combivent, as it was just too expensive. I have been lucky enough to have recently acquired an insurance policy through Humana, but the medication is still a tier 3, fairly expensive prescription (around forty dollars or more). For a few months, I was receiving the medicine gratis from the pharmaceutical company (or getting the Mexican version on the rare occansions I could find someone willing to make a trip to down to one of the less violent border towns like Reynosa (which despite military guards, I still won’t visit). The second major problem with these “politically correct” replacements is that they DO NOT WORK. The government’s propulsion solution simply doesn’t have enough force behind it to get the medication deep enough into a patient’s lungs, resulting in the need for more uses and unsatisfactory medical results. Obviously, this travesty was brought about by lobbyists and special interest groups on a mission to increase pharmaceutical revenues under the guise of being “planet-friendly”. Of course there are more crimes being perpetrated upon the American people and the rest of the world by the elites like Holder, Obama, Clinton and Pelosi. The republicans are certainly not without blame in the problems facing our great nation, not by a long shot, but the four I mentioned are easy targets and pose dire threats to our (ourselves and our children’s) future survival. I feel terrible for young children who will experience food shortages, dirty water, martial law, rolling blackouts and marauding gangs in the camps and slums set up by FEMA once the U.S. has become a third-world nation. The beginning will be when Obama circumvents Congress and the Supreme Court to do away with the term-limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment in order that he may continue to rule America as Putin does in Russia. If enough Americans have firearms left at this point, there will be a Revolution, but we just don’t have the firepower to stand against the American military machine (though we might get quite a lot of help from those very heroes that refuse to cut down their own people).
I realize that this has taken quite a turn from the initial complaint about medications, but you will see that the destruction of our medical infrastructure will only be a precursor to even greater evil deeds we will be powerless to stop, if only because we will have become so used to these injustices that any new outrage will be met with nothing more than snorts of derision, as we roll over and submit willingly to the whims of charlatans that have been elevated to god-like status by folly, laziness and the ridiculous fear that we might offend someone or some group by objecting against what we see as legitimate concerns.
It’s quite possible that I may disappear off the street into a dark SUV with govt. plates in the very near future, so as a last admonishment, I beg of thee America: Do not back down, do not flinch. Be unwavering in your struggle to save this great nation. To be certain, there are things and groups on both sides of the political spectrum that are maddening in their stupidity, but though irritating and intelligence-insulting, they are not inherently, not intrinsically evil. They are merely a distraction. The current administration and his lackeys, as well as many of the so-called “opposition”, are much more than distractions, they are malevolent and threaten to unravel the very fabric of our society.

vigilantfish
February 27, 2014 4:57 am

rogerknights says:
February 27, 2014 at 2:40 am
heysuess says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some.
Lawrence Solomon; Rex _______ (a broadcaster)
————————————-
Rex Murphy, a CBC (gasp!) broadcaster and now also National Post columnist.
Patrick Moore is a thinking and principled man whose presentation should serve as a model to the rest of us. Thanks for the concise, excellent testimony!
+++++++++++++
James at 48 says:
February 26, 2014 at 11:14 am
I am an Earth First! drop out.
—————-
Cryptic, but good news. I am glad to know that this is possible. What deprogrammed you?

Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2014 5:33 am

Magma says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:50 am
Troll alert. Probably miles away by this time.

Coach Springer
February 27, 2014 5:38 am

Moore’s piece may be the scientific proof that alarmists have been waiting for – that there really is a need for state-controlled speech. After all the money, all the international conferences, all the press coverage, all the school indoctrination, all the Nobel prizes (and non-prizes), all the academy awards and Hollywood boosterism, all the edicts from Presidents, governments and non-governments, all the money (did I say that already?), all the peer pressure in the science related organizations …. after everything – and they mean everything honest and dishonest – skeptics will keep pointing out the obvious fact that alarmists are 97% full of sh*t.
And don’t forget all the money.

Gavin Hetherington
February 27, 2014 5:44 am

Pippin kool says:
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.
That may go some way to explaining your inability to make a point?

February 27, 2014 5:46 am

This post brings up an interesting question in my mind.
Suppose you have 1,500 words maximum, and no more than 3 graphs or graphical images, how would you try to disprove the alarmist’s catastrophic predictions?

Jeff Norman
February 27, 2014 6:07 am

Excellent essay. Thank you for hosting it Anthony.

Mark Bofill
February 27, 2014 6:10 am

Dr. Moore,
You demonstrate both your integrity and courage by giving such testimony. How much easier would it have been to remain silent, as many others have done? I don’t know how big a target you’ve painted on your back, but I expect Dr. Judith Curry has some idea.
Obviously, the gratitude of those of us who oppose the AGW apparatus wasn’t your motive. Still, you’ve got my sincere thanks, respect, and admiration for speaking the truth.

SleepingLion
February 27, 2014 6:15 am

But, if the Earth is not really cooling…I mean warming…I mean if the climate is not changing due to mankind…then maybe we shouldn’t be focused on global wealth redistribution after all?

February 27, 2014 6:22 am

Pippin kool says:
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

Too bad we can’t get your postdoc mentor to do that with the CAGW supporting “peer reviewed” papers.
I suspect many, if not most, of them would never see the light of day, assuming your mentor has enough ink to write “LOGIC” and “Xs” on all of them.
🙂

minarchist
February 27, 2014 6:33 am

Way too much common sense and real science there, Dr. Moore. I think you will soon be the target of an IRS audit.

more soylent green!
February 27, 2014 6:48 am

markstoval says:
February 27, 2014 at 5:46 am
This post brings up an interesting question in my mind.
Suppose you have 1,500 words maximum, and no more than 3 graphs or graphical images, how would you try to disprove the alarmist’s catastrophic predictions?

We all know should know the burden of proof is on the other side. Refer to the Null Hypothesis for more details.
Of course, the alarmists have turned the null hypothesis on it’s head by claiming man-made climate change disaster is the accepted standard, when in fact it’s only conjecture.
I would show the graph of estimated world temps going back 100,000 years or so. That same graph can contain an estimate of the CO2 levels. There will be no visible cause and effect there; the graph shows the correlation that warming proceeds CO2 increases.
I would also compare the GCM (climate model) output vs the actual climate. It’s a point of order that if the facts don’t match the results predicted by the hypothesis, then the theory is wrong.
My last point would be there is no evidence that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to any type of catastrophe, at least not at any of the projected levels we’re talking about. No evidence whatsoever that a warming climate is a more dangerous climate. If I could find a suitable graph, I would use that to show that extreme weather is worse during cold periods, not warm periods.

Solomon Green
February 27, 2014 6:55 am

I was so annoyed by Magma’s attempts to denigrate Dr. Moore “By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia” that I looked up his qualifications. According to Wikipedia:
“Moore obtained a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia.”
and, amongst others:
“As chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance he spent ten years developing the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, which were later adopted by much of the industry.”
It seems to me that Dr. Moore has a broad scientific background which certainly qualifies him to opine on changing climate. He is far better qualified than, say, that leading “climate scientist” Gavin Schmidt, whose academic background in mathematics and modelling is not superior to my own. And I would not even pretend to be more than an interested, but ignorant, layman in “climate science”.
It appears that every time a scientist writes a piece querying GAGW some troll or other attempts to rubbish his or her qualifications. Last week I looked up Dr. Tim Ball’s academic background because I saw him described on a website as “a fake” for allowing himself to be described as a climatologist, since his professorship was in geography and his PhD in historical climate change. I cannot imagine better qualifications to discuss past climate and how future climate might play out.
But I suppose that to be accepted as a true Climate Scientist these days one must place one’s hand on The God Delusion and swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the dogma of CAGW for better or worse until parted by death.

Jeff Alberts
February 27, 2014 7:26 am

Wayne Delbeke says:
February 26, 2014 at 2:12 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you Dr. Moore. And like Gary, I was a supporter of you and Mr Hunter before Greenpeace was born. My wife and I were at the Amchitka protest at the Peace Arch (Douglas) border crossing (Vancouver-Bellingham).

The Peace Arch crossing is Blaine, not Bellingham. Bellingham is a fair distance south of that.

February 27, 2014 8:05 am

Just a correction. Dr Moore isn’t a Greenpeace dropout; he is a Greenpeace alumnus. Those who are still there are Greenpeace repeat flunkers. 😉

Magma
February 27, 2014 8:16 am

Solomon Green says:
February 27, 2014 at 6:55 am
I was so annoyed by Magma’s attempts to denigrate Dr. Moore “By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia” that I looked up his qualifications.

Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable. (Tim Ball? Sorry, but no.)

hunter
February 27, 2014 8:17 am

Solomon Green, you raise a question I have thought about quite a bit: Why do the climate obsessed consistently trash the CV’s/education of the growing list of qualified people who conclude the climate crisis is not credible?
The working answer Ihave developed is that for the climate obsessed it is not actually about CV’s or education- it is about agreement that there is a climate crisis. To not agree with the idea of a climate crisis is be disqualified from holding an opinion. To agree with the climate crisis, no matter the education or experience, is to be an expert.
As was pointed out in the post regarding Ms. Costello at CNN, the edifice of belief the climate obsessed have constructed is fundamentally and deeply flawed.

hunter
February 27, 2014 8:19 am

And, on cue, here is “Magma”, proving my point: the climate obsessed are not able to rationally discuss the issue. They simply dismiss all experts who disagree, and then ask, almost sincerely, “Where are the experts?”

