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
Interesting coincidence that Michael Mann tweeted a smear on Dr. Moore shortly after his comment appeared here-
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
Dr, Moore,
Well back in the early days 1975 or so up in Washington state for a meetup. As I had been sort of a help person with Greenpeace on the nuke questions they did allow me for a time. Yet as I was not a antiwar Vietnam Vet. and due to the fact I was a rather dark skinned person of they did not understand my problem with the way way left aka “red” way of the leadership and getting more red all the time. The fact I was proud of my time in the service was a real problem to them. So they at a meeting they called myself and one other to we got the message loud and clear. You guys are not on board with the message, you are disruptive and now you must understand we will have to move forward without you and if you cause any more problems you will understand better after we take “action”.
Clear it is the agenda is altogether not what it should have been then and for sure now.
Magma says
“Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable”.
My understanding of research from so-called competent climate scientists is no different from snake-oil salesmen at best and pigs in the trough(£££$$$€€€) at the worst. Do you really think that proper scientists would have a problem discussing their theories? Did Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Durac, Mendel, Feynman call those who disagreed with their theories, “deniers” ; a name that is dismissive of any argument, rational or not, that contradicts their theories?
18 years of no warming, the medieval warm period, Dalton and Maunder Minima! Please tell me how these recorded and documented phenomena can be accounted for in AGW. One more thing, please answer a question, that has never been answered satisfactorily. How can a rise in CO2 attributable to mankind of 0.002% cause climate change?
Though I would share. Not new, but on topic, no?
Nicely put together. For every layman, with minimal to none scientific understanding to understand the fallacy of the (C)AGW.
Hmm. Reading Dr. Moore on Twitter and I see this from Windy:
What’s the “N” camp?
Predicting the future with a computer model is possible. It is predicting the future with a computer
model of the type referenced by the IPCC that is impossible.
jfreed27 says:
February 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The debate is over, among real scientists, that is.
The arm chair types can proceed, though. Bloggers are a gullible sort, so you can put your “brilliant analysis” in front of them, rather than a Journal, for example. Bloggers deeply wish to believe it’s all a hoax. I do too. But, I can’t.
Hey, it worked with Big Tobacco. There’s good money in this, I don’t doubt.
======================================================
??? Was there a coherent, logical counterargument to Dr. Moore’s testimony in there somewhere? If so, I missed it and would appreciate it if someone would be so kind as to point it out. TIA
.
.
.
I’m with Dr. Moore on this one. Glaciers have buried the 40-meter deep Devonian limestone deposits in my backyard under a mile of ice and retreated to the Arctic many times over the past couple of million years. And all the while the best CO2-Temperature reconstructions available show CO2 lagging temperature. I’ve known this since fourth grade, well, except the lagging CO2 part which Al Gore was so kind as to display in that nice graphic in his movie. CO2-based CAGW is a non-starter right there.
But hey! Why would a reasonably literate blog commenter believe what he can read with his own lying eyes at the age of ten over a consensus of 97% of 76 climate scientists? I know, know. It makes no sense. Maybe I should go talk it over with the Vikings when Greenland warms up enough for them to move back to their farms, I hear their farms are beginning to emerge from under the permafrost so they might be moving back.
OMG! (Oh My Gaia!) What did I just write!? I need to go talk to a Climate Priest and sort this all out; perhaps buy a few carbon offsets while I’m there. Yeah. That’s the ticket… indulgences… yeah…
.
.
.
.
DANG! I think I screwed up. Now I’ll never get a check from Big Oil ;o)
Jfreed27 says:
Just about every cliched fallacy in the book…
It’s just weird. I mean, if I was to go and post on the number-one alarmist site in the world (since the common sense side has the number-one overall slot locked up when it comes to climate discussions), I would want to come armed with facts to back up my counterarguments. Generally, however, most far-left greenies, such as the human excrememnt known to us as Jfreed27, just spew the same tripe, always repeating the same strawmen, almost like they’re chanting. (And of course, they must capitalize the key players: Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Green…oh, wait…)
Even when you put them on the spot by presenting actual observations and fact, the most mature response I’ve seen is the logic of “well, it COULD happen, so what’s the harm in preventing it?” Yet, people buy into it. I don’t get it; it kind of makes me question my hope in humanity.
I will give them points though for living by the creed of recycling: they appear to be using the same four or five unfounded talking point ad finitum. I guess I’m just not smart enough to tangle with the prowess of someone like Jpeedonmyfootandtoldmeitsraining.
Hello, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, and thus the ‘take away message’ coming from that, made by Dr. Moore. Quoting him here:
“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. [end quote].
Clear to me that Moore is presenting that “as if” it is something to be surprised about. The tone of his overall statement would mislead one to assume that the above is ‘little known’ and/or has been ‘covered up’ by the IPCC and others. If this is what some people believe, then they are incorrect based on the facts.
Moore’s IPCC quote in his statement comes from Page SPM-12 of the IPCC’s SPM. On Page SPM-2 it says, and I quote [CAPS my emphasis]:
“The NARRATIVE is supported by a series of overarching highlighted CONCLUSIONS which, taken together, provide a concise SUMMARY.”
[note: A narrative is not the physical scientific evidence – the IPCC does not claim it is – the SPM is a “summary” not a peer reviewed scientific paper with a null hypothesis. There is a seriously huge difference here.]
“The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the AUTHOR teams’
evaluations of UNDERLYING SCIENTIFIC understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood. ”
“Confidence in the validity of a finding is BASED on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of EVIDENCE (e.g., DATA, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert JUDGEMENT) and the degree of AGREEMENT.”
“Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of UNCERTAINTY in a finding are based on STATISTICAL ANALYSIS of OBSERVATIONS or model results, or BOTH, and expert JUDGEMENT. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements OF FACT without using uncertainty qualifiers.”
“The BASIS for SUBSTANTIVE paragraphs in this Summary for Policymakers can be found in the CHAPTER sections of the UNDERLYING report and in the TECHNICAL SUMMARY [2216 pages long sourced from 9,000+ published papers]. These references are given in curly brackets.”
I am all for people coming to their own opinions and beliefs about anything. However, it is not appropriate for people to create their own “facts”, nor is OK to misrepresent what others have actually stated and is available in writing for anyone who chooses to look at said “facts”.
Dr. Moore has completely misrepresented what the IPCC SPM is, by intimating his quotes from that are being promoted by the IPCC to be “science” when they are not, and that the IPCC is saying it is when they are not.
Quoting Dr. Moore again:
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. [end quote]
This is sophistry and illogical. It does not follow (a non-sequitur). Moore switches the priory half way though this paragraph. It’s a bait and switch and very woolly thinking that cannot be supported as being factual nor truthful. It presents a false image of the facts as they really are by shifting from “past tense” related to the his IPCC quote into “future tense” about GCMs being able or not to predict future climate trends, and then going on to suggest they are one and the same thing. They are not.
SPM-2 says, and I quote:
“(AR5) considers new evidence of climate change based on many independent scientific analyses from observations of the climate system, paleoclimate archives, theoretical studies of climate processes and simulations using climate models.” plus “Observations of the climate system are based on direct measurements and remote sensing from satellites and other platforms.”
Climate models are only ONE tool used to make scientific determinations – the IPCC admits GCMs are not 100% perfect – yet still a useful tool if the limitations are understood of how they work, and where these are used in the IPCC process.
Future GCMs do NOT determine the scientific basis for the statements in the IPCC about the past climate observations and conclusions: “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1).” from Page SPM-12
Now feel free to totally reject what the IPCC says, this is not my point at all. My point is that Dr. Moore is MISREPