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
All frauds are eventually exposed. Well done, Dr. Moore, for helping that happen.
Walter K. says:
March 1, 2014 at 5:03 am
“That requires published science papers, peer reviewed, and strongly promoted and then supported and referenced by others over time. That isn’t happening. so just saying “there is no evidence for discernible AGW” is really meaningless – why? Because it changes nothing anywhere. Even if it is true, it is still meaningless .. see?
Right .
That’s why the statement was ” TO DATE (my bold) , there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities ,”.
The things that you list as requirements are in fact happening , but slowly. Give it another decade or so, and some surety may emerge, or it may not.
Walter K says:
My CV? An “appeal to authority” is your preference I see. You would only find another BOX to stick me in I suspect, given your track record thus far.
Ah. I see. No formal education in anything climate related. Next, Walter says:
Just assume I am in the top 6 to 2 percentile in all intelligence modes. heh
Walter appeals to authority:
“…published papers…” “…IPCC…” &etc. But papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations. The alarmist crowd never seems to have any real evidence to support their beliefs.
Walter would be much easier to take, if he simply responded to straightforward questions from the scientific skeptics here, such as: Do you have any measurable, testable scientific evidence showing the causality of CO2 on global temperatures?
That would go down a lot easier than telling other commenters, like the always polite NRG22:
“NRG22 again goes off half cocked”
And: “Blow me,”
And: “Thanks for confirming you’ve totally lost the plot and off on a happy joy ride through Psychosisland. – BYE give my best to the fairies”
And: Maybe you have heard of a ‘flame war’. This isn’t one yet, but if you wish to start one the best thing to do is throw are tin of gasoline on the embers and stick your nose into things that do not concern you. <–[This is Walter trying to start a flame war, no?
And: Don’t lean all over me like a drunk at 3am in a nightclub crying for a lift home from someone you don’t know. What crap.
And: That is simply BULLSHIT… You can shove it.
And numerous similar insults. Take away the insults, and Walter really doesn’t have much to say, does he? Robert in Calgary says this about Walter:
The pompous windbag is giving dbstealey advice on winning friends? Another keyboard commando desperate for visits.
Doubled and squared, Robert.
Walter says he was a manager. I can guess why he doesn’t say he is a manager. Because managers don’t last long treating others like dirt. Walter is clearly insecure. How could he not be, needing to put everyone down like that, in post after post? Well, that is Walter’s problem, and it’s a big one. But the problem we have here is getting Walter to calm down, and try to post measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is the cause of the current global warming — if he has any such evidence. If he does, he will be the first.
To mitigate Walter’s fear, looking at this chart I can count at least twenty other ‘hockey stick’ shapes that are indistinguishable from Michael Mann’s. The obvious conclusion is that the current climate is not unusual at all. Walter, of course, is frightened of the “carbon” scare. But it is obviously a false alarm. There is no scientific evidence that there is any kind of problem. None at all. Of course, I stand corrected if anyone can post verifiable evidence showing that X amount of CO2 causes Y temperature rise. But so far, no one has been able to find any such evidence. And of course CO2 has been much higher in the past, with no ill effects.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, farmerbraun says:
February 28, 2014 at 11:35 pm
“…there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”
That’s it in a nutshell. That is what the entire “carbon” scare is about. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. And thanks to John Who for quoting the correct conclusion of the tens of thousands of OISM co-signers: CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. There is no evidence for any global harm or damage from the rise in that beneficial trace gas. It’s all good.
Here is a quick story;
I had a neighbour. Unbelievable I.Q. I’m talking 160’s. We lived shoreline on a beautiful bay.
It was fall and the ice was freezing over the bay. I watched as this “genius” walked out to the edge of the ice in the middle of the bay. His significant other, who stayed well back ( I guess she wasn’t as smart), watched in horror, as did I. I mentally went over my checklist as to how to retrieve Mensa-dude safely. Fortunately, as soon as the water started rushing towards him, he turned and ran towards shore (right past his incredulous missus) at full gate.
I guess even the incredibly intelligent can look but not see.
Sadly, he was also socially incapable, to be kind.
Walter K, perhaps you might benefit from a little reading yourself.
http://www.amazon.ca/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393702296&sr=8-1&keywords=the+deliberate+corruption+of+climate+science
Or this one;
http://www.amazon.ca/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1393702439&sr=8-2&keywords=Donna+Laframboise
The anti-human stance is what is illogical.
