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 says:
I really have issues with people who put words in my mouth and cannot read simple English. … 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.
Let’s parse that.
Walter is projecting. He is actually putting words in my mouth: I never said that models are not science. In fact, I have written many times that models are at the conjecture stage of the scientific method [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law]. What I wrote was that models are not scientific evidence. That is entirely different than what Walter is claiming.
A model is not evidence! Evidence consists of raw data, and empirical [real world] observations. Those are scientific evidence. Models are not. Anyone can program a model. Anyone can write a paper. But neither is evidence.
When/if Mother Earth gives us evidence that humans cause measurable global warming, I for one will sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, there is no such measurable evidence.
Skeptics have a job, per the Scientific Method: attempt to falsify all conjectures and hypotheses. One method is to show that there is no evidence of catastrophic AGW [and no evidence of AGW for that matter — even though I personally think that CO2 probably has some small effect at current concentrations].
Walter’s ‘issues’ stem from his projection: accusing others of his own faults. He is putting words in my mouth — the very thing he pretends is happening to him. And it is all based on the fact that there is no measurable evidence for any human-caused global warming. None at all.
Sorry Walter, that’s a fact.
agfosterjr, that was really entertaining. seriously it was. YOu have a goo sense of humour about al this. Good.
RE “Who are the creationists now? Hansen and Gore, with their 5m SLR by 2100 or the BAU bunch with their 3mm forever?”
That is a very good point to raise. Gore’s AIT movie caused unnecessary problems and distractions. I wish he never did it. It wasn’t sanctioned by the IPCC nor other bodies. How he chose to present it was his own call and those who encouraged him. The fact remains though no matter what he put in that film has any co-relation to the actual science as found in the work of the thousands of scientists who have recorded their research and conclusions in published Papers. That is far more complex, far more nuanced and well thouhout out than a simple film or series of lectures by Al Gore or anyone, from whatever angle.
Far more expert and well balanced and sanguine documentaries about various aspects to the climate have been done since 2007. Gore, Hansen, et al have no impact on the validity of those.
RE “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?”
OK, then. Here is a real life example of genuine climate scientists walking their talk for over a decade. Quietly and clearly while their peers carry on like jackasses.
“Acknowledging our contribution to the problem isn’t enough — otherwise it’s just rhetoric. We must act and model the behavior we hope for ourselves and others. ”
By way of example for those who haven’t seen it, here is Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows-Larkin example (i’view at COP19): (links go direct to video time)
KA “I haven’t flown in 8 years”
– they both caught the train from Manchester to Warsaw
http://youtu.be/gEQ7cOUjwgM?t=1m4s
– about KA’s train trip to China and back
http://youtu.be/gEQ7cOUjwgM?t=21m21s
Alice Bows-Larkin responds to an Al Gore comment on individual action:
http://youtu.be/gEQ7cOUjwgM?t=14m0s
An out-take of James Hansen from 2009 about civil resistance, moral responsibility, inter-generational injustice, and comment by KA on the scientific community thus far:
http://youtu.be/gEQ7cOUjwgM?t=15m50s
KA on historical responsibility of USA, UK, EU nations:
“We knew about this in the mid-80s and at the Rio Summit of 1992, now 21 years later we have done absolutely nothing about it”
http://youtu.be/gEQ7cOUjwgM?t=19m55s
Walter
Sorry, what a screw up technology can be. I used url links to specific video timing, but all the above just start form the beginning. Can you please fix this for me? as in delete the last post and redo it?