RichardLH
February 27, 2014 8:35 am

hunter says:
February 27, 2014 at 8:19 am
“And, on cue, here is “Magma”, proving my point: the climate obsessed are not able to rationally discuss the issue. They simply dismiss all experts who disagree, and then ask, almost sincerely, “Where are the experts?””
You do know that line about ‘statistics’ was originally about ‘experts’ don’t you?

Stefan
February 27, 2014 8:36 am

Why aren’t we planning for cooling, indeed!
Besides, crops and sea defences don’t care what the global average is, the regional variations are what a government has to deal with—so what if flood, drought, snow, and heat are all “consequences” of climate change? That doesn’t help. What do you plan for?
If we are “already” seeing the effects of climate change, and any and all unusual events are “linked”, and so much warming is already locked into the system, bringing more ice/snow/rain/fooding/drought/heatwave/wind/frogs, then what exactly are you trying to mitigate with carbon reduction?

Akatsukami
February 27, 2014 8:53 am

“Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable. (Michael Mann? Sorry, but no.)”
FTFY.

William Wilson
February 27, 2014 8:56 am

To bad all the attention is going to the testimonies of Seth Rogaine and Ben Aflac.

Reply to  William Wilson
February 27, 2014 1:12 pm

@William Wilson – Love your spelling of Ben’s name. 😉

Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2014 9:15 am

Magma uses the common, and logically fallacious troll tactic of Argument From Authority.

February 27, 2014 10:22 am

Magma says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:50 am
“Moore has been milking his long-ended involvement with Greenpeace Canada for over 25 years now.”
Magma, if you want to really join the discussion here, why don’t you bring up some facts to refute some of Dr. Moore’s testimony…such as the fact that you are extremely hot, several million degrees…is that degrees F or C?

Chris
February 27, 2014 11:27 am

What is good about the article is the fact that Patrick Moore discusses the subject without apparent bias. He is objective from the outset; stating his view on the matter with nothing more or less. He refers to our well understood temperature and Co2 record. There is nothing forceful or assertive about his statement. This is a policy that many on both sides of the debate would do well to adopt. Telling a person something and suggesting it are 2 different things. It’s just a shame that most discussion of man made climate change degenerates into mud slinging. Skeptical Science is the worst example of climate change propaganda I have ever read, along with Gareth Renowden’s Hot topic, or Nucitelli’s blog in the Guardian ( a voice for SkS). I note Skeptical Science are even translating their site into foreign languages so that they can spread their message to an even wider audience. I even see regular links to SkS on weather forums like UKWW for example from certain ‘folk’ who are involved with both sites and simply do not tolerate alternative opinion, throwing their toys out of the pram each and every time a person dares to question them or their motives. It’s one huge propaganda machine and heaven help you for not conforming to consensus.
Sooner or later, if it continues not to warm, or not at the rate predicted we will have all committed ourselves to the biggest lie of all time. The problem is, once you commit to something it is very difficult to admit you are wrong. We will see what happens.

Eliza
February 27, 2014 11:32 am

Climate science is not a career its a mix of things. Atmospheric physics and meteorology are closer to climate

commieBob
February 27, 2014 11:35 am

The pdf doesn’t say anything we haven’t heard before but it does put the various arguments in context.
It’s easy to get tangled up in arguments about this or that and lose sight of the big picture. For that reason I would say that the pdf is worth reading. An effective BS filter relies on having a well rounded and reasonably deep knowledge of the subject area and Dr. Moore clearly has that.

Duster
February 27, 2014 11:40 am

Lloyd Martin Hendaye says:
February 26, 2014 at 2:27 pm
By no means is Planet Earth “locked into a Pleistocene Ice Age”: Over approximately the last 12,250 – 14,400 years, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch has been a wholly normal remission in an unremitting 2.6-million year period, wherein Ice Ages lasting on average 102,000 years have occurred regularly as clockwork due to geophysical (plate tectonic) factors interfering with global East-West atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.

Climatologists ignorant of astro-geophysics may preach pro or con, but absent long-term scientific context and perspective they may as well be casting necromantic runes.

Your geology appears to be read from an English literature view point. You seem to be arguing over wording that was presented to congress, where one would be hard put find a politician with adequate education to follow a more detailed and comprehensive explanation. That is, Dr. Moore very politely talked down to the level he believed a congressman could follow. The argument he made was that there is no significant difference between the current interstadial, commonly referred as the Holocene, and the preceding 2-million years of glacial epochs and interstadials that are referred to by professionals as the Pleistocene, and by the public as “the Ice Age,” since the entire period is often conflated in the public mind into a single long span of glacial ice covering good ski areas. Also, the length of the intervals between glacial epochs increased in the middle and later Pleistocene from a period of about 40 thousand years to the rough 100 thousand year span you mention.
Dr. Moore also mentioned, without much elaboration, the pattern of very long-term warm versus cold “climate” patterns that have characterized the planet over the last 600-million years or so. These shifts are referred to as “Ice House” and “Green House” (or “Hot House” which is less confusing) states or modes. These periods have run very roughly 50-million years in average span and there have only been five such paired (warm/cold) shifts over the Phanerozoic. (BTW, that leaves us with another potential problem since we are now likely – in geological terms – closing in on the end of the latest “Ice House” mode.) The earth only has ice at the poles during the “Ice House” states – and there is geological evidence that during the Jurassic-Cretaceous period the Ice House period lacked polar ice but did have mountain glaciers that reached the ocean (see Frakes et al. 1992, Shaviv and Veizer 2003) for lengthier discussions. Shaviv and Veizer use the terms “:Ice House” and “Green House” for the two states. It is in this very long term view that plate tectonics may actually be an important driver of climatic patterns. The last major tectonic event that had any important effect on global weather patterns was the closing of the Isthmus of Panama during the Tertiary Pliocene epoch. The Quaternary, which follows, consists ONLY of the Pleistocene and Holocene.
I suggest care in casting those “necromantic runes.”

Duster
February 27, 2014 11:57 am

Pippin kool says:
February 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

LOGIC. Read the quote again and discuss what you did not understand in it, and why the quote, while toned down for congressional capacities of comprehension, is in fact a logical argument.

February 27, 2014 12:32 pm

Duster says:
February 27, 2014 at 11:57 am
Pippin kool says:
February 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.
LOGIC. Read the quote again and discuss what you did not understand in it, and why the quote, while toned down for congressional capacities of comprehension, is in fact a logical argument.””
Dr. Moore’s statement is totally logical: “both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”
Having 10 or 20 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long ago during both a ‘greenhouse’ era and a ‘icehouse’ era shows that with the greenhouse eras heat and extremely high carbon dioxide this shows that Earth got warm without humans and as Dr. Moore’s chart from the pdf book chapter above shows for a more recent time, the warming preceded the carbon dioxide not visaversa as Al Gore said and got a Nobel Prize for!
For the ice age era 450 m.y.a., the fact that carbon dioxide was 10 times higher (4000 ppm) than today did not stop an ice age from taking hold.
So why are we worried about 400 ppm of co2 now when 4000 ppm 450 million years ago did not stop an ice age??? This is evidence that co2 levels will not stop Earth from cooling, that there is something else that is driving these cycles – perhaps the Earth’s orbital variation in combination with the sun’s output as Dr. Sallie Baliunas says – “Ice core samples were taken going back thousands of years and what was discovered is that the sun is indeed a thermal dynamic system that beats like your heart and there is a 300 year cycle between maximum and minimum. Do not confuse short-term trends or local observations for a few decades and assume we have altered the entire planet.” http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/13/global-warming-why-it-is-nonsense/

Mac the Knife
February 27, 2014 1:04 pm

philincalifornia says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:28 pm
Mac the Knife says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:44 pm
More today, from the AGW Ranch:
Science academies explain global warming reality
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN 4 hours ago
http://news.yahoo.com/science-academies-explain-global-warming-reality-001622461.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.
——————————
Jeeez, did you all read the comments on this ?
I read about 30, and it ain’t pretty for the climate parasites. Bye bye Seth. Have a happy retirement.

phil,
I did – put a grin on my face! But my point of the 8:44pm post and the 3:15pm post was to show how persistent the drumbeat of AGW is in the popular media! Tell a lie a thousand times…. or a million (closer to reality), and it becomes increasingly difficult to uproot from the cultural psyche. We are gaining converts…. but we are a long way from driving the wooden stake through this AGW vampire!
Mac

D C
February 27, 2014 2:20 pm

With the Global Precipitation Mission being launched today it is timely to note that precipitation holds the key to the answer to the trillion dollar question which is “Does gravity induce an autonomous temperature gradient in all solids, liquids and gases?”
Josef Loschmidt first postulated that it would in the 19th century. Dr Hans Jelbring worked on it for his PhD and published a paper about a decade back. Now physicists are starting to realise that it is indeed a reality, and this can be shown using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in conjunction with Kinetic Theory.
And no, the article in WUWT did not disprove the Loschmidt effect, because the wire outside the cylinder also develops a temperature gradient and no perpetual circulation of energy occurs.
But, most compelling of all is the empirical evidence which I have presented in a book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” being released late April. Temperature and precipitation records are used to show that regions with higher precipitation do in fact have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.
This means water vapour cools.
And this is evidence that gravity produces a “dry” gradient (aka lapse rate) at the molecular level (not requiring a hot surface or upward convection) and water vapour then reduces that gradient (as is well known) due to inter-molecular radiation (not well known) and this leads to lower surface temperatures.
The greenhouse is smashed.