Greenpeace co-founder demolishes liberals’ ‘cult-like’ agenda on global warming, climate change
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/28/greenpeace-co-founder-demolishes-liberals-cult-like-agenda-on-global-warming-climate-change-103690
Wow
dbstealey says:
March 1, 2014 at 11:10 am –
The quote is attributable to another well- known frequent poster on here. I did alter it slightly.
Dr. Moore before the US Senate states, the CO2 emission has no provable connection to climate change, so fuck CO2-reduction. On the other hand he promotes nuclear, because it is “the only reasonable way” to help reduce CO2 emission.
His company ‘Green Spirit’ is by it’s on definition a PR-consultancy.
He’s on the payrole of NEI and AP&P
– draw your conclusions.
The thing about Greenpeace and all the other environmentalists is this, they started us becoming aware of what we humans were doing to our planet. We by nature are polluters, and getting us to all be aware of what we had/ have been doing and started a movement to clean up our act is the most important thing to remember. Take politics out of the environment should allow us to concentrate on furthering a realistic approach to a sustainable energy that does not pollute our environment. Get this away from the politicians who only use things like this for their own politician gain, right or wrong, it is not important to them, only the power they are able to gain.
David Ball, it would be beneficial for you personally, if you believe the conclusions in those two books referenced, to educate yourself about the nature of logical fallacies, thinking critically, rational skepticism, evidence based argument versus manipulative rhetoric & pure sophistry, cognitive neuroscience, philosophy + logic + ethics, the advances in human reasoning since the enlightenment, and thus teaching yourself how to recognize, in an instant, the intellectually dishonest and the incompetent narcissistic attention seekers of this world. Yours, Walter.
Kim D M Simmons says:
The thing about Greenpeace and all the other environmentalists is this, they started us becoming aware of what we humans were doing to our planet.
What was being done was known long before Greenpeace ever existed. My father was a member of Ducks Unlimited [DU]since the late 1930’s. DU was started by hunters, who were the original conservationists. They bought and preserved wetlands because without them, ducks disappear.
Maybe you only became aware of environmental issues since Greenpeace appeared. But that does not mean there weren’t plenty of environmentalists and conservationists in America. You could read up on John Muir and others.
Greenpeace has simply lost it’s way. It became infiltrated by those cast adrift when the Berlin Wall came down. The “greens” are controlled by the FSB [which used to be the KGB before the Soviet empire imploded].
Environmentalism has been hijacked. It is now political. You don’t see Greenpeace members getting out and restoring wetlands. That is still being done by conservationist groups like Ducks Unlimited.
If you want to take politics out of the environment, you can stop supporting Greenpeace. They care about as much for the environment as the average East German commissar did.
dbstealey says: March 1, 2014 at 11:10 am
Walter K says: My CV? An “appeal to authority” is your preference I see. You would only find another BOX to stick me in I suspect, given your track record thus far.
— “Ah. I see. No formal education in anything climate related. ”
Really? I sit at the table throwing you crumbs and you believe it and then draw unfounded conclusions based on what someone said to you on the “internet”.
Next point, and if I presented a hard and fast CV listing multiple expertise in climate this would still be rejected anyway by dbstealey, who ahs already rejected out of hand the 9,000 climate related sceitists who wrote the Papers that informed the summary provided by the IPCC in Sept 2013.
One more “climate scientist” will make difference to dbstealey’s opinions and faulty thinking processes. He cannot even manage an intelligent dialogue on WUWT, or work out what is being said. Some ‘intelligent expert’ is he.
I have it on good authority dbstealey that despite your own narcissistic beliefs about your own superiority in thinking skills and expertise level that in fact you are as dumb as dirt. The authority for this statement of fact is your very onw self, who has provided all the evidence required to draw such a self-evident conclusion. Yet here he is on WUWT presuming he has something of value to share or teach others. This is exactly what self-delusion looks like in practice. Well done dbstealey for succinctly exposing your own short-comings here.
RE : Next, Walter says: Just assume I am in the top 6 to 2 percentile in all intelligence modes.
“heh Walter appeals to authority:”
Yet dbstealey linking to his own “background” via his name, and then ASKING FOR MY CV is some how NOT not “appeal to authority” when it is the exact same thing. You really area stupid little child who is totally out of your depth here in this conversation.