I’ll try again, hopefully the moderator can fix these to appear properl? Thanks very much if you can. Walter
I am breaking the links apart with single spaces
KA “I haven’t flown in 8 years”
– they both caught the train from Manchester to Warsaw
http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=1m4s
– about KA’s train trip to China and back
http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=21m21s
Alice Bows-Larkin responds to an Al Gore comment on individual action:
http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=14m0s
An out-take of James Hansen from 2009 about civil resistance, moral responsibility, inter-generational injustice, and comment by KA on the scientific community thus far:
http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=15m50s
KA on historical responsibility of USA, UK, EU nations:
“We knew about this in the mid-80s and at the Rio Summit of 1992, now 21 years later we have done absolutely nothing about it”
http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=19m55s
[All links are present and understandable. Mod]
dbstealey “Skeptics have a job, per the Scientific Method: attempt to falsify all conjectures and hypotheses.”
Sorry dbstealey , that is the job for scientists working in the specific field. It’s NOT your job, nor anyone else’s to be part-time “skeptics”.
If you are a qualified scientist, then do the research and publish your own paper that scientifically proves where all the rest are wrong. Using the scientific method which currently you only giving lip service too. Sounds lovely, but it remains meaningless illogic nevertheless.
All you are doing is playing politics. That’s it. In the process you consciously and unconsciously ignore the actual science. That isn’t being skeptical — that’s only denial and ideological politics and myth making. Leave the science to the scientists. The politics then decides what should be done about it, if anything. There everyone has an opinion and it’s valid to offer one up.
BUT, you do not get to decide what the science actually presents as based upon the evidence. Ever. That isn’t the scientific method at all.
Ignoring evidence does not make it go away just because you or Monckton or even Linzden says it does. That ain’t science. . Individual radical outlier scientists who publish papers that no body reads nor accepts is not a valid counter-argument to the other 30,000 papers that support each others findings on multiple lines.
The exception however does prove the rule. The difference in this following example is that their proof was overwhelming and it was almost immediately accepted as valid across the globe by ((% of all other scientists and doctors working in the field of “stomach ulcers”. The drug companies took much longer to come around. They lost an entire ready made market eventually.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4304290.stm
Truth travels slow. Lies move as quick as lightening.
Walter
dbstealey: “He is putting words in my mouth”
If this is so, please provide direct quotes where this is the case. Show me where I have done this and I will withdraw, and correct the record. But do provide the evidence for it. Clearly and simply as possible.
Walter
“Perhaps you should look at why you are being continually corrected. —mod.]”
continually? Oh please, two rain drops doesn’t make a flood. I was corrected, and I accepted it with no problem and explained with some “humour”. The second one is as I have said “extremely unfair and unjustified editing”
Yet you only wish to mention and complain because I made the egregious error of wrongly assuming it was Anthony again. I am so very sorry about that -mod. Won’t happen again -mod.
I’ll look at the site to find where I report people who insult me, but are not ‘moderated’ at all.
Best, Walter 🙂
RE “Walter even believes that CO2 is pollution. As if! heh”
If you really want to put me on the spot, well I believe that pollution is pollution. Pollution can contain CO2 or not contain CO2, but it is still pollution.
Denying pollution is really pollution, relabeling pollution as suddenly being “beneficial” is how much reality and reason is being turned on it’s head in the 21st Century. You’d think people would automatically know better, but this is actually not the case. Be it over Iraq and WMD, removing financial regulations to open the way for a global financial crisis that almost sent civisation over the edge in 2008, or today’s newest version lies that the gases pouring out of power stations, jet engines and motor cars is miraculously no longer pollution anymore.
This is the neo-world of a dbstealey et al reside in today. They will never convince a chinaman that what engulfs Beijing and other cities is not pollution but something which is beneficial to the environment. They know better. Not that it matters. So long as the big lie is repeated and repeated, all is well in Neo-World Land.
In this new-world Healthy Forests means cutting down trees and clear felling old growth forest. Clear Skies means hamstringing the EPA and allowing more pollution. Energy Independence means destroying the landscape and farming communities, interfering with underground aquifers and poisoning the natural environment forever. Nothing to see here.
It’s all good, everything is beneficial in a Neo-World addicted to New Speak and infested with nefarious Propaganda of the powerful and rich. dbstealey eats this for breakfast every day and loves it.