Walter Allensworth
February 27, 2014 2:46 pm

Interestingly, one can run a search on “Patrick Moore” on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and not find a whimper about this stunning news.
A respected champion of the environment just urinated in John Kerry’s and Barry’s Cheerios and not a single peep! WOW.
The only on-line MSM site covering this is Fox.
The rest of the MSM? Well, apparently they only print the news that the fascists allow them to print.
The freedom of the press is the first thing to go in an autocracy. We’re almost there…

Ken L.
February 27, 2014 2:51 pm

Awesome! This is actually getting media attention!

February 27, 2014 2:53 pm

Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.
For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/
I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7
OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.
If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op

Kpar
February 27, 2014 3:24 pm

Dr. Moore, you’ve got a lot of nerve.
I like that.

Alex Hamilton
February 27, 2014 3:29 pm

There is one clear-cut reason why the greenhouse conjecture (supposedly linking temperatures with carbon dioxide levels) is wrong, and that is that real world temperature and rainfall data clearly indicate that more water vapor means lower temperatures. IPCC writers have tried to hide this fact by claiming deserts have colder minimums at night, but the evidence is that they don’t. A study was published about a year ago proving this point with statistical significance.
The whole concept of radiative forcing and “calculating” Earth’s surface temperature from radiation is invalid, because the Earth’s surface does not act like a true blackbody. It absorbs solar energy, much of it well below the ocean surface where the warming has no effect on the surface temperature or that of the air just above which we measure for our climate records, because the warmer water takes its extra energy down into the colder depths of the oceans. The ocean surface itself clearly does not warm to the sort of temperatures you feel under your feet on a hot black road surface. It is not a blackbody, or even a grey body because it transmits.
Fundamental to the greenhouse theory is an assumption that, without water vapor, carbon dioxide and other radiating gases, the troposphere would have had equal temperatures at the top and bottom. But this would mean that all molecules would have the same kinetic energy, and then, any that moved upwards after a collision with another, would have to create extra potential energy. As that is impossible, it follows that the greenhouse theory is based on an impossible assumption, and is thus impossible itself.

Duke C.
February 27, 2014 4:09 pm

Interesting coincidence that Michael Mann tweeted a smear on Dr. Moore shortly after his comment appeared here-
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann

February 27, 2014 4:17 pm

Dr, Moore,
Well back in the early days 1975 or so up in Washington state for a meetup. As I had been sort of a help person with Greenpeace on the nuke questions they did allow me for a time. Yet as I was not a antiwar Vietnam Vet. and due to the fact I was a rather dark skinned person of they did not understand my problem with the way way left aka “red” way of the leadership and getting more red all the time. The fact I was proud of my time in the service was a real problem to them. So they at a meeting they called myself and one other to we got the message loud and clear. You guys are not on board with the message, you are disruptive and now you must understand we will have to move forward without you and if you cause any more problems you will understand better after we take “action”.
Clear it is the agenda is altogether not what it should have been then and for sure now.

Editor
February 27, 2014 5:01 pm

Magma says
“Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable”.
My understanding of research from so-called competent climate scientists is no different from snake-oil salesmen at best and pigs in the trough(£££$$$€€€) at the worst. Do you really think that proper scientists would have a problem discussing their theories? Did Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Durac, Mendel, Feynman call those who disagreed with their theories, “deniers” ; a name that is dismissive of any argument, rational or not, that contradicts their theories?
18 years of no warming, the medieval warm period, Dalton and Maunder Minima! Please tell me how these recorded and documented phenomena can be accounted for in AGW. One more thing, please answer a question, that has never been answered satisfactorily. How can a rise in CO2 attributable to mankind of 0.002% cause climate change?

OssQss
February 27, 2014 5:05 pm

Though I would share. Not new, but on topic, no?

Dirk Pitt
February 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Nicely put together. For every layman, with minimal to none scientific understanding to understand the fallacy of the (C)AGW.

Mark Bofill
February 27, 2014 5:07 pm

Hmm. Reading Dr. Moore on Twitter and I see this from Windy:

Your intentional twisting of what the science says puts you in the “N” camp.

What’s the “N” camp?

February 27, 2014 5:47 pm

Predicting the future with a computer model is possible. It is predicting the future with a computer
model of the type referenced by the IPCC that is impossible.

H.R.
February 27, 2014 6:07 pm

jfreed27 says:
February 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The debate is over, among real scientists, that is.
The arm chair types can proceed, though. Bloggers are a gullible sort, so you can put your “brilliant analysis” in front of them, rather than a Journal, for example. Bloggers deeply wish to believe it’s all a hoax. I do too. But, I can’t.
Hey, it worked with Big Tobacco. There’s good money in this, I don’t doubt.
======================================================
??? Was there a coherent, logical counterargument to Dr. Moore’s testimony in there somewhere? If so, I missed it and would appreciate it if someone would be so kind as to point it out. TIA
.
.
.
I’m with Dr. Moore on this one. Glaciers have buried the 40-meter deep Devonian limestone deposits in my backyard under a mile of ice and retreated to the Arctic many times over the past couple of million years. And all the while the best CO2-Temperature reconstructions available show CO2 lagging temperature. I’ve known this since fourth grade, well, except the lagging CO2 part which Al Gore was so kind as to display in that nice graphic in his movie. CO2-based CAGW is a non-starter right there.
But hey! Why would a reasonably literate blog commenter believe what he can read with his own lying eyes at the age of ten over a consensus of 97% of 76 climate scientists? I know, know. It makes no sense. Maybe I should go talk it over with the Vikings when Greenland warms up enough for them to move back to their farms, I hear their farms are beginning to emerge from under the permafrost so they might be moving back.
OMG! (Oh My Gaia!) What did I just write!? I need to go talk to a Climate Priest and sort this all out; perhaps buy a few carbon offsets while I’m there. Yeah. That’s the ticket… indulgences… yeah…
.
.
.
.
DANG! I think I screwed up. Now I’ll never get a check from Big Oil ;o)

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 6:49 pm

Jfreed27 says:
Just about every cliched fallacy in the book…
It’s just weird. I mean, if I was to go and post on the number-one alarmist site in the world (since the common sense side has the number-one overall slot locked up when it comes to climate discussions), I would want to come armed with facts to back up my counterarguments. Generally, however, most far-left greenies, such as the human excrememnt known to us as Jfreed27, just spew the same tripe, always repeating the same strawmen, almost like they’re chanting. (And of course, they must capitalize the key players: Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Green…oh, wait…)
Even when you put them on the spot by presenting actual observations and fact, the most mature response I’ve seen is the logic of “well, it COULD happen, so what’s the harm in preventing it?” Yet, people buy into it. I don’t get it; it kind of makes me question my hope in humanity.
I will give them points though for living by the creed of recycling: they appear to be using the same four or five unfounded talking point ad finitum. I guess I’m just not smart enough to tangle with the prowess of someone like Jpeedonmyfootandtoldmeitsraining.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 6:49 pm