Work out what it is you wish to do here dbstealey – do you want to know my background and level of lifetime expertise, IQ functioning skills and education level or do you not. You cannot have it both ways by then criticizing one for partly doing so to only BITCH about it and RIDICULE IT PUBLICLY. Were you drunk dbstealey when you wrote your response? It sure appears as if you are. If you are not, then god help you.
RE – “…published papers…” “…IPCC…” &etc. But papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations. The alarmist crowd never seems to have any real evidence to support their beliefs.” —
Well well, now that is totally INSANE and disconnected from reality. The evidence for the conclusions set out in the Abstracts are in the Papers which detail the research of the “raw data and empirical observations” in every climate science related Paper ever done. Anyone who had completed an undergraduate course even slightly climate science related would already KNOW THIS IS THE CASE .. and would not be on WUWT lying though their teeth, being intellectually dishonest and sprouting disingenuous untrue crap about the Science.
For example the IPCC AR5 WGI reports alone drew upon and summarized the the finding of all the accumulated EVIDENCE contained in ~30,000 Papers researched and prepared by ~9,000 individual scientists. That is the truth of it.
The dumb as dirt dbstealey then proceeds to LIE about this FACT by falsely claiming that: “papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations.”
WHICH IS TOTALLY, PROVABLY, SELF-EVIDENTLY FALSE – THIS IS PUBLICLY LYING ABOUT THE TRUTH OF IT. It is mythology at work, cultist thinking at work, denial at work. For this is not Skepticism nor Scientific evidence thought at work here. It is discarding the factual evidence in favour of self-delusions and emotional Biases. It is fabricated BULLSHIT being sprouted by an abject “climate moron” incapable of thinking for himself, let alone guiding others. This is provably so, this is not ad hominem based but the HARD FACT of the matter.
Walter would be much easier to take, if he simply responded to straightforward questions from the scientific skeptics here, such as: Do you have any measurable, testable scientific evidence showing the causality of CO2 on global temperatures?
dbstealey, given you have already abandoned over 100 years of accumulated scientific evidence presenting another atom of it here is a waste of every’s time. Are you stupid or something? Maybe you just love the attention living on an internet blog pretending you are far smarter than you are gaining the kudos from equally disingenuous narcissistic ideological fools who know as little as you do, have abandoned the scientific method as you have, but still imagine you have the MIRACLE answers for everyone else in the world.
Yes, apparently you are stupid, clearly you are. I am not playing your childish little games here …. I am in charge of this tete a tete, and it is I whom is writing what I choose to write and when I write it, and how I write. You sir, am not in control here. Not by a long shot.
So dbstealey “Blow me!”
RE “Walter says he was a manager. I can guess why he doesn’t say he is a manager. ”
Again this shows the limits of your cognitive thinking skills. Zero squared. Making shit up and living your life in a fantasy land of make believe and presumption and delusions is your free choice. Likely, you have no way of understanding what I just said there either. C’est la Vie.
RE “Walter is clearly insecure. How could he not be, needing to put everyone down like that, in post after post?”
wow, deep! Not. You are not used to people standing up to your incessant inanities and manipulations and calling you on it to your face. Not here and not in your normal life either. You are not used to someone who responds to ridicule and insults and other kinds of mind games by going for the throat whilst calling it for what it is – knowing exactly what he is doing and why.
Don’t confuse the man behind the pixels, but of course you will anyway. As I said dbstealey, man, you are totally out of your depth here, you’re drowning and I am not going to throw you a life jacket. Drown man, you will drown in your own bullshit here without any help from me.
RE “…getting Walter to calm down”
ROTFLMFAO …… don’t kid yourself. Oops, too late already.
Climate change related scientists do climate science for a living. Surprise! Articles. Presentations. Workshops. Conferences. Staying late at night to work for science. Working on the weekends for science. All of those crappy holidays like Presidents’ Day? The ones you look forward to for that day off of work? Those are not holidays for most scientists. Those are the days when the undergrads stay home and the scientists can work without endless distractions.
Now take a second before you drop your knowledge bomb on this page and remind me again… What’s your day job? When was the last time you read through an entire scholarly article on climate change? How many climate change journals can you name? How many conferences have you attended? Have you ever had coffee or a beer with a group of colleagues who study climate change? Are you sick of these inane questions yet, or should I keep going?
I’m a scientist that studies how ecological systems respond to climate change. I would never presume to tell a climate scientist that their models are crap. I just don’t have the depth of knowledge to critically assess their work and point out their flaws. And that’s fair, because they don’t have the depth of knowledge in my area to point out my flaws. Yet, here we are, with deniers and apologists with orders of magnitude less scientific expertise, attempting to argue about climate change. There’s so much nonsense here almost anyone could intellectually drown in it within 3 minutes.
