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
Yes, this is a keeper. It’s also another inside look at how revolutions are commandeered.
I try to stay out of politics on the left leaning Facebook, but I had to share this on my timeline. One of the best things I have read on WUWT. Easy for the uninformed to understand. Their eyes glaze over with some of the things I try to post to my friends.
People just don’t want to get into the weeds in this fast and furious world of information.
Now he is really gonna qualify as an “Unperson”.
Very coherent presentation.
I am proud to be on side, with Dr Moore.
Science.
Believe whatever you want,but prove your policy.
No amount of posturing, intimidation and emotional blackmail, can override the cruel cold facts of reality.
Here is the entry for the environmentalist. Perhaps everyone should read it before it’s “Desaparecido”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
Dr. Patrick Moore – not only everywhere spot on, but a brave voice facing a pack of hyenas in the Senate committee meeting. Kudos and more kudos.
@John Tyler –
Excellent followup comments on Dr. Moore’s presentation.
@David G –
And take their money, and use it to pay for removing the blight of “renewable” energy installations and for compensating the poor people who suffered from the resultant needlessly high electric rates.
@Jimbo –
As I understand it, the 1910-1940 heatuing was much more than the 1980-1996 heating.
BTW – the newsbytes are great!
And just about everyone else here, as well – this thread has been a tour de force. Now if only we can make the Climate Nazis pay attention. And well done, Anthony!
Any comments from the committee? Any one with their fingers in their ears singing La La La.
Excellent.
His intro on Wikipedia is far from neutral,luck for Wikipedia, he isn’t Micheal Mann:
Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian greenwasher, whose PR firm is often hired to obfuscate wrongdoing. He capitalizes on his former membership of Greenpeace, in an attempt to give him legitimacy. Today he is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, a greenwashing firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.
He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[2] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[3] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.[4]
This is the most readable and succinct overview of the Earths climate change and the place of CO2 in it that I have ever seen. Thank you Dr.Moore. And thanks WUWT for posting it.
There is no debate. The computer model predictions were wrong. It did not warm by as much as they said it would due to CO2 increasing despite the fact that CO2 did increase. It is true, there really is no debate anymore. They laid out a hypothesis and said “wait and see”. Well, we waited, and now we can see. What is left to debate?
What a shame that all of the major universities have stuffed themselves with “Professors” who still believe that the models were correct even in the face of the indisputable fact that they were incorrect. At best it can be described as “embarrassing”. At worse?
A tropical species. Indeed. There’s nothing like a bit o’ truth, is there?
Thank you Dr. Moore! A wonderful summary of why there might not be much reason to worry about “carbon pollution”. I posted a link on my Facebook wall in the interest of both skeptic and warmist friends.
Excellent sticky post.
Some observations:
1) try an internet search on “Patrick Moore Senate Testimony” or something similar –
Not a single MSM outlet reporting this — fascinating bit of self-censorship!
Perhaps his testimony was “too inconvenient” for the MSM — but wouldn’t it be a treat to have Patrick Moore debate David Suzuki or Al Gore?
2) ref. the IPCC assessment (of 95%+ certainty that most of late 20th century warming was due to [human GHG emissions]): not only is this not supported by any evidence, it it patently incoherent with the IPCC’s OWN statement on probable Climate Sensitivity range (approx. 1.5-4.5 or possibly higher). How can one have 95% certainty in anything where you admit a probable range of a factor of three (or more) in a key input parameter! Additionally, any blaming of the current ‘pause’ on natural oscillations begs the question whether the prior warming wasn’t also the consequence of natural oscillations, which of course reduces the relative strength of the anthropogenic signal.
Kurt in Switzerland
Anthony – Please also add or link to the chapter that was added to the testimony by Dr. Patrick Moore. Thank you. He ended with the following:
“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.”
REPLY: It’s right there, see it in the PDF – Anthony
Interestingly the other Patrick Moore, who actually did die in 2012, was sceptical of man-made CAGW. I don’t know how he survived at the BBC for so long.
Article addressing Dr. Moore’s Senate testimony:
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate
Published February 26, 2014 FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/
“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.” -Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace.
That’s an impressive quote. It should be used often in the ongoing public climate discourse.
Oh, and I just tweeted a link to this post to that CNN gal Carol (who I’d never heard of before reading about her here at WUWT today), Carol the “why are we still debating” gal. I suggested that perhaps one reason we’re still debating is that we’re a “tropical species.” Seems like a pretty good reason to me, among the many ….
Of course another reason why we still debate is that we’re a sentient species. Some of us, anyway …
Dave in Canmore says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:06 am
Great Essay! Hits upon several ignored facts.
“these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report”
The money line right there. I still can’t believe we’ve come so far on so little evidence!
—————————————————————————————————-
I am reminded:
“One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
Mark Twain
cn
Cartoon about Greenpeace disappearing Patrick Moore-
itsnotclimatescience.com/0010.html
Here is the link for the cartoon
http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0010.html
I am adding this article to the references/links page for the cartoon.
the chapter from his book in the pdf is well worth reading
It always kills me that IPCC only claims major human influence for the last 50 years, but the hockey stick gets it kick by showing temperature rise over 150 years!
And Jim Hansen is going all out for more Nukey Power.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?
James E. Hansen
Bernd Palmer says:
February 26, 2014 at 8:28 am
Excellent chain of logical arguments for a sustainable result. “Warmer is better” fir mankind. Sure is, we are the only living species (living in the atmosphere) without feathers or furs, Our life depends on the availability of green plants.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Only species living in atmosphere without fur or feathers? Not so much: lizards (most reptiles), insects…assume you meant mammals (even there you have a problem with elephants)?