Hello, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, and thus the ‘take away message’ coming from that, made by Dr. Moore. Quoting him here:
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors. [end quote].
Clear to me that Moore is presenting that “as if” it is something to be surprised about. The tone of his overall statement would mislead one to assume that the above is ‘little known’ and/or has been ‘covered up’ by the IPCC and others. If this is what some people believe, then they are incorrect based on the facts.
Moore’s IPCC quote in his statement comes from Page SPM-12 of the IPCC’s SPM. On Page SPM-2 it says, and I quote [CAPS my emphasis]:
“The NARRATIVE is supported by a series of overarching highlighted CONCLUSIONS which, taken together, provide a concise SUMMARY.”
[note: A narrative is not the physical scientific evidence – the IPCC does not claim it is – the SPM is a “summary” not a peer reviewed scientific paper with a null hypothesis. There is a seriously huge difference here.]
“The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the AUTHOR teams’
evaluations of UNDERLYING SCIENTIFIC understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood. ”
“Confidence in the validity of a finding is BASED on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of EVIDENCE (e.g., DATA, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert JUDGEMENT) and the degree of AGREEMENT.”
“Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of UNCERTAINTY in a finding are based on STATISTICAL ANALYSIS of OBSERVATIONS or model results, or BOTH, and expert JUDGEMENT. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements OF FACT without using uncertainty qualifiers.”
“The BASIS for SUBSTANTIVE paragraphs in this Summary for Policymakers can be found in the CHAPTER sections of the UNDERLYING report and in the TECHNICAL SUMMARY [2216 pages long sourced from 9,000+ published papers]. These references are given in curly brackets.”
I am all for people coming to their own opinions and beliefs about anything. However, it is not appropriate for people to create their own “facts”, nor is OK to misrepresent what others have actually stated and is available in writing for anyone who chooses to look at said “facts”.
Dr. Moore has completely misrepresented what the IPCC SPM is, by intimating his quotes from that are being promoted by the IPCC to be “science” when they are not, and that the IPCC is saying it is when they are not.
Quoting Dr. Moore again:
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods. [end quote]
This is sophistry and illogical. It does not follow (a non-sequitur). Moore switches the priory half way though this paragraph. It’s a bait and switch and very woolly thinking that cannot be supported as being factual nor truthful. It presents a false image of the facts as they really are by shifting from “past tense” related to the his IPCC quote into “future tense” about GCMs being able or not to predict future climate trends, and then going on to suggest they are one and the same thing. They are not.
SPM-2 says, and I quote:
“(AR5) considers new evidence of climate change based on many independent scientific analyses from observations of the climate system, paleoclimate archives, theoretical studies of climate processes and simulations using climate models.” plus “Observations of the climate system are based on direct measurements and remote sensing from satellites and other platforms.”
Climate models are only ONE tool used to make scientific determinations – the IPCC admits GCMs are not 100% perfect – yet still a useful tool if the limitations are understood of how they work, and where these are used in the IPCC process.
Future GCMs do NOT determine the scientific basis for the statements in the IPCC about the past climate observations and conclusions: “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1).” from Page SPM-12
Now feel free to totally reject what the IPCC says, this is not my point at all. My point is that Dr. Moore is MISREPRESENTING to you and the Senate what it is that the IPCC have ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
This statement by Dr. Moore: “These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate”, is factually FALSE. It is a mis-statement of the real truth of the matter.
Dr. Moore goes on to claim that: “… and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
That is a PERSONAL OPINION, a JUDGEMENT without any scientific foundation whatsoever. The very thing that Moore is criticizing the IPCC for doing. This is hypocritical of him to do this so blatantly. The IPCC references peer-reviewed science papers. Moore does not. It is grossly disingenuous, and obvious sophistry here designed to win an argument, versus to present the Facts of the matter for due consideration by all.
203 comments so far and yet not person picks up this flagrant logical flaw in Moore’s own argument. This is unconscious cognitive dissonance at work.
http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/stop-lying.html
If anyone has a problem with the IPCC process or findings, then that’s your choice. I am simply pointing out the actual facts on a few points. The facts upon which all claims made by anyone and everyone should be held accountable to. This is what I believe is a key issue for all to remember, but no one ever goes and checks the actual facts for themselves.
If people would actually read the IPCC reports themselves they might notice that they REPEATEDLY ADMIT THEY: “cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.” Just as Moore points out, whilst pretending that this is what the IPCC actually does. It doesn’t.
It would HELP EACH PERSON if they also knew exactly what was meant by the words used in the IPCC reports, such as predictions, forecasts, projections etc. For those who don’t see here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf
I also believe that it would useful for the Politicians to actually read the IPCC SPM and the rest of the material BEFORE they go holding Committee Hearings and asking questions. Clearly many have never done so since the FAR in 1990. That is what politicians are paid to do. KNOW the FACTS first, then make further inquiries and debate what if anything can be done about it. But they do NOT do this. They play politics instead.
Unfortunately there are mountains of scientific evidence and facts everywhere to be found, but so little critical thinking and almost no common sense to be found on all sides of this “debate”. Pro-AGW climate science scientists included!
Luckily, “You don’t need a PhD in climate science to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is talking nonsense. You simply need a bit of science, a bit of critical thinking and objectivity.”
Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.
Thank you. Have at it!

February 27, 2014 7:06 pm

Walter K,
What’s your point? That the IPCC is anything but a taxpayer-funded organization pushing an agenda? As I understand it, that is at least some of what Dr. Moore is saying. Further, Moore has seen the politics from the inside, and he has seen both sides. You have seen only one side.
Finally, criticizing as you do what is “completely misrepresented”, all of your holier-than-thou pontificating about the IPCC founders upon the words of the IPCC’s own Ottmar Edenhofer, who has, in a rare moment of candor, admitted the true motivation of that statist, anti-human organization:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
Thus, the IPCC has “completely misrepresented” their behind-the-scenes remit, which is to redistribute the world’s wealth.
Instead of defending the IPCC, you would be much more appreciated if you supported freedom around the world, by calling for the disbandment of that wretched organization. We do not need them, or their enablers.

Paul Westhaver
February 27, 2014 7:11 pm

I believe he is on Hannity on FoxNews right now. (I don’t watch TV that much so I can’t confirm)

Mark Bofill
February 27, 2014 7:20 pm

Great interview on Hannity Dr Moore! Well done.

Alex Hamilton
February 27, 2014 7:22 pm

Walter (anonymous) K (and dbstealey)
Suppose, Walter, that I produced a study like that referred to above which showed (with >99% statistical significance) that higher levels of water vapor lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures (that is, water vapor cools, rather than warms as the IPCC would have you believe) would you then be prepared to acknowledge that such a study establishes (with 99% probability) that the greenhouse hypothesis is false?
Or would that just be too hard to take, Walter?
Because I would bet that, for just $5,000 or less, such a study of existing temperature data could be funded and would produce the same conclusion as the somewhat lower-budget study to which I referred, that you will find on a recent post on Dr Roy Spencer’s blog.

Mark Bofill
February 27, 2014 7:35 pm

Walter,
There’s a lot to disagree with in your post. Reserving the right to return to other issues, I will take exception to your rant about predicting the future.
AR4 WGI SPM reads as follows:

Projections of Future Changes in Climate <
A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include SRES[14] illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000 to 2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100.
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}
Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}
Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century. {9.4, 10.3, 10.5, 11.2–11.7, Figure TS.29}
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. {10.3}
Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimates and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected warming for different emission scenarios. Results for different emission scenarios are provided explicitly in this report to avoid loss of this policy-relevant information. Projected global average surface warmings for the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) relative to 1980–1999 are shown in Table SPM.3. These illustrate the differences between lower and higher SRES emission scenarios, and the projected warming uncertainty associated with these scenarios.

A projection is nothing more or less than a conditional prediction. If scenario X is realized, warming Y will result. These conditional predictions were made by GCM’s that are central to a significant amount of research and a lot of peer reviewed papers, they are not some irrelevant side line of the science. These crystal balls were indeed used to attempt to conditionally predict the future, your attempts to qualify and obfusicate notwithstanding.

BruceC
February 27, 2014 7:35 pm

Hopefully Dr Moore is still keeping tabs on this post by A.W., as I just came across this MediaMatters post today written by Denise Robbins (at the time of posting, the article was ~4 hours old);
Who Is Patrick Moore? A Look At The Former Greenpeace Member’s Industry Ties And Climate Denial
Patrick Moore’s Climate Misinformation Is Nothing New
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change — without any expertise in the matter — is nothing new.
———–
Patrick Moore Is Not A Co-Founder Of Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace, a title often repeated by the media. But Moore was not a co-founder, as explained by Greenpeace:
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF). [Greenpeace, 12/7/10]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-at-the-former-green/198266

Chad Wozniak
February 27, 2014 7:45 pm

I just got through watching to Dr. Moore’s appearance on Hannity, on Fox News. His presentation was, if anything, even more devastating than his article here. Hannity is on again at 10 p.m. California time, 1 a.m. EST. Well worth staying up for, if you missed it!

Chad Wozniak
February 27, 2014 7:49 pm

And yes, of course, there’s the Walter K’s and Bruce C’s that can’t accept defeat. Get over it – you’ve lost the argument, and Dr. Moore’s statement is the final nail in your coffin.

BruceC
February 27, 2014 7:58 pm

I think you are mistaking me as being against Dr Moore. I am all for what Dr Moore has spoken about and stood up for. FYI, the above article was sourced from Mann’s twitter feed.
Your apology will be accepted, if and when you decide to make it.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 8:13 pm