When I made my last post Friday night I decided a good way to deal a “Walter” type – go have a fantastic weekend ( -40C with the wind, in contrast to his threat to “flame” me – so scary!) and give Walter the worst punishment possible – ignore him.
FYI
“(a) Sherwood et al (2014) and Fasullo & Trenberth (2012) show that the most likely value for ECS is about 4.5 degrees C instead of the assumed mean value of 3 degrees C; therefore, you should multiply the old projections by a factor of about 1.5, due to the low amount of cloud cover near the equator.
(b) Pistone et al. (2014) shows that the decrease in Arctic albedo (including land snow, sea ice and black carbon effects) beyond that previously assumed results in additional radiative forcing equal to ¼ of the CO₂ in the atmosphere.
(c) Schuur & Abbott (2011) shows that the permafrost emits about 2% of its carbon emissions as methane instead of as CO₂ (as assumed by AVOID), and as over a one hundred year period, methane has a global warming potential at least 35 times that of CO₂, this means at least a 70% error in the carbon emissions from the permafrost degradation. See also Monday et al. (2014) and Isaksen et al. (2011).
(d) Cowtan & Way (2013); England et al. (2014); Santer et al (2014); and Rosenfeld (2014); all provide solid evidence that the current mean global temperature has been masked by such causes as: limited data; the negative phase of the PDO cycle; volcanoes, and aerosols, respectively. Furthermore, once corrections are applied to the GCM projections to account for these masking mechanisms, one will find that the ECS is actually higher than previously assumed, which supports my points (a), (b) and (c).
(e) Hansen et al. (2013) and Previdi (2013) show that the inclusion of slow-response feedback mechanisms can cause Earth Systems Sensitivity to be as high as 6 degrees C (while work such as Pistone et al. (2014) shows that the “slow response” feedback mechanisms are occurring very quickly).”
That’s called science. It’s being done by real trained scientists. There work the raw data, the assumptions, the theory, the analysis, the conclusions is always being checked by others. It is never “perfect”, it doesn’t have to be. It does not have to be all inclusive of every aspect about everything climate nor everything scientific ever written or that might be written. It doesn’t have to be forever true until hell freezes over either. Science builds upon itself over time, both from errors and from being right. All other genuine scientists learn from the prior work of others. They advance that previous work with MORE evidence and good science, or they undermine the validity of past science in the very same way. Over time all of this is shared between scientists and they continue their individual work.
Then one day the IPCC (which I consider to be somewhat flawed in it’s structure and practices and resources provided – along with the fact that it’s work gets interfered with by national governments part of the UNFCCC) draws a time-line in the sand and begins a process of reviewing and collating all recent science papers on climate science produced since their last report, and try and make a summary out of it for the benefit of Policy Makers in National Governments who set up the system in the first place. AS such the IPCC is a governments created body that is intrinsically a part of the Geopolitical system. That’s where self-interest bashes up against self-intertest.
Ya wanna learn about the evidence for climate change – go read the individual papers upon which it is based upon, stop being a lazy gullible fool and simply cut out the middle men.
IOW go direct to the source yourself and see what they say and why they say it, and use your own common sense.
Cross check the claims made by the IPCC, the talking heads online, the Dr Moore’s who rock up Senate hearings, the intellectually challenged like dbstealey et al here, plus ignore the politicians (pro or con) and PR media hacks most of whom have NEVER read an SPM let alone the 2,216 pages of the AR5 WGI Technical Summary!
Well if ya want to, but I suspect most do not, or you wouldn’t be wasting all your time here to begin with.
Walter
Walter K makes the same mistake over and over again: Papers are not scientific evidence. Computer models are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence consists of raw data and empirical [real world] observations.
There is no scientific evidence proving that X amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere causes Y degrees of global warming. None at all.
But there is plenty of scientific evidence showing that X degrees of temperature change causes Y change in atmospheric CO2. I can prove it. But why bother? Walter’s religious Belief will not allow him to accept it. Walter even believes that CO2 is pollution. As if! heh
Climate alarmists like Walter began with an incorrect premise. Therefore, their conclusion will necessarily be wrong. Simple logic. ∆CO2 does not cause ∆T. Rather, ∆T causes ∆CO2. The alarmist crowd has confused causality, so they arrived at the wrong conclusion.