About dbstealey – Retired from a 30 year career working in a metrology [science of measurement using physical standards traceable to N.I.S.T.] lab, calibrating temp, humidity, data logger and similar instruments.
Equivalent of a dental assistant, or a maker of dentures, or an IT Technician in a Government Dept., or an electronics technician who checks that security systems for Banks. I am sure he worked hard, paid all his bills and taxes, and hope he is now enjoying his retirement and the fruits of his long labor. Maybe he ended up as the senior Manager of his “lab”.
Don’t know. Doesn’t matter either, as it’s my own CV which is dubious and questionable see, because I am no climate scientist and shouldn’t be listened to. I didn’t wear a “lab coat” see, I only wore an Italian Suit and Tie and flew first class!
What is “metrology”? Calibration and Metrology Training Courses
http://us.flukecal.com/training?geoip=1 will tell you and teach you. Almost anyone can do it.
Robert in Calgary, ignoring the content and the context of what I wrote says: “…in contrast to his threat to “flame” me – so scary!”
This is another of many examples of ‘putting words in mouth” that were never said. Which was: “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 a tin of gasoline on the embers and stick your nose into things that do not concern you.”
Since when did education about someone else’s behavior and missteps become a “threat” in Robert’s mind?
Whilst Robert in Calgary is perfectly OK, by the -mods standards, to say “pompous windbag” and Poor Walter attached to a *blowhard*.jpg url … totally side-stepping all the content actually addressed to the ‘misrepresentations’ and faulty logic in Dr Moore’s piece and open for mature discussion or questioning as proven in the thread already.
To wit Walter K. says: February 28, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Robert in Calgary, *blow ;;;!* Ya can lead a horse to water ……….
Meanwhile … the -mod says: [Note: More comments like this and your posts will be deleted. ~mod.]
That simply does not look rational nor fair or equitable to me. Seems awfully biased and totally ignores the original perpetrator, bully and insults given.
If one has NO RIGHTS to defend themselves against egregious insults, offensive behavior and childish ridicule here .. IN KIND … then by all means delete my posts, because it just goes to show what little value truth and honesty and reason and the facts are afforded here.
Bias Reigns Supreme. Do as we say, not as we do.
Walter
Maybe the `-mods and Andrew may like to discuss among themselves constructive ideas to get commenters making comments about the actual material content, references, and meaning contained in people’s posts, as opposed to the non-stop ad hominem gutter sniping going on?
There’s a tip from a 18 year veteran of online discussion groups. It’s a freebie. Use it wisely. 🙂
No point attacking the victim and blaming them for responding in kind (to a far higher standard of quality insults and satire) while the gutless bullies in the school yard get off scot free.
Unless you like it like this, and well then of course have at it. 🙂
Wally sez:
…that is the job for scientists working in the specific field. It’s NOT your job, nor anyone else’s to be part-time “skeptics”.
Who elected you to be the judge, Wally?
Scientific skepticism is open to anybody. No one insisted on skeptic qualifications from a Swiss patent clerk, who wrote to a group of Russians disputing his Theory of Relativity: “It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, but only one fact.”
And:
“I didn’t wear a ‘lab coat’ see, I only wore an Italian Suit and Tie and flew first class!”
Ooh. With an exclamation point, too. And I’m just sure nobody called you a pompous ass behind your back. Certainly not the employees you treated like crap before you were put out to pasture…
And:
What is “metrology”?
Hint: It’s not the same as meteorology. But I’m sure you’ll say you knew that. ☺
Wally, you are a parody. Your ‘arguments’ amount to nasty name-calling, insinuations and projection. You make fun of people due and insult them because of your insecurity. Yes, I wore a lab coat, and I am proud of it. And no, I didn’t wear italian suits except to weddings and funerals or dates with my wife, because I am not insecure or trying to impress people who don’t matter. See, I did the metrology work, and I did a very good job designing, calibrating, testing and fixing all manner of weather related scientific instruments.