Dr. Strangelove says: February 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm
“If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.”
That notion is a very common misconception and misunderstanding in the public domain. Some would label it a “strawman” because it is totally disconnected from the actual argument being made by the other side. If you wish to prove someone’s arguments and claims are false, it always helps to get those accurate from the get go.
When they speak of 2C it refers to an increase in the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), or the average temp across the planet, which is less scientific a term, but good enough for here.
It is NOT referring to “local temperatures … all over the world” rising by a flat 2C. Every local environment has it’s normal range of temperatures, of minimums and maximums, from one season to another. These all range much greater than 2C already. This would be obvious.
For the GMST to rise 2C means that across the planet local environments will experience increases in temperatures far greater that 2C alone. While their yearly average temperature may may or may not rise by 2C. The important thing to realize about the 2C average is that for this to be a Global increase it means that some days, some weeks, some months different locations o the globe would need to have temperature increases of a much higher order.
Take Las Vegas, if 40C is their maximum summer temp, then this may rise to 50C for days on end. This has impacts upon the locals there, including increasing air conditioning (electricity), medical emergencies, and water costs
Take Helsinki, maybe their maximums in summer go to 23C. It will make a huge difference to them if they rise to 30 degrees for several weeks to a month. The effects will have an impact because their built environments were not made for such high temperatures.
Take Australia already. Let’s assume GMST have only risen 0.7C the last 100 years. Yet in 2012 and 2013 Australia has broken their maximum (and Minimums) recorded temperatures by locations and the average across the whole continent. If you live in a bearable environment with 42C maximums now and then, and these rise to be 50C+ maximums over weeks on end, with associated changes in the intensity of bush fires and decreases in seasonal rainfall, then the effects are far greater than a simplistic 2C increase. The place becomes unlivable or more expensive to be there, and perhaps uneconomic.
It is known that the greatest natural disaster killer across the globe is in fact Heatwaves. Not tornadoes, or floods, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, but Heatwaves. And they are happening more now than ever known before. So it;s a hard fact.
Now whether or not this has to do with AGW is another debate entirely. I am simply pointing out the facts involved in the arguments actually being made by climate scientists and IPCC about the current climate changes already present, and those expected to come if their science is sound.
Whatever people choose to believe about that is their business. But at least get the facts right about what the arguments really are, and what they mean on the ground for people living everywhere over the long term. Should they actually be correct then 2C (another 1.3C more than now by 2050) has very serious implications.
Given the IPCC Reports from 1990 to 2007 have under-estimated EVERYTHING in their “forecasts” to 2013 except SLR should be some cause for concern and raise serious doubts about the basis for their models as well as their data collection ability. Yet already SLR science “experts” who actually published Papers are again claiming the IPCC scenarios are under-estimating SLR too in the AR5.
The IPCC estimate for total Arctic Sea Ice loss in the AR5 already appears to be 25+ years out from the current reality. Estimates for CO2 ppm are no better. Not supposed to hit 400 ppm until post ~2022, yet that has already been passed last year.
Worst of all the 2C cumulative increase by 2100 on BAU many scientists have been complaining to others about the conservative scenarios of the IPCC summaries saying it’s more like looking to be 4C or higher, and 2C before 2050.
Absolutely nothing of any effect has been made to decrease Fossil Fuel emissions from 1990 to now, which steady rise exponentially higher than the IPCCs RCP 8.5 which is BAU, Business as usual projections. All the other RCPs which “assume” moving to renewables and nuclear are worthless fantasy at this point in time, for none of those are anywhere close to being realistic.
So to those who believe that there is no AGW, or no climate change, or that if there is then it is no big deal, then you better hope you are right. But all you have on your side at present is “hope”. That’s it.
As to this by Dr. Moore: “It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”
Besides the obvious that past climate changes were caused by all manner of things totally disconnected from burning of fossil fuels and GHGs of today. Those climate’s beginning and end points were all totally different than today’s global climate in which we actually have to live. The present one is the ONLY one that counts or matters. That’s the reality which Moore is evading here.
Bringing this up in such a “narrative” of what came before about the “past” is pure sophistry. It isn’t science. It’s simplistic rhetoric that’s meaningless waffle. It’s an “opinion”, a “political view” not based on the whole gamut of already known facts.
In all these periods of the past that Moore points to there was no Bangkok on a river with 18 million people. No Mumbai or Philippines. There was no New York City, no Detroit or St Louis in the mid-west. There was no London nor a Moscow. There wasn’t 1.3 billion people living in China either. There wasn’t 7 billion on the planet as a whole all needing to be fed. There was no towering buildings or The Palm Island at Dubai. No IMF, no WEF, no UN, no global financial system.
There was no Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, or North Korea. No OECD. No electric power generators, no nuclear power plants, and no nuclear armed ICBMs. It’s a different world. Dr. Moore should be dealing with this world today, and leave the bullshit to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Thanks, that’s what I think. I bet there are many who’ll disagree. Fine by me. Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe after 25 years the IPCC and the UNFCCC has been a total waste of time and effort. It lacks credibility for all kinds of reasons that are justified, and some that are not. But essentially nothing has changed, nothing is about to change either.
The IPCC crowd has lost, and the WUWTs, the Monckton’s and the Tea party brigades all over the world have won. Congratulations are in order.
Thanks, Walter

myrightpenguin
February 27, 2014 8:18 pm

Slightly off topic, and apologies for being such.
It’s some time since Dana Nuccitelli’s conflict of interest was disclosed wrt. Tetra Tech.
http://omnologos.com/guardians-nuccitelli-linked-to-leading-alternative-energy-company/
He gets regular page space in the Guardian, and I don’t know if people realise how the U.K. has become an epicentre of propaganda promulgation, not least with the leftist statist BBC operating in tandem with the Guardian. In many ways this is where the U.K. deviates from the U.S. because in the U.S. conservatives were alerted and opened their minds in the aftermath of Climategate, whereas the “conservative” government in the U.K. is headed up by David Cameron, who (rather foolishly) pledged to lead the “greenest government ever” prior to his election in 2010.
Anyway, on reflection, and in seeing Dana’s columns and comment sections for his articles I wonder how he has been let off the hook with his conflict of interest. Are we not ruthless enough, because the alarmists would sure be if they found something related to a key figure amongst “sceptics”. I note that any commenters for his articles who try to raise his conflict of interest are rapidly censored. Surely the Guardian should be forced to include a statement of disclosure within his articles, that would only be right from a journalistic integrity point of view. So just wondering, how we, as a community allowed him to get off so easily when his conflict of interest was discovered? Is there a basis for a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission on the basis that there is no disclosure of his conflict of interest? I find the hypocrisy stunning from the Guardian, as no one would stand for someone who worked for a military contractor writing articles to put forwards the case for military intervention somewhere across the world.

February 27, 2014 8:34 pm

Walter K… If IPCC has lost then why did you just write an essay saying that Dr. Moore is wrong and that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?
If co2 is responsible for the warming then why did the ice age 450 million years ago have 10 times as much co2 as today, how did the earth go into an ice age with so much co2?

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 8:37 pm

Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Mark please READ what I was referring to explicitly
Moore says: (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Findings and Judgments made about the PAST to date.
Moore then says: “These ****judgments**** are based, ***almost entirely***, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the ****future**** of global climate.”
Mark, you say this:
“I will take exception to your rant about predicting the future.”
AR4 WGI SPM reads as follows:
Projections of Future Changes in Climate <"
I was explicitly speaking of the PAST, as per what Moore actually said, and I quoted him. That is what I focused on regarding Dr Moore. That is the context and the content of my comment. He was MIS-representing the facts, and he was mixing the evaluation and judgments of past observations, with the FUTURE evaluations and "projections" done by the IPCC.
Two different things entirely. I made no comment about future GCMs in the AR5. Moore was speaking about the AR5 finding s about the 20th Century. I stayed on topic. If you have something to say about that, then go ahead.
And it was NOT a "rant". These matters are complex. Please deal with the complexity as it is, which requires detailed explanations and quotes, and stop mislabeling it as a RANT. I find that kind of default response as unnecessary, untrue, tiresome, a typical ad hominen insult, and offensive. It just makes you look bad. I won't wear it.
Thanks. I hope that sorts out any confusion there.

Mark Bofill
February 27, 2014 8:38 pm

Walter, could you put down the crack pipe for a second?
Heatwaves are the biggest killer? Can you support that? It’s not my field, but a quick search seems to imply that the floods in China in the 1930’s had the biggest natural disaster death toll in modern times. Other floods, earthquakes, and cyclones look to rank behind that.
First the SPM’s don’t make predictions, now heatwaves are the biggest natural disaster killers.
.
..

I’m going to bed now.

Mark Bofill
February 27, 2014 8:53 pm

Walter,
I see we cross posted.
You know Walter, I think I understand your point now. But you are focusing on a detail that really doesn’t seem to be relevant in any way shape or form. I don’t think whether or not the IPCC drew their conclusions about certainty from models or from some other process is anything that remotely resembles a necessary foundation for Dr. Moore’s argument. It’s an irrelevant detail to obsess about, in my view.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 9:03 pm

Alex Hamilton says: February 27, 2014 at 7:22 pm
“Walter (anonymous) K (and dbstealey)
Suppose, Walter, that I produced a study like that referred to above …..”
Alex, I leave such matter to the scientists who have the ability and resources to work out such matters scientifically and have them peer reviewed. Over time the truth, like cream, floats to the surface. Even Einstein doubted at one point that nuclear fission and making a nuclear bomb was possible. Facts proved him wrong. No one is perfect, nor needs to be.
Common sense tells me that the onus is on Roy Spencer (and others) to convince his peers in the field of the rightness of his conclusions. It’s not for me to say, one way or the other.
Of course if your conjecture is correct, and if I understood the basic point being made, then one might expect GMSTs to fall in the near term. I stand ready with my trusty thermometer. 🙂
Meanwhile, if anyone believes the past and current yearly GMSTs as put out by various bodies and the IPCC are accurate and represent the reality then that would be most unwise indeed. Lot’s of water still to flow under that bridge.