When you cut out all the swivel-eyed pseudo-scientific nonsense and personal insults, it is clear that Walter believes in pal-reviewed papers and computer models, over real world observations. Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. It is completely different than what Walter believes. They cannot both be right.
FYI
You, yes you, have never, not once in your life, ever learnt something new that was really worthwhile (such as learning to ride a bicycle), and has served you for the rest of your life unless you were pushed far beyond your comfort zone!
Another hard fact is that every human being faces the challenges of dealing with their own Biases and their own Cognitive Dissonance. It’s unconscious purpose and reason for being is to keep YOU inside your *comfort zone*.
The older to live the more powerful the Cognitive Dissonance. This isn’t just a fanciful theory, it is pure Cognitive Neuroscience and deeply researched Psychology. It’s been knows for many decades that it exists and how it works within the psychological and emotional make up of human beings.
To learn about this, is in your own personal benefit. To be aware of when Cognitive Dissonance is occurring, to recognize it and then take appropriate action to look deeper at the triggers can only help you and those you love and may care about personally. Wiki is entry level research – start there and continue to more advanced scientific papers about this in Google Scholar and elsewhere and also any books that take your fancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
SUCCEEDING ON DISCUSSION FORUMS – HOT TIP
November 2013 Radio Interview – Writer and critic Richard King believes that people have become too quick to take offence. Richard argues in his new book that there is a new mood of self-pity and self-righteousness. People are now more likely to parade their hurt feelings in public, which is poisoning debate. Richard says freedom of speech means nothing without the freedom to offend. His book: “On Offence: The Politics of Indignation” is published by Scribe.
Review: The offence offensive http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/09/19/3852063.htm
1 hr Audio Podcast: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/11/18/3893227.htm
We are always Biased towards Ourselves. In fact we are consistently Biased towards ourselves, our beliefs, our own opinions and values. The way we perceive ourselves and others can influence how we respond to contested issues, including climate change. However, these perceptions are subject to cognitive biases or distortions as we attempt to make sense of the world around us.
Our mis-perceptions about what others think about climate change extend to mis-perceptions about what others do. Research shows these Biases extend far beyond our political opinions, scientific knowledge, or climate change issues. Most of us tend to think we are always better than others. As if it was ‘hard-wired’ into us and out of our control.
The “better than average effect” describes our predisposition to think of ourselves as exceptional, especially among our peers. The effect reflects our tendency to think of ourselves as more virtuous and moral, more compassionate and understanding, and ironically even less Biased than other people!
In a famous example, when people were asked to assess their own driving ability relative to peers, more than three-quarters of people considered themselves to be safer than the average driver. Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.
Successful people tend NOT to place the reasons on their success upon their birth circumstances, nor the opportunities and benefits not afforded to others, nor the degree of wealth of their parents. Primarily wealthy successful people state that it is their own personal skills, work ethic, and dedication to their goals that is substantially responsible for their own success and that anyone else could have done this. They believe that those who fail or are poor is because of their own bad choices and their lack of personal drive and so on.
Ongoing research is trying to find out what it is about wealth — or lack of it — that makes people behave they way they do. Every where we go, whatever we do, good science has been consistently telling us all, and for a very very long time, that we are not as ‘smart’ as we believe we are.
Science References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.269/pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1743.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201304
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/38/2/209.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691881900056
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365029352/
How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful:
Noam Chomsky & Glenn Greenwald Oct 2011
How can we come together to address this challenge which has become a partisan political issue in the United States in a way it has not elsewhere in the world? Professor Dan Kammen, an internationally recognized energy policy expert, and Mr.Tom Steyer, business leader and investor, discuss where we are now, the solutions at hand, the barriers we face, and what must happen to “overcome the partisan divide” to speed the transition to a sustainable planet. – 1h30m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uua_OEW2QY
You are more than welcome. We all live and learn. Well maybe not ‘all’, after all.
Walter
As I said, ‘Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. It is completely different than what Walter believes. They cannot both be right.’
I’ve been posting here about Festinger’s Seekers for years. The cognitive dissonance exhibited by Mrs. Keech appears to be no different than that displayed by current believers in the “carbon” scare.
When Planet Earth tells me that CO2 causes global warming, I will listen and accept her verdict. But it must be based on evidence, not on Belief.
