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
Patrick, look up cognitive dissonance and cherry picking and logical fallacies
” it was tested in the real world AFTER those computer simulations.”
DOH said the Homer. Twist and mis-compute what others say all you wish, it doesn’t change a thing. Makes you look silly, that’s all.
Science Class begins again for dbstealey who says: March 3, 2014 at 9:34 am
“Wally, why do you continue to misrepresent what I wrote? That is thoroughly dishonest, and by now I can only assume it is deliberate.”
Yes DB it is deliberate. This doesn’t make it ‘dishonest’ by default, let alone ‘thoroughly’. Leave it you to work that out all by yourself, for the variables are manifold.
As I said, if you can show me where I put words in your mouth I would acknowledge that and withdraw. This I do now, I withdraw, and note that at no time did DB ever say here that — “computer models” are not science —
See, I did, and see how easy that is to do? Try it one day yourself. Your integrity quotient and your personal trust rating will both immediately rise significantly.
A critical aspect of valid science, and dialectics too, is the rational application of human logic and reason, and applied objectively and not subjectively.
Therefore, it is true that DB did not say “computer models are not science”.
DB also did not say that “computer models are not a valid application of the scientific method”.
DB did not say that computer models cannot be used in science in order to present scientific evidence and test the assumptions of the scientists and to test their hypothesis using that raw data evidence of real world observations.
Human reason suggests that the repeated strong denials by DB that he never said “computer models are not science” it follows that he personally would accept and AGREE THAT:
“the use of computer models are a valid form of science, often used by scientists to test their theories, to analyze the results based upon the evidence in question, can be a key component in forming the conclusions and judgments of a scientific work being published, and that the use of “computer models” are a firmly accepted valid long proven tool used within the scientific community across the board.”
IN fact DB has stated above in his last post here, verbatim, that:
“I have told you more than once that computer models are part of science”
As Popper established long ago now:
“Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role. In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.”
On this score, Dr Moore’s testimony to the Senate, and his reliance upon the prior ‘work’ of others who may personally agree with his beliefs, falls down purely on the standards set by Popper and reaffirmed by all.
As I understand the current situation, there has been NO falsification of the theory that human influence mainly though the use of burning fossil fuels since 1750 but particularly since 1950 and their emissions are partly responsible for the ongoing trend of rising GMSTs aka Global Warming Theory. (or by any other name essentially meaning the same thing)
Computer Modelling does in fact form a PART of the scientific work done that substantiates the Hypothesis made, and has been thoroughly peer reviewed, gained massive acceptance by peers, and has subsequently been confirmed by others in their Scientific Papers on multiple lines of scientific inquiry using multiple forms of research, observations and data/evidence.
As to DR Moore’s alternative view, there appears to be an abject lack of published Papers that could support the beliefs and opinions as stated in his brief to the US Senate. This I outlined the core issues in a separate post here above.
DB has two other key issues that I may address:
1) “computer climate models are consistently wrong.”
That depends on what one means by the word “wrong”.
2) And peer reviewed papers are not evidence.
That depends on what one means by the word “evidence” and what that is being used for.
The above two points also depends on is one speaking as a scientific purist, or is one speaking about normative society and communication in the public domain.
These matters matter. Therefore one needs to be clear about their context, their intentions and their meaning and the semantics that apply and do not apply. Simply worded short statements do not cut it should one wish to be really clear so that all others can understand their meaning from the get go.
This is why the AR5 WGI TS was 2216 pages long, and the SPM 36 pages long, and why they used many diagrammatic presentations, and referenced every single Science Paper they drew their EVIDENCE from. AT least this is my understanding of what is true and correct.
——
Still, DBs issue seems to be focusing upon the truth or falsity of:
“Are ‘computer models’ scientific evidence or not?’ DBs claims is that they are Not.
Now, here is the essential statement by DB about this matter — quoting
“But papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations.”
see the original post url here to confirm I am NOT putting words in his mouth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#comment-1579848
Now, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy and truth of those statements, and I will take that up later and see what DB then has to say about it and if he is able to argue his case and convince me his claims about science and what denotes “evidence” are in fact true and correct, or not. But this is another issue that can wait.
Walter
Wallyworld says:
“Science Class begins again for dbstealey”
“Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.”
I’ve probably forgotten more than this noob will ever learn about the subject. [Noob, because Wally showed up here for the first time only a few days ago. So unless he violated site rules and changed his monicker, he’s still getting up to speed.]
For one example, I know what scientific “evidence” is. Wally still doesn’t understand it.
For myself I shall seek counseling for my act of checking to see if this ranting and raving was sill ongoing.
Walter you need to seek even more help than mere counseling.
If your are just being an a$$ then all the more so and quick.
RE “Claiming that cold is better than warmth is crazy talk, Walter.”
Yes DB you are correct there. That I never made such a claim again shows you putting words into my mouth by INFERENCE. Isn’t that ***thoroughly dishonest** according to your own ethical standards DB?
I tell you this also DB claiming that warmth is better than cold is extreme crazy talk. Meaningless gibberish iow. That ain’t science, that’s bullshit walking.