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 9:09 pm

Walter,
You may want to be seen a “sensible” and “not going on a rant”, but, if you want to talk “facts”, then I think any person with a dictionary would say you are ranting. Just wanted to clear THAT up for you.
Also, when you finish up said rant with sarcastically thanking tea party groups, it hardly makes you look apolitical, either. I’m not in it to “win” anything. I just want reasonable discourse to return to the environmental agenda.
Lastly, you claim that we don’t have a leg to stand on. Yet, you spew un-sourced soundbites, claiming that the IPCC’s previous reports have underestimated “everything” except sea level rise (I believe was your general wording). You also claim that heatwaves are the largest killer of humans. Then, you go onto “scientifically” (maybe in climate science circles…) say that 43C will just turn into around 50+C in parts of the world. Yeah, that’s scientific. Just throwing out scary scenarios and then building off of that to somehow make a case…tsk tsk.
I think almost everyone here believes that the world has become warmer. I believe that humans have contributed some to it. However, it’s not all one or the other. I can also see that the coming apocalypse that has been predicted for decades hasn’t arrived. There is no increase in hurricanes (in fact, in the USA, we are in a drought with regards to them), tornadoes, or plagues of locusts. There is still snow and children laughing and playing. The IPCC has even toned down their climate sensitivity range.
Everyday, the climate establishment seems to be grasping at any possible straw to blame it on climate change, with nothing to back it up but “models”. I work with models constantly in my field. It’s so funny to hear my boss, an ardent believer in the CAGW scare, say “this model is terrible” at work…not even understanding the irony, holding up the infallibility of climate models. They’re just programs made by fallible humans, only as good as the people who program them.
Honestly, you have to read what you wrote. You are screaming that you speak as an authority on matters and, yet, seem to be winging it. I think if you could point out how the IPCC underestimated everything and how heat waves kill more people than any other natural disaster, then we may be a bit more amicable to your point. Until then, can you blame people if they think you’re ranting?
And thank you! But trust me, we have more than hope. They’re called “recorded observations”.

nutso fasst
February 27, 2014 9:14 pm

Why no link to the video? There were 7 presenters, including ‘Hotshot’ Holdren, Climate Czar.
Watch the whole thing here:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=e8d6a0c3-982e-2afa-f53d-131ea566818b

lee
February 27, 2014 9:25 pm

Walter K. says:
February 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm
‘Yet in 2012 and 2013 Australia has broken their maximum (and Minimums) recorded temperatures by locations and the average across the whole continent. ‘
Can you please provide a reference for broken maximum temperature records by location and date?
I have seen articles where temperature equalled or nearly equalled, but not broke. Although in a warming world records are there to be broken.
Should we exclude real data before 1910?

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 9:29 pm

Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 8:38 pm
Is the “crackpipe” really necessary? Or is this merely your brilliant sense of humour at work. WUWT?
A Correction is due: (thanks for mentioning it)
Heatwaves kill more Australians than any other natural disasters. They have received far less
public attention than cyclone, flood or bushfire – they are private, silent deaths which only hit the media when morgues reach capacity or infrastructure fails.
http://www.pwc.com.au/industry/government/assets/extreme-heat-events-nov11.pdf
So I don’t have facts to hand globally to confirm what I wrote earlier, I was obviously muddled from too much crack, but seeing you did ask ………… not saying one can necessarily take all the following figures to the bank. But here is a starting point for further personal research of what the facts might be. Up to you. Just saying, there is a mountain of hard evidence out there. Also do check the very good medical records from France over recent years.
BTW An absence of to hand available evidence does equate to clear evidence of absence.
2011 Toward a Quantitative Estimate of Future Heat Wave Mortality under Global Climate Change http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.1002430
4000 people who were killed in the Indian state of Andra Pradesh in 2003 after 27 consecutive days of temperatures up around 47 degrees Celsius.
https://theconversation.com/more-deadly-heat-waves-coming-climate-scientists-warn-1290
In Russia last year, and in western Europe in 2003, “mega-heatwaves” meant that their summer was most likely hotter than any summer for at least 500 years.
More than half of Europe broke the 500-year record twice in the one decade. Both these heatwaves caused tens of thousands of deaths. The last decade has truly been the decade of unprecedented heatwaves.
https://theconversation.com/record-heatwaves-not-just-a-lot-of-hot-air-1335
Russia 2010 – Munich Re estimated 56,000 people in all died from the effects of the smog and heat wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires
The intense heat wave that centered on western Russia last summer was truly a record breaker. It surpassed even 2003’s scorcher in western and central Europe — which has been blamed for 70,000 deaths.
From late July until the second week in August 2010, record heat settled across 772,204 square miles (2 million square kilometers) in Russia and Eastern Europe. In Moscow, the daytime temperatures reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 degrees Celsius), in Kiev, nights reached 77 F (25 C), crops were destroyed, fires swept across western Russia, and preliminary estimates now put the Russian death toll at 55,000.
http://www.livescience.com/13296-european-russia-heat-waves-climate-change.html
Heatwaves are also on the increase worldwide, with severe heatwaves affecting many countries and regions in the last 10-15 years. One of the most severe was the European heatwave of July and August 2003, with France and Switzerland particularly affected. This heatwave was followed in 2010 by an even more intense and widespread heatwave, which scorched large swathes of Eastern Europe, including western Russia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Long-term temperature reconstructions show that these were the hottest summers that Europe has experienced for at least 500 years. North America has also experienced several recent heatwaves, with a major heatwave affecting the state of Texas in July 2011 and a heatwave covering a greater area of the country in 2012. (Plus CA 2013/14) [links inside the article]
https://theconversation.com/climate-council-heatwaves-are-getting-hotter-and-more-frequent-23253
The European heatwave of 2003 resulted in between 22,000 and 45,000 deaths in excess of those expected for that time of year. Similarly, in Victoria in 2009, there were 374 “extra” deaths beyond what would have been expected over the summer.
https://theconversation.com/death-in-a-hot-climate-southern-heatwave-to-take-its-toll-22039
another telling example:
This summer we have seen one of the most dramatic animal die-offs ever recorded in Australia: at least 45,500 flying foxes dead on just one extremely hot day in southeast Queensland, according to our new research.
https://theconversation.com/killer-climate-tens-of-thousands-of-flying-foxes-dead-in-a-day-23227

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 9:41 pm

lee says: February 27, 2014 at 9:25 pm
“Can you please provide a reference for broken maximum temperature records by location and date?”
Yes, start here and don’t stop looking
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/
You will also find the broken “minimum” overnight temps as well. As in not lower than normal, but *minimums* that were record highs for that time of year.
People normally speak of climate change as something of future concern. It is affecting Australia already in significant ways, and has done so for the last decade at least, being more pronounced now than ever.
Argue all you wish as to “why” that is so, but it doesn’t change the reality on the ground. If 30 years of recorded weather adds up to a location’s “normal climate” then the climate across Australia has changed significantly and noticeably since 1984 and before. Natural variability aside.
No one who is living in the same region they were 30 years ago needs the IPCC or a climate scientist to tell the that or to prove it to them.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 9:51 pm

HGW xx/7 says: February 27, 2014 at 9:09 pm
“I think if you could point out how the IPCC underestimated everything …”
How? Go to the IPCC website, download the reports 1 thru 5.
Read them, and note their “forecasts” … then compare those to actual real world data records made in later Reports, and also via other published Papers all the way to 2014. Also secure actual fossil fuel energy use figures from the IPCC and bodies like the EIA, and the IEA, or whoever, as well as any current real world data for ice, ghg ppm, extreme weather events, temperatures, slr, whatever you can find that relates back to any and all IPCC “forecasts”.
That’s how you do it. See you a few months then.
Or, go ask any climate scientist or an IPCC rep and ask them why they haven’t already published this in a way that anyone in the public could readily understand it.

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Walker,
My friend, you really are a riot. That’s your big answer? Go look? As though, we haven’t already? As though we don’t know what a “max-min” temperature is? lol
Clearly, you don’t come to this site very often and see the actual excerpts of the IPCC that have been analyzed and shown to be incorrect or at least overblown, the revisions and changes over the years. Clearly, you haven’t seen study after study of poorly temperature gauges and the effect of UHI.
Clearly, if you’re such a scholar and are trying to observe a veil of scientific impartiality, you know as well as anyone, that tomes as large as the IPCC can be taken out of context by BOTH sides of the debate. Watch, I can do the same thing! “Walter, go read the IPCC and check out weather stations! You’re wrong! You’ll see…in a few months!” See how authoritative I sound? BWAHAHA!
I think you should chill out a bit and enjoy the beautiful night or day, wherever you may be. 🙂
Namaste.

lee
February 27, 2014 10:03 pm

Ok I’ve seen that. And as I said records are made to be broken.
‘No one who is living in the same region they were 30 years ago needs the IPCC or a climate scientist to tell the that or to prove it to them.’
It was 0.5 degrees hotter than 14 Jan 1939. So they could tell the difference if they were alive then? Or did they really need someone to tell them?

lee
February 27, 2014 10:07 pm

Walter K- What do YOU make of the IPCC’s less than 5% level of certainty on their short term prognstications; shown as a footnote on Summary for Policymakers Table SPM.2?

farmerbraun
February 27, 2014 10:08 pm

Walter K. says:
February 27, 2014 at 9:41 pm
“If 30 years of recorded weather adds up to a location’s “normal climate” . . . ‘
That’s a joke , right Walter?
Please tell us that you were just joking, and that there is absolutely no way that 30 years of data “adds up to a location’s “normal climate” . . . ‘
The idea is clearly preposterous.
You do agree , don’t you?

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 10:10 pm

Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 8:53 pm
“I don’t think whether or not the IPCC drew their conclusions about certainty from models or from some other process is anything that remotely resembles a necessary foundation for Dr. Moore’s argument.”
Well that’s a problem for you then. Because if you cannot see how Moore framed his “argument” and how flawed it is even after I point it out in black and white, you (and who doesn’t it’s very common) have a problem following logic and critical thinking processes.
Id such overt errors in basic logic and fact doesn’t undermine his credibility and perception other might have about authority in being able to form a coherent argument from establish truth, then that’s an added problem. Like, if can’t get that simple statement accurate and correct, I doubt his ability to even begin to get his head around the complexities of global climate processes.
His opinion may be correct, it may be true, but his argument is seriously logically flawed. It does not stand up. It is pure sophistry, false assumptions, conjecture, and mere opinion, not fact. Far from it. Leave you with it.
Lastly if Dr. Moore has the view that the scientific theory of the eGHE is false, then everything else is easy and doesn’t really matter. It’s what underpins everything else. It’s the fundamental core issue.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 10:13 pm

lee says: February 27, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Walter K- What do YOU make of the IPCC’s less than 5% level of certainty on their short term prognstications; shown as a footnote on Summary for Policymakers Table SPM.2?
(without even checking assuming that’s what it says)
CRAP .. next question?