I learned a lot over the decades, and the test instrument manufacturers sent our lab all the latest information. We watched as the scare du jour went from global cooling, to global warming. But interestingly, the planet acts exactly as if everything observed is natural and well within past parameters. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening, despite all the wild-eyed Chicken Little arm-waving.
You can win this debate, Wally me boi. Just post verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing the specific, measured degree of global warming that results from X molecules of human-emitted CO2 added to the atmosphere. Easy-peasy… if you have measurable scientific evidence. If you do, you will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize. So, good luck…
Otherwise, you lose the debate.
“mirroring” intentionally using “mock ups”. Ever heard of it?
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
What to do when the Romans then complain about all this “roman like” behavior?
A weird quandary to be in.
————————————
Walter K. says: February 27, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Hello, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, …..
————————————-
Misc Romanesc responses include:
your holier-than-thou pontificating
Walter (anonymous) K
take exception to your rant
the final nail in your coffin.
put down the crack pipe
you are ranting.
screaming that you speak as an authority on matters
—
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. [data sources were provided in full] – Ok I’ve seen that. And as I said records are made to be broken.
—
BWAHAHA!
The idea is clearly preposterous. [source 1=”provided” 2=”in” 3=”full” 4=”-” 5=”statement” 6=”was” 7=”proven” 8=”true” 9=”-” 10=”response” 11=”acknowledgement” 12=”still” 13=”zero” language=”data”][/source]
MOD – [rest trimmed. Cut it out, both of you. Discuss the numbers, the facts, the measurements. Nothing else. Mod]
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says: “Who is Walter K. ? Seems to have a lot to say.”
to have a meltdown
Might be a bored Al Gore
you talk .. as if it’s some sort if magical talisman.
You are wrong on Australia heat wave.
irrelevant tin foil hat level talk
Post what you have “seen”, rather the bloviate.
going to keep digging
does not want to know
CO2 danger zone, Redistribution Cult
cult voters
the fake stool they sit so cult like upon.
As for name-calling, I do my share and I apologize for that
Sorry Walter K for putting words in your mouth.
all going to fry
posts zero reports of killing cold
selective cherry-picking
scary propaganda and his demonization of “carbon”
fake veneer
comments like Walter K’s irk me.
Walter, First, thanks for taking the time to try to explain your argument to me. I appreciate it.
Walter believes. But scientific skeptics need testable, measurable evidence.
mind that has been colonized by global warming propaganda.
What is your CV, Walter? You keep arguing with a PhD
You’ve not presented any facts at all
a statement of fear of the future
we were all going to fry in the future was perhaps an exaggeration
The pompous windbag
keyboard commando desperate for visits
http://christinegeraci.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/blowhard.jpg
a weak argument and pedantic.
seem to be a bore.
Ah. I see. No formal education in anything climate related.
Walter appeals to authority
Walter is clearly insecure
getting Walter to calm down
Walter’s fear
frightened of the “carbon” scare.
The anti-human stance is what is illogical.
his threat to “flame” me – so scary!
ignore him.
Climate alarmists like Walter
cut out all the swivel-eyed pseudo-scientific nonsense and personal insults
Walter is projecting.
Walter’s ‘issues’ stem from his projection
He is putting words in my mouth
Goes around comes around.
Must have been all my fault!
Walter
dbstealey I don’t do debates. I say what I would like to say about a subject, and along the way bat away the flies. When someone like mark comes along has something to offer I listen intently, and usually benefit from that.
Online discussion forums? I know all the games and the tricks and the unconscious goings on inside out and backwards in the dark. Been there done that, bought the T-shirt factory. Academics are now writing science papers on this and social media. I was one of the pioneers online .. no one gave us a guide book.
I do this merely as a ‘pass it on” — people will come past here and recognize something in what I have said, and they will nod. They are the one’s for whom I take the time to write, occasionally.