Re. Walter, et al:
These are interesting times. Not since emperors backed competing Christologies have ideological battle lines been so clearly drawn. Darwin versus Genesis never came close. Now we have heathen against heathen, Christian against Christian, Moor against Moor and Jew against Jew. Heresies and counter heresies are marshaled and published. Because salvation hangs in the balance. I failed to stand up for the polar bears and now there’s nobody left to stand up for me.
Who are the creationists now? Hansen and Gore, with their 5m SLR by 2100 or the BAU bunch with their 3mm forever? Time and tides will tell and are telling. Climate doom and destruction used to be fodder of prophets of a bygone morality. The new morality is…is…what is it? Drive less? Fly less? Not really. Nobody drives and flies like Gore and Mann and Jones and all the other exponents of doom. But the messengers must have their wings. But what is the new morality if it does not encompass some identifiable behavior? Is it merely confession? Troth, as Eve’s offspring I share her guilt. I am evil by birth, inclined by nature to burn the remains of ancient ferns and cycads.
May I have my ticket now, or must I pedal my bike to Patagonia? Is there no sacrament beyond confession, no penance to make straight my wayward soul? How may I know I am saved, or must I be damned with all humanity? How can I wash away my loathsome carbon footprints?
I will pedal my bike to Patagonia. No, I will paddle my kayak to Sitka and fish and burn firewood and forsake my former evil ways. If a lost and hungry polar bear finds me I will let him eat me. That should save my soul. I will die a martyr for the cause.
But I digress. Heterodoxy beckons. Heresy even. North of Sitka GIA is an inch per year–10 times the rate of SLR–fastest in the world. It’s recovering from the LIA, you see, like Exit Glacier up near Anchorage, and Jorge Montt Glacier down in Patagonia. Of course the catechism of climate doom taught me my bad breath and dirty exhaust were responsible for all this melting. I’m beginning to doubt. Help me. –AGF
AGF,
Whenever they try to scare me, I remember this:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
~Prof R. Lindzen, Climatologist
Dep’t Head, Atmospherics
Mass. Inst. of Technology
Relax. Global warming isn’t gonna getcha.
[snip – rephrase and resubmit sans the anger and insults please – Anthony]
Cognitive dissonance looks like this:
[trimmed]
Have you no self respect nor any self-awareness left?
dbstealey carries on with the bible bashing rhetoric that makes zero rational sense. “.. over real world observations. Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. It is completely different than what Walter believes. They cannot both be right.”
Yes they are both right. It’s you dbstealey and your co-believers who are clinically blind to the world and intentionally choose to see nothing. Ostrich syndrome:101
We’re “clinically blind”?
Hm-m-m. I see… ☺
[snip – rephrase and resubmit sans the anger and insults please – Anthony]
It’s called ‘mocking up’ emotional vigor Anthony. No anger involved, pointed disrespectful insults towards the disingenuous lightweight, yes. Not worth resubmitting, besides I don’t know which one you deleted out. I will do better, even though some people (both pro/con CC) really do need a slap to the face to either wake them up and stop them being hysterical over nothing. 🙂
I really have issues with people who put words in my mouth and cannot read simple English. A stone in my shoe, but anger? Nope. I deal with passive aggressiveness overtly. I like to get things out in the open so they can be seen by all for what they really are.
RE : March 2, 2014 at 8:23 pm Cognitive dissonance looks like this:
[trimmed] Have you no self respect nor any self-awareness left?
That, Anthony is extremely unfair and unjustified editing. [Note: there are other moderators here. Anthony signs his comments. This mod is also different from the one who ‘trimmed’ your comment above. Perhaps you should look at why you are being continually corrected. —mod.]
The Airbus A380 did fly as a direct result of computer models. That’s science in action. Doesn’t mean GCMs etc are perfect …. and can’t be improved, but they do not need to be 100% perfect on every single minute thing that occurs in the global climate to present a scientific verified PROOF of X. They are STILL VALID SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.
Denying computer models are not science is taking humanity back to the Dark Ages and witch burning. It’s dbstealey untruths and disinformation that require editing.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion under the Law, but they are NOT entitled to their own FACTS nor the public defamation of others based on such untruths. That is not how life or science operates. Or the Law. The USA system does not determine my (and others) personal legal rights under the Law of Libel and Defamation etc either. You should make your users aware of this legal fact.
Thanks Anthony, all in all, good site and well served by you. You’re far more competent than Schmidt at RC is. That would be easy. LOL Thanks Walter.