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 10:15 pm

lee says: February 27, 2014 at 10:03 pm
“Ok I’ve seen that.”
You are a LIAR – I am not an idiot. Jerk someone else’s chain.
BYE

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 10:23 pm

HGW xx/7 says: February 27, 2014 at 10:01 pm
You have absolutely no idea what I have seen. Nor do you want to know. Which is fine by me. I don’t care. I am simply not going to give away my work to rude arrogant pricks on an internet forum for nothing.
If you have not “seen” the under-estimates in the IPCC ‘forecasts’ vs real world data then you have not seen what I have seen. Simple really. I don’t need your OK to tell my eyes what I already know. Believe whatever you wish. Say whatever you like. I don’t care.

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 10:26 pm

I think we should go easy on Walter, everyone. He’s not having a good day.
[rest trimmed. Cut it out, both of you. Discuss the numbers, the facts, the measurements. Nothing else. Mod]

February 27, 2014 10:27 pm

Who is Walter K. ? Seems to have a lot to say.

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 10:29 pm

Walter K, in all fairness, you have been giving way too much of your self to our internet forum, which is by the way the number one most visited for all things climate-debate related. So, if you’re going to have a meltdown, this probably isn’t the best place.
Although, please feel free to tell up what you’ve seen. Paint us a picture!

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 10:30 pm

farmerbraun says: February 27, 2014 at 10:08 pm
“The idea is clearly preposterous.”
Hello Farmer Braun,
Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval. The 30 year interval was selected by international agreement, based on the recommendations of the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.1
Climate Normals are the latest three-decade averages of climatological variables, including temperature and precipitation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
You’re flat out wrong farmer.
So, what else don’t you know?

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 10:33 pm

“Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says:
February 27, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Who is Walter K. ? Seems to have a lot to say.”
I have no idea. Might be a bored Al Gore or something of the sort.
Kudos to you, though, Mr. Moore. You clearly are getting under their skin. I am not much a fan of 24-news regardless of the political persuasion, but I hear you did a knock-out job. You’re making a great show for common sense and a more sensible environmental approach. Well done! You’re giving me, and millions more, hope for the future! 🙂

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 10:37 pm

[Trimmed. Again. We said to cut it out. Respond with numbers, measurements, or facts. Only. Mod]

HGW xx/7
February 27, 2014 10:38 pm

Mod…apologies. Just getting tired of emotion overriding actual facts. I let myself fall prey to that.
Sorry. I will tone it down and stick to the facts.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 11:00 pm

Russ Browne says: February 27, 2014 at 8:34 pm
“Walter K… If IPCC has lost then why did you just write an essay saying that Dr. Moore is wrong and that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?”
What I actually said was QUOTE:
“I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, and thus the ‘take away message’ coming from that, made by Dr. Moore.”
Please don’t twist that into something different. Use my words, not yours if you wish to critique my comments.
I mentioned with quotes where he misrepresented the actual facts about the IPCC, about past and future, and where and why his argument/s were fundamentally flawed and not logical. His opinion overall may be right, but his ‘argument” presented to the Committee was sophistry, rhetoric, opinion and not science. That’s MY opinion. It’s as valid as anyone’s, except I have backed it up with hard evidence and a well reasoned argument to support my case.
I believe Moore could have done better, but then comes the other obvious fact that given the IPCC and others have failed the last 25 years and the WUWT crowd have won the “public/political debate” then who cares anyway what is said to the Senate?
RE “that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?”
Not sure where you get that from. I never said anything like that. I think you’re making it up. Hang on I will check. …… NO, I said nothing like that anywhere. I really don’t like having words put in my mouth. It’s a real time waster. It’s a very bad look for those that do it. Kind of undermines their credibility publicly if they do it a lot.

Walter K.
February 27, 2014 11:12 pm

Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says: February 27, 2014 at 10:27 pm
“Who is Walter K. ?”
I AM
“Seems to have a lot to say.”
But you do not?
I have two eyes that can read, besides my fingers that can type.
Prove to me if anything I have said is incorrect or in any way flawed. I will acknowledge it.
If you cannot, then acknowledge your own errors as specifically detailed in my original comment.
It’s not rocket science Patrick. Good luck with it.

lee
February 27, 2014 11:14 pm

Walter K. says:
February 27, 2014 at 10:15 pm
lee says: February 27, 2014 at 10:03 pm
“Ok I’ve seen that.”
You are a LIAR – I am not an idiot. Jerk someone else’s chain.
BYE
What I meant was I saw the readings for Hobart and Sydney. Not sure about either “You are a LIAR – I am not an idiot” claim.

lee
February 27, 2014 11:18 pm

Walter K; BTW the other Sydney reading on which I relied is here-
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/links/temprec/sydney.htm

David L
February 27, 2014 11:19 pm

From Mann’s tweets:
@MichaelEMann well as the evidence in favour mounts then the denial becomes more and more last ditch, doesn’t it?
12:21pm – 27 Feb 14
Unless he’s talking about his denial of Mother Nature, what evidencd is he talking about?

pat
February 27, 2014 11:37 pm

note the disclosure:
27 Feb: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Global Warming Basics from the U.S. and British Science Academies
The National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, the Royal Society, have published “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes,” a fresh primer on greenhouse-driven global warming that is a useful update on past reports from both organizations. You can find helpful summaries of the findings on the National Academy of Sciences website…
Disclosure | I’ve been working with the National Academies Press to develop an online primer on global warming, similar to the “What You Need to Know About Energy” website. That work is unrelated to today’s events.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/global-warming-basics-from-the-u-s-and-british-science-academies/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
28 Feb: International Business Times: Investments in Renewable Energy Being Questioned Following Hiatus of Global Warming
by Esther Tanquintic-Misa
With the world now experiencing a slowing global warming, sceptics have started questioning the importance and necessity of the investments made into renewable energy by all member nations of planet Earth. But science bodies in the U.S. and UK assured the investments remain well in track as the warming hiatus is just temporary…
While there has been a short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface since the exceptionally warm 1998, that “does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising from human-induced changes in greenhouse gases,” according to a report by Britain’s Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Scientists continue to find the case for the warming hiatus. Some attributed it to the shifts in the oceans that are absorbing more heat from the atmosphere. Others suggested the sun-dimming volcanic eruptions or a lower output from the sun contribute to the slowdown.
If the Pacific winds were to be believed, the current hiatus could persist until nearly 2020…
Thirteen out of the 14 warmest years on record had been since 2000.
“I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/541008/20140228/renewable-energy-hiatus-global-warming-climate-change.htm

farmerbraun
February 27, 2014 11:37 pm

Walter K. says:
February 27, 2014 at 10:30 pm
“Hello Farmer Braun,
Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval.
You’re flat out wrong farmer.
So, what else don’t you know?”
So the phase change of the PDO (every 30 years or so) makes no difference to the climate?
Or the climate changes every 30 years or so?
Have it whichever way you like.
I know what a difference it makes in my operation.
So how does one decide when to start the 30 year period?

pat
February 27, 2014 11:42 pm

***nice timing!
27 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Ted Thornhill: Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is ‘no scientific proof’ climate change is manmade
Patrick Moore has poured cold water on manmade global warming theories
The Canadian said that a hotter earth would actually be better for humans
He said that there’s ‘no actual proof’ of manmade global warming
Moore was a member of campaign group Greenpeace for 15 years
***His latest comments came as two of the world’s leading scientific organisations warned that man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.
‘People do have persistent questions all about climate change,’ said study author Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. ‘This is a one-stop shop for many of those questions.’ …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html

David L
February 27, 2014 11:50 pm

Walter K. on February 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm
Dr. Strangelove says: February 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm
“If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.”
That notion is a very common misconception and misunderstanding in the public domain. Some would label it a “strawman” because it is totally disconnected from the actual argument being made by the other side. If you wish to prove someone’s arguments and claims are false, it always helps to get those accurate from the get go.
————–
Actually Walter, Dr. Strangelove is correct: you talk about the average global temperature as if it’s some sort if magical talisman. As a statistician leg me explain to you that it’s only a convenient mathematical construct to describe the central tendency of a distribution of data. On fact the average is only relevent if the data is normally distributed, which I could argue is not the case for temperatures on earth. Hear you’re dealing with at least a bimodal distribution of perennially hot regions and cold regions. I would argue it’s multimodal. So “average” actually is being incorrectly used.
However, let’s assume it is permissible to use the average as a measure of global “health”. It, just the central tendency of the entire distributiion; one still needs to keep in mind a measure of variance like the range or even better the standard deviation.
Meaningful shifts in the mean are essentially determined by their magnitude relative to the standard deviation. In other words, the variability within the distribution is still much larger than between the distributions (I.e the collection of temps before Human CO2 and the collection of temps after human CO2, which by the way hadn’t shifted for the past 17 years)
One thing often seems odd to me. People often play the “you’re not a climate scientist so they trump your ideas on climate by definition”. I can say the same thing; climate scientists aren’t statisticians so on any issue with differing opinion of statistics my option is correct and their’s isn’t. In fact it’s documented some of them don’t even know how to use excel.
In other words, statistically speaking (and here you have to simply trust my credentials as you simply trust climatologist credentials) Dr. Strangelove is correct and you are not.

