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
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.
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”.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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]
Who is Walter K. ? Seems to have a lot to say.
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!
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?
“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! 🙂
[Trimmed. Again. We said to cut it out. Respond with numbers, measurements, or facts. Only. Mod]
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.
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.
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.
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.