Your claim here is more of the same “Walter, history falsifies that belief. Warmer times are always better for the biosphere — including humanity — than cold times.”
Your graph falsifies nothing. It is a graph. What you and Dr Moore need is a fully fledged series of published Peer-reviewed science Papers that present valid hypotheses using valid evidecen that a warmer world of 2c, 4c, 6c or 8 c GMSTs is “beneficial” and a “better biosphere” than the present and recent history.
Yes the MWP was great for humans living on Greenland. That would be true. However at the very same time it was not better, it was not beneficial for fauna, flora or humans living in the mid-west of the North America.
What Dr Moore and you need to show beyond doubt is that such a warmer world is and would be BETTER for the 330 million people living in the USA today and into the future. Better for humans living in Australia, and the Philippines, and in Bangladesh and India and China and Africa, and Saudi Arabia and Russia as well.
This has not been done. I know of no such papers using sound evidence that suggests such a thing. None. If you know of any, then feel free to inform me better. You need more than a single simplistic graph that presents the ups and downs of ice core temps alone. What else did Richard Alley have to say in his Published Paper which included this graph DB? Did you READ the whole thing, or merely cherry pick those items you BELIEVE supports your current Beliefs?
You have zero credibility in criticizing nor impugning the “beliefs” you believe others hold. You should ask them first before making wild claims about others.
I suspect the latter, for if you had read it, you would NOT be overtly referencing that particular lest someone here actually goes to THE SOURCE and reads that paper in full for themselves.
If you actually took a moment to VIEW that Graph you’d notice that it suggests we are at present smack bang in the 5th coldest period of that time-frame. I do not see people dying from the cold very often. Do you? I do not see civilization on it’s knees due to this current “cold spell” relative to other periods shown above the line. Do you?
Why do you think it is fine for Dr Moore to “scare monger people” about the dangers of a cold climate? LOL
Round and round we go, but where we’ll end up, no one knows! Don’t believe everything you read on the internet that FITS your own beliefs like a hand inside a rubber surgical glove DB.
Walter ~ Class Dismissed
DB, if you know what scientific “evidence” is, then behave accordingly and stop ignoring it.
still oops
Walter,
For what it’s worth, I’d be arguing against you right alongside Stealey if I could bring myself to do it. Arguing with you isn’t fun, though, it’s tedious. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, maybe you feel that from the lofty vantage of your godlike intellect you don’t have to worry about it, but you don’t express yourself very clearly to us mortal folk with our puny little brains. I don’t think you impressed anybody with your arguments regarding Dr. Moore. I know you didn’t impress me. The endless back and forth with Stealey shows me an idjit who’s in love with his own voice and who’s got to have the last word.
I did you the courtesy of ending our discussion earlier in a civilized way, the least you could do is extend that same courtesy to others.
Walter K’s poor wife , if married. No chance ever for the last word.
Hey, Walter,
Check out the top thread just now. You can follow Anthony and reg. as Pres. of M.I.T. call yourself in the top 1% of the top 1% and all that and get known all over the internets.
“Reddy Wiggle Watt The Facts”
Since:
1. No one here agrees with Walter, and since
2. Walter is what Anthony labels an “internet coward” who hides behind an anonymous screen name, I think I’m done with Walter. He’s way too easy anyway.
So, as I use my given name, and as I have posted my CV regularly over the past 6 – 7 years here, and since “Walter” hides behind a fake screen name, I feel like I’m beating up on a twelve year old boy who sits in his mom’s room furiously typing on her computer.
So if Walter wants to debate [oh, that’s right, “Walter” says he will not debate; he only rants], then “Walter” will have to use an identifiable name if he wants a response. [I think he’s an anonymous coward, but we shall see.]
Post your true, verifiable identity here, “Walter”, or I will presume you are that 12-year old. Until you post a verifiable identity, your rants will be entirely one-sided, and ignored.
Finally, “Walter” really needs to learn the meaning of scientific “evidence”. So far, and despite anything “Walter” claims to the contrary, he doesn’t understand the term at all. Probably never will.
[snip – excessive copyrighted material – Anthony]
[snip – excessive copyrighted material – Anthony]
[snip – OK you’re done, reprinting entire copyrighted passages from books might be something you can do on your own website, but not here – Anthony]
“Walter K. says:
March 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm”
I’ll will pass on any vehicle tested only in a computer simulation (Your claim the A380 flew as a direct result of a computer model. Well, that’s not fact in the slightest. It was tested in the real world). So yeah, that is my “D’oh!” moment!
[Snip]
Denier advocates like Monckton, like Heartland, like Fox, and those who run websites like WUWT continue spreading this UNTRUTH anyway. Why do you, the reader, keep believing in such manipulations and deceptions…
[…Snip. You know better than to refer to our host like that, and you are violating site Policy by labeling others “deniers”. Anthony says you’re done here. Unless he reverses that, you’re done. ~mod.]
At last, whew! What a trainwreck that guy is.
Time to celebrate and sip on some Domaine De Canton.
http://drinkingmadeeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DomaineDeCanton2.jpg
[snip – noted]