pat
February 27, 2014 11:50 pm

27 Feb: Wall St. Journal: Pete Du Pont: Global Warming Heats Up
The public could use an honest debate.
Global warming is back. Not actual global warming, as the decade-long trend of little to no increase in temperatures continues. But the topic of global warming is back in the news. From Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent climate comments in Jakarta to the White House’s 2014 “year of action” plan on carbon emissions, global warming has garnered more ink and pixels than we’ve seen in a while.
It’s an open question whether this renewed emphasis reflects sincere concern about global warming or is just the Obama administration playing to part of its base prior to the midterm elections. Either way, the White House and the eco-left must be disappointed by polls that continue to show Americans do not share their sense of urgency. Even though many believe some warming exists and is at least partly anthropogenic, the vast majority consider it a low priority…
The warming alarmists might earn more support if they acted less like they had something to hide and actually allowed open debate. Perhaps they could respond to their critics rationally instead of reflexively branding them heretics, suitable for whatever is the modern university and research center equivalent of burning at the stake. Real science does not fear those who challenge it, does not work to have challengers’ articles banned from science journals, and does not compare skeptics to Holocaust deniers or, as Mr. Kerry did in Jakarta, members of the “Flat Earth Society.” …
A movement with confidence in its scientific theories would be able to admit there are many climate factors beyond carbon dioxide that are not yet well understood, and that some climate models have been shown to be unreliable. Such a movement would not downplay or whitewash leaked emails evincing the possibility of massaged data. When it criticizes its skeptics as hired guns of the fossil-fuel industry who are influenced by money, it would be willing to acknowledge that it thrives on government and private funding that would shrink if its research did not continue to say warming is here and getting worse. And there would be more confessions such as Al Gore’s belated acknowledgment that his support for ethanol was misguided…
All that might not be easy, but what comes next would be downright difficult. The alarmists must admit that every policy decision involves an equation and that polices directed at reducing carbon emissions come with costs. Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, just issued a study that points to European Union climate polices (renewable energy subsidies and mandates, as well as a carbon cap-and-trade scheme) as a significant reason the 27 EU nations pay on average more than twice what we pay in the U.S. per residential kilowatt-hour of electricity, with Germany paying three times as much. Following such policies in the U.S. would shrink our economy as it would cost more not just to run our homes, but to power our offices and factories and operate our schools and hospitals. It’s fine if the alarmists feel these higher costs and the impact on jobs and our economy are worth bearing, but they need to admit these negative impacts and justify them to the public…
Finally, the alarmists must admit that it is not certain their policies would significantly reduce the rising temperatures they predict. They need to admit that, for some of them, their policy prescriptions are really about control of our economy. Many want government control of the energy sector because they ideologically prefer it to free markets. Some want to stifle economic growth in America in a foolish and counterproductive attempt at achieving global economic equality…
The alarmists need to acknowledge their policies would sentence more of our world’s poor to poverty, disease and premature death.
To be sure, the science is not settled. The alarmists may be correct about projected warming. They may be correct that the costs of their proposed policies would be worth it if those policies avoid some of the negative impacts of that projected warming. If they truly feel they are right, they have an even greater responsibility to drop their insular and defensive attitude and debate these issues openly.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579408950141040072?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304709904579408950141040072.html

Patrick
February 27, 2014 11:52 pm

“Walter K. says:
February 27, 2014 at 9:41 pm”
Linking to the BoM is as much use as linking to Wikipedia and SkS, if you want any relaible information that is. We know the BoM changed the way they “measure” temperatures in Australia in 2013 and the way the BoM calculates a national average (Which is a completely meaningless. ~112 thermometers used to calculate that national average, 1 thermometer for every ~68,500 square kilometers). And 2013 was a record year. Well, in actual fact it wasn’t. Of course most of those “records” were readings at airports or in the middle of cities.

David L
February 27, 2014 11:53 pm

Ugh… Please excuse the typing and grammar mistakes in my prior post. This is why I hate blogging from my iPhone. Autocorrect and one finger typing are disasters.

darwin wyatt
February 28, 2014 12:10 am

During the warming, the cult asserted Alaska was a leading climate indicator. If Dr. Moore says the average global temp is 14.5 C and Alaska has cooled 2.5 degrees in the last decade doesn’t that indicate an ice age?

albertalad
February 28, 2014 12:33 am

Walter K
You are wrong on Australia heat wave. I quote: In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.
In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/20/australian-heatwaves-are-nothing-new/

February 28, 2014 12:47 am

Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says:
February 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm

It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited.

Patrick, you have several Wikipedia entries, in a number of languages. Most of them are properly encyclopaedic and neutral; they all cover some aspects of your story at varying levels of detail. The Latin entry is the most succinct: It just presents you a “naturae defensor” who has recently written much against “defensionis nature societates”. Comparing national Wikipedia entries is always fun.
I don’t know what the Suomi article says (it’s the only language that is completely opaque to me). Of all the rest, the English entry is the only hostile one, but I want to tell you something: to me, it reads like an accolade.

Walter K.
February 28, 2014 3:28 am

albertalad,
No I am not. The ref is irrelevant to the reality now. It’s you who doesn’t understand.
“heatwaves (add any other term) are nothing new” is a meaningless statement. claims of no temps pre 1910? equally wooly thinking. means nothing, disproves nothing. waste of time bringing it up.

Walter K.
February 28, 2014 3:31 am

Patrick,
That’s just irrelevant tin foil hat level talk. Not interested. Try it on someone else, won’t work on me, “refuting is futile” so said the Borg. thx anyway.

Patrick
February 28, 2014 3:45 am

“Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 3:31 am”
Can you refute anything in my post with actual fact? Did you “see” it? My guess is, like the BoM and “climate scientists”, IPCC, Wikipedia, SkS et al and you is that you can’t.

Walter K.
February 28, 2014 3:51 am

David L says: February 27, 2014 at 11:50 pm
“you talk about the average global temperature as if it’s some sort if magical talisman.” No, I did not. That’s your own misinterpretation of what I actually said. Doesn’t fit, won’t wear it.
“a convenient mathematical construct”, thanks but I knew this in junior high school. no biggy. I also know the difference between a mean and an average ok ….
““average” actually is being incorrectly used.” and yes, thanks but I spelled that out in my comment, have another look. “good enough” for my purposes re Strangelove’s presentation.
“Dr. Strangelove is correct ” no he isn’t. What he said in his post was 100% guaranteed falsehood. The climate does not work like that, neither do GMSTs nor location temperatures. Take your arguments elsewhere. Statistics, lousy arguments, sophistry, media spin, Mother Teresa, Al Gore, as well as climate scientists and the IPCC reports do NOT determine reality. It is what it is.

Patrick
February 28, 2014 3:51 am

@Walter K…your blog is irrelevant tin foil hat level talk! Go read some books!

Walter K.
February 28, 2014 4:03 am

Pat & 27 Feb: Wall St. Journal: Pete Du Pont: Global Warming Heats Up
“The public could use an honest debate.” […] “If they truly feel they are right, they have an even greater responsibility to drop their insular and defensive attitude and debate these issues openly.”
I, for what it is worth, 100% totally agree with those sentiments. Simply because it is true.

Walter K.
February 28, 2014 4:11 am

Patrick, no it’s not tin foil hat stuff. It’s real and very true, mixed with liberal doses of humour, ass kicking, and multiple references to relevant evidence and facts. Fine if it isn’t your cup of tea though. I read the 2216 pages of the AR5 WGI TS last October, and the rest by mid November, does that count as a book? It took some RC scientists until December to just get through the SPM, and then they didn’t like it. Go figure! Refs on my blog, check it out if you’re up to some intense critical thinking and psychology. 🙂

Patrick
February 28, 2014 4:16 am

“Walter K. says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:11 am”
Post what you have “seen”, rather the bloviate. Simples! Your blog is a waste of internet space! But hey…

Tapio Rantanen
February 28, 2014 4:20 am

Gene Selkov says:
February 28, 2014 at 12:47 am
‘I don’t know what the Suomi article says (it’s the only language that is completely opaque to me).’
I can assure you that the short Wikipedia entry on Dr Moore in Finnish (=Suomi) is absolutely neutral, in no way hostile.

Walter K.
February 28, 2014 4:21 am

farmerbraun says: “Or the climate changes every 30 years or so?”
No where did I, nor the referecned sites state that. So why do you make this stuff up now by presenting manipulative leading questions? You really believe I am going to answer? I said what I said, I quoted what “official” others say, if you have an issue why don’t you go argue with them? I don’t make the rules of the game.
You said to me when I mentioned the actual truth that: “Please tell us that you were just joking, and that there is absolutely no way that 30 years of data “adds up to a location’s “normal climate” . . . ‘ The idea is clearly preposterous.”
And still you refuse to admit what I said originally was true? Why is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance maybe? Or conscious intentional belligerence? Good luck with it, whatever it is, because it is not my fault.

Patrick