I have nothing to prove and no debate to win.
I do not care WTF happens with the co2 or the climate or the IPCC nor WUWT. Nor what happens to the US when the Dow goes under 10,000 again. Nor what happens to people in the US when the US$ is no longer the world’s reserve currency. Don’t care if the world economy disappears overnight, or if Obama cares works or doesn’t. Nor who wins ww3.
Whatever will be will be. My opinion is irrelevant. Freedom is Power.
You two need to get a room. BTW, who were peers to the likes of Einstein, Faraday and Newton?
Walt comparing computer models of the known physics of flight (A380) to the computer models of the climate. Priceless!
Advice to Walt! When in a hole, stop digging!
dbstealey says: “And I’m just sure nobody called you a pompous ass behind your back. Certainly not the employees you treated like crap before you were put out to pasture…”
HAHA, yes, no one did, there was no reason too. For I was well respected by superiors (unquestionable integrity), by peers and my subordinates alike, thank you very much. No one put me out to pasture either, you old sad sack.
RE “Wally, you are a parody. Your ‘arguments’ amount to nasty name-calling, insinuations and projection, as you try to make fun of people due to your insecurity. Yes, I wore a lab coat, and I am proud of it. And no, I didn’t wear italian suits except to weddings and funerals or dates with my wife, because I am not insecure or trying to impress people who don’t matter. See, I did the metrology work, and I did a very good job designing, calibrating, testing and fixing all manner of weather related scientific instruments. I learned a lot over the decades, and the test instrument manufacturers sent our lab all the latest information.”
And I bet, as sure as there’s frozen ice at the north pole right now, everybody called you a pompous ass behind your back. And still do.
Your only problem with me dbstealey, is that I say it right to your face. Bugger!
Walter
Patrick, it is dbstealey saying “computer models” are not science that is priceless. Check the record. It’s known (and some unknown) physics the drives the climate, from the bottom up. Using computer models is not only basic science, it is plain common sense and efficient. Only the likes of a 8th century Monk would label it the equivalent of the devil’s work.
“Walter K. says:
March 3, 2014 at 4:04 am”
You failed the moment you compared aircraft models with climate models. The A380 was built and then tested in actual flight using all the KNOWN and TESTED physics of flight. You cannot compare that with “climate models”. And if you want to talk about “seats of ya pants” flight, talk to a Vulcan bomber pilot!
dbstealey says:
“Wally sez: (no that should be ‘Walter says:’ .. sticks and stones and all that jazz)
…that is the job for scientists working in the specific field. It’s NOT your job, nor anyone else’s to be part-time “skeptics”. — Who elected you to be the judge, Wally?”
I was appointed by the same god that gave you this JOB : “Skeptics have a job, per the Scientific Method: attempt to falsify all conjectures and hypotheses.” — Ahem, sorry but.
RE: “” Scientific skepticism is open to anybody. No one insisted on skeptic qualifications from a Swiss patent clerk, who wrote to a group of Russians disputing his Theory of Relativity: “It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, but only one fact.” “”——-
You’re not Einstein. neither is Monckton, Spencer, Carter, or Dr Moore
Even worse for the scientific illiterate and the global activated denial machine that disputes the scientific facts contained in the ~30,000 papers by ~9,000 scientists referenced in the IPCC reports. hey some are actuallly crap and rejected by their peers as not good enough. That’s a fact. However in La La Neo-World Land retired machine calibrators believe they know better without being capable of presenting one single FACT from one single accepted Paper.
Here are two of Dr Moore’s BELIEFS …… read it, let it sink in, NO scientific facts here:
“…. 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.”
*reason to believe* ??? That ain;t science, it’s a motherhood statement, an opinion, a belief with zero backing up the claims.
What is human reason absent of facts that amounts to an absence of evidence that provides insight into causation? It’s Belief, Witchcraft, Mythology or Black Magic.
Please present even one published peer-reviewed substantive and broadly ACCEPTED Climate Science Paper with just one evident fact EACH to support each one of Dr Moore’s above claims that:
1) a warmer climate (IE of 2C, 4C, 6C GMSTs) would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL for humans and the majority of other species.
2) It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
3) history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future
4) the fact (?) that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
5) we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C.
6) there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.
7) There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Please present the Scientifically VALID evidence and research data upon which Dr Moore’s opinions and advice to the US Senate rely upon.
That would be great. See how I am able to easily circumnavigate back to the purpose of my original comment by riding on the comments of naysayers, no matter who says what or why like it was a moving wave?
Patrick says: March 3, 2014 at 4:16 am
“You failed the moment you compared aircraft models with climate models.”
I never fail Patrick, I am like the eveready bunny. :0)
You screwed up … I never compared what you believe I did. I always spoke of “computer models” – that’s the fulcrum. That’s the point, that’s what dbstealey spoke about and that’s what I spoke about. Computer models in aircraft. Computer models in GCMs. All computer models in science. I also said GCMs are not perfect, but that they do not need to be – unlike aircraft which had better be spot on or the test pilot dies. But I NEVER compared the two.
http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/critical-thinking-top-10-dos.html
When it comes to climate computer models there is no test pilot because there is no test flight. You and I are already on board. Now you might want to again assert that I am comparing aircraft models with climate models. But actually, I am not.
FYI
1) a warmer climate (IE of 2C, 4C, 6C GMSTs) would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL for humans and the majority of other species.
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
2) It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
3) history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
4) the fact (?) that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
5) we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C.
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
6) there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
7) There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite
This Dr Moore’s Dilemma
Not mine. 🙂
Using cognitive dissonance to change people’s beliefs
If a person is induced to do or say something that is contrary to their private opinion, there will be a tendency for them to change their opinion to bring it in line with what’s been said or done.
•
The key is to use only a small amount of pressure to get someone to do something. Using more pressure than is needed will actually make it less likely that they will change their mind about it.
Conditions needed for changing beliefs:
•
Behavior appears chosen (Freely reject the scientific evidence)
•
Behavior blatantly violates belief (state they believe in science, but reject it out of hand)
•
Behavior cannot be undone (Refusal to change – entrench beliefs on like-minded blogs)
•
An extraneous justification is blocked (My opinion belief is paramount – all related evidence and analogy is dismissed outright)
People change their cognitions because they feel they don’t have enough reason/ justification for acting the way they did.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/208255048/Cognitive-Dissonance-Theory-Summary
dbstealey says: “If you do, you will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.”
Eats away at you, does it, that Al Gore and the IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?
ROFL
Let me know if there’s any science issues you may have on the horizon anytime soon.
Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii was hitting 400 ppm (beneficial?) CO2 again last week.
Total cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions between 1750 and 2011 amounts to 365 ± 30 PgC
(261 years = 1.4 PgC per year avg)
Projected/expected trend BAU between 2012 and 2100 is for another ~1700 PgC +/-
(88 years = 19.3 PgC per year avg)
That is 5 times above the 365 PgC cumulative total of 1750 to 2011
That is at a rate of emissions almost 14 times higher than 1750 to 2011 period.
CO2 of atmosphere would then be circa ~900 ppm @2100 not including additional climate feedbacks of methane/co2 being released from the biosphere/environment.
No body, no computer model can accurately predict exact how things will unfold from now. Too many variables are involved from the state of the economy to volcanic eruptions and regional climate instability, solar radiance, and normal geopolitical unknowns.
For those who accept that increasing CO2 (and other GHG) levels has no discernible affect upon the climate, then there’s nothing to see here.
We may even end up in another mini-Ice Age at any time they claim. Let’s hope not, for cold is a killer. And if that doesn’t get ya, then old age will. But not AGW climate change because that is a total myth.
I know this because other people told me. And they couldn’t be wrong, because they told me they were right. They would be mistaken nor lie to me. No need to check the original sources for myself. Nothing to see here.
“3 bells and all is well.” called the town crier.
Just wow!
I can’t believe so many folk are wasting time in “discussion” with Walter K.
This comment from Dr. Patrick Moore:
““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.”
gets to the root of the problem,
Walter K can, and probably will, continue to rant his belief here and elsewhere. When asked to show evidence 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, he will rant on about everything – rising sea level, rising atmospheric CO2 levels, rising atmospheric temperature since the end of the LIA, etc. – but will not, because he can not, show proof that even the last 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 has any discernable, measurable effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
As a reminder, none of the following are proof:
-Arctic Ice disappearing
-Glaciers retreating
-Coral reef bleaching
-Mt Kilimanjaro losing snow
-Polar bears doing anything anywhere
-Some creature or plant facing extinction
-A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
-Droughts
-Floods
-Dry rivers
-Computer models or simulations
-A “consensus”
-Al Gore’s movie
-Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc
Much of Walter K’s “mean-spiritedness” here appears to be projection, as already noted.
Indeed, I’ve now projected my opinion here. I may join in responses again if, and only if, Walter K provides the proof requested.
Although if he, or anyone does, I suspect it will be in a properly peer reviewed paper and a main post rather than be buried in blog responses.
I second JohnWho:
1) SLR does not correlate with T.
2) T does not correlate with CO2.
3) Ergo, no way does SLR correlate with CO2.
4) We are recovering from the LIA.
5) If CO2 can raise T (which it can’t), that will be good. 5m SLR is preferable to an LIA.
–AGF
Walter K. says:
I don’t do debates… I have nothing to prove and no debate to win.
Good thing, too, since you would lose. You only rant and insult. You are afraid to debate the lack of scientific evidence, that is why you have no debate to win.
Wally says:
Patrick, it is dbstealey saying “computer models” are not science that is priceless.
Wally, why do you continue to misrepresent what I wrote? That is thoroughly dishonest, and by now I can only assume it is deliberate. You are trying to frame the argument in a way that would allow you to win it. Your problem is that I’m holding your feet to the fire.
I have told you more than once that computer models are part of science; that they are the first step in the hierarchy ‘Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.’ But they are no more than a conjecture. FYI, computer climate models are consistently wrong. Not one GCM [computer climate model] was able to predict the 17+ year halt in global warming. Not one. Climate models are just not very good. They are a tool. But they do not compare with observation and measurements.
You keep getting conjecture and evidence confused. Models are conjectures. They are not scientific evidence. And peer reviewed papers are not evidence. Scientific evidence consists of raw data, and empirical [real world] observations. All available data and empirical observations show that there is no problem with CO2 rising from about 3 parts per 10,000, to 4 parts per 10,000. It is simply not a problem.
Walter, there is no evidence supporting the “carbon” scare. None at all. Your “thousands of papers” are no more than an Appeal to Authority fallacy. That’s all you’ve got to support your ridiculous assertion that a colder planet is better than a warmer planet.
You claimed that “thousands of independent Science Papers” say that “a warmer climate would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL for humans and the majority of other species.” Walter, history falsifies that belief. Warmer times are always better for the biosphere — including humanity — than cold times.
Claiming that cold is better than warmth is crazy talk, Walter. Just like your assertion that CO2 is “pollution”. It is a fact that warmth is good, and cold kills. You really pick some strange positions to try and defend, Walter. No wonder you feel the need to insult and belittle people who disagree with your crazy claims. Because that’s the only kind of argument you’ve got.
“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.”
No! Clearly you know nothing about avionics. It flew because we know ALL variables regarding powered mechanical flight and it was tested in the real world after those computer simulations. No aircraft goes into service simply “as a direct result of computer models”. NONE!