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
Walter K; BTW the other Sydney reading on which I relied is here-
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/links/temprec/sydney.htm
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?
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
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?
***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
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.
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
“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.
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.
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?
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/
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says:
February 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
@Walter K…your blog is irrelevant tin foil hat level talk! Go read some books!
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.
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. 🙂
“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…
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.
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.
Walter K is going to keep digging that “climate” hole, isn’t “he”?
Patrick, rather the bloviate?
When in Rome …………
You have not read much of the blog yet have you? It’s designed to keep the riff raff away, not invite them in to stay and never leave.
Patrick says: “Can you refute anything in my post with actual fact?”
Yes, but it is old news to me, and I don’t go over old territory again, and again and again. You said nothing I had not seen before and thoroughly researched. Like over 6 months ago now. Enough is enough, I have nothing to prove. Believe what you wish. My comments stand even if you don’t like them.