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
I’d be interested in a poll of those who would describe themselves as “environmentally concerned” and a “CAGW skeptic”. To my mind the CAGW debate is a huge distraction from many real green issues and the “greens” will rue the day when they so firmly embraced the CAGW religion. Who will listen to them in 10 or 20 years time? Even if then they make a valid point?
Excellent presentation Patrick and thanks to Anthony for posting it.
Hopefully more “deniers” will come forward to inform governments that logically a 0.002% increase in CO2 is not going to destroy the planet, that the computer models that predict this are also wrong (as demonstrated by the Met Office’s total ineptitude at predicting the weather, and that CAGW has become a belief rather than a science. If, as Dr Moore states, we continue down the path of drastically cutting CO2 emissions we will have destroyed our economies for no reason and jeopardised our food production by concentrating on a warmer climate opposed to the possibility of a cooler or even a stable climate.
Despite the predictions of 20 years ago, I am still unable to grow Chardonnay grapes in NE England and there is still plenty of water and inhabitants in Southern Spain and Morocco!
Mac the knife – whilst browsing, I recently came across NASA’s reference and acceptance of the P.T Doran and M.K. Zimmerman ‘97%’ paper to which you’ve supplied a link. As you imply, a good example of what’s going on in the warmist camp.
I am amazed (to say the least) that an organisation such as NASA endorses such a – let’s be blunt – blatant and rubbishy fiddle as this (and for any warmists who are seething at this comment, yes, I have the the paper and have read it in detail).
It makes me wonder about the calibre of some so- called scientists, and what is really going on in the world of what professes to be science these days.
Dr. Moore is alive and well. Please read his website at http://www.ecosense.me. He has some very interesting things to say. I thoroughly enjoyed his take on many subjects related to the environment and environmentalism and the Big Green Monster. I need to purchase his book.
I forwarded Patricks statement today to the UK’s opposition leader, Ed Miliband. Ed was using the ‘denier’ word in Parliament yesterday and I suggested he should desist and use a more measured and mature approach to the issue as per Patrick. Some lackey in his office will no doubt respond on his behalf, I’m sure the word ‘concensus’ will feature prominently!
Previously posted at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/life-in-a-climate-cataclysm-box/#comment-1453028
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/steven-schneiders-1992-argument-against-balance-in-science-reporting/#comment-1083265
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.
When this worm turns, and it will, we can expect the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws will be put to good use.
As we confidently stated in 2002 at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist “
Earth has not warmed for 10-15 years. Continued absence of global warming or global cooling will finally put an end to global warming hysteria, after trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered…. and then the wheels of justice will begin to turn… Watch for early signs of climate rats leaving their sinking ship.
__________________
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
jfreed27 says:
February 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm
“I don’t doubt.”
That phrase is the heart of the problem with the CAGW hypothesis.
You should read the words of an honourable scientist who explained the role of doubt in science. I shouldn’t have to tell you his name:
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think.
Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that’s all — and not to be sure. …
….it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown.
It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.
Dr. Moor, a truthful scientist. thank you.
But i disagree that both poles were ice free during the cretaceous. The altitude of Antarctica would mean that some ice would remain at this time. There were evergreen forests on the Antarctic Peninsular, witness the cretaceous coal found there, but ice inland.
Lawrence Solomon; Rex _______ (a broadcaster)
I read the report of Dr. Patrick Moore’ s evidence on Fox News.
Question: Do the other main stream media carry any coverage of this evidence? Where are the New York Times , the Guardian etc.
Not newsworthy ,I suppose ,they would claim but the MSM are prepared to cover any alarmist scientific paper no matter how preposterous.
Excellent piece. A copy of this submission should be sent to Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Davey and all the CAGW fanatics in the UK House of Commons.
The Fox News morning show covered this briefly just now, mentioning that there was no evidence and that he was a founder of Greenpeace, as a picture of cloud producing windmills was shown. They will likely feature it several times throughout the day.
Moore has been milking his long-ended involvement with Greenpeace Canada for over 25 years now.
By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia. Following is the complete list of Moore’s research output regarding any aspect of climate change:
…
Update as required.
The “climate change” killer for me is the fact that all inhalers for people with chronic bronchitis, asthma or COPD have been switched by legal means to a product that does not emit any greenhouse gases from the propellant in the canisters. Those of us with chronic respiratory ailments were obviously at the top of the list of major offenders, most likely just ahead of internal combustion engines, volcanoes, and natural emissions from livestock. Our “deadly” asthma rescue inhalers must have been a formidable threat, indeed, because the change came swiftly, and without much warning. The result of this “environmental rescue” has been devastating to sick people. First, the medications no longer work as they used to, since there is no real or effective propellant forcing the medication into a patient’s lungs. Also, because there are countless “new” medicines, there aren’t any generic alternatives to reduce the cost of the inhalers (I take Combivent, which WAS approximately $140-150, has now increased to well over $300 and near $400+, effectively pricing it well above my limited budget. In fact, the hospital from which I was getting my medications through a charitable insurance program for indigents, the poor, and the disabled began refusing to stock Combivent, as it was just too expensive. I have been lucky enough to have recently acquired an insurance policy through Humana, but the medication is still a tier 3, fairly expensive prescription (around forty dollars or more). For a few months, I was receiving the medicine gratis from the pharmaceutical company (or getting the Mexican version on the rare occansions I could find someone willing to make a trip to down to one of the less violent border towns like Reynosa (which despite military guards, I still won’t visit). The second major problem with these “politically correct” replacements is that they DO NOT WORK. The government’s propulsion solution simply doesn’t have enough force behind it to get the medication deep enough into a patient’s lungs, resulting in the need for more uses and unsatisfactory medical results. Obviously, this travesty was brought about by lobbyists and special interest groups on a mission to increase pharmaceutical revenues under the guise of being “planet-friendly”. Of course there are more crimes being perpetrated upon the American people and the rest of the world by the elites like Holder, Obama, Clinton and Pelosi. The republicans are certainly not without blame in the problems facing our great nation, not by a long shot, but the four I mentioned are easy targets and pose dire threats to our (ourselves and our children’s) future survival. I feel terrible for young children who will experience food shortages, dirty water, martial law, rolling blackouts and marauding gangs in the camps and slums set up by FEMA once the U.S. has become a third-world nation. The beginning will be when Obama circumvents Congress and the Supreme Court to do away with the term-limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment in order that he may continue to rule America as Putin does in Russia. If enough Americans have firearms left at this point, there will be a Revolution, but we just don’t have the firepower to stand against the American military machine (though we might get quite a lot of help from those very heroes that refuse to cut down their own people).
I realize that this has taken quite a turn from the initial complaint about medications, but you will see that the destruction of our medical infrastructure will only be a precursor to even greater evil deeds we will be powerless to stop, if only because we will have become so used to these injustices that any new outrage will be met with nothing more than snorts of derision, as we roll over and submit willingly to the whims of charlatans that have been elevated to god-like status by folly, laziness and the ridiculous fear that we might offend someone or some group by objecting against what we see as legitimate concerns.
It’s quite possible that I may disappear off the street into a dark SUV with govt. plates in the very near future, so as a last admonishment, I beg of thee America: Do not back down, do not flinch. Be unwavering in your struggle to save this great nation. To be certain, there are things and groups on both sides of the political spectrum that are maddening in their stupidity, but though irritating and intelligence-insulting, they are not inherently, not intrinsically evil. They are merely a distraction. The current administration and his lackeys, as well as many of the so-called “opposition”, are much more than distractions, they are malevolent and threaten to unravel the very fabric of our society.
rogerknights says:
February 27, 2014 at 2:40 am
heysuess says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some.
Lawrence Solomon; Rex _______ (a broadcaster)
————————————-
Rex Murphy, a CBC (gasp!) broadcaster and now also National Post columnist.
Patrick Moore is a thinking and principled man whose presentation should serve as a model to the rest of us. Thanks for the concise, excellent testimony!
+++++++++++++
James at 48 says:
February 26, 2014 at 11:14 am
I am an Earth First! drop out.
—————-
Cryptic, but good news. I am glad to know that this is possible. What deprogrammed you?
Magma says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:50 am
Troll alert. Probably miles away by this time.
Moore’s piece may be the scientific proof that alarmists have been waiting for – that there really is a need for state-controlled speech. After all the money, all the international conferences, all the press coverage, all the school indoctrination, all the Nobel prizes (and non-prizes), all the academy awards and Hollywood boosterism, all the edicts from Presidents, governments and non-governments, all the money (did I say that already?), all the peer pressure in the science related organizations …. after everything – and they mean everything honest and dishonest – skeptics will keep pointing out the obvious fact that alarmists are 97% full of sh*t.
And don’t forget all the money.
Pippin kool says:
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.
That may go some way to explaining your inability to make a point?
This post brings up an interesting question in my mind.
Suppose you have 1,500 words maximum, and no more than 3 graphs or graphical images, how would you try to disprove the alarmist’s catastrophic predictions?
Excellent essay. Thank you for hosting it Anthony.
Dr. Moore,
You demonstrate both your integrity and courage by giving such testimony. How much easier would it have been to remain silent, as many others have done? I don’t know how big a target you’ve painted on your back, but I expect Dr. Judith Curry has some idea.
Obviously, the gratitude of those of us who oppose the AGW apparatus wasn’t your motive. Still, you’ve got my sincere thanks, respect, and admiration for speaking the truth.
But, if the Earth is not really cooling…I mean warming…I mean if the climate is not changing due to mankind…then maybe we shouldn’t be focused on global wealth redistribution after all?
Pippin kool says:
My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.
Too bad we can’t get your postdoc mentor to do that with the CAGW supporting “peer reviewed” papers.
I suspect many, if not most, of them would never see the light of day, assuming your mentor has enough ink to write “LOGIC” and “Xs” on all of them.
🙂
Way too much common sense and real science there, Dr. Moore. I think you will soon be the target of an IRS audit.
We all
knowshould know the burden of proof is on the other side. Refer to the Null Hypothesis for more details.Of course, the alarmists have turned the null hypothesis on it’s head by claiming man-made climate change disaster is the accepted standard, when in fact it’s only conjecture.
I would show the graph of estimated world temps going back 100,000 years or so. That same graph can contain an estimate of the CO2 levels. There will be no visible cause and effect there; the graph shows the correlation that warming proceeds CO2 increases.
I would also compare the GCM (climate model) output vs the actual climate. It’s a point of order that if the facts don’t match the results predicted by the hypothesis, then the theory is wrong.
My last point would be there is no evidence that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to any type of catastrophe, at least not at any of the projected levels we’re talking about. No evidence whatsoever that a warming climate is a more dangerous climate. If I could find a suitable graph, I would use that to show that extreme weather is worse during cold periods, not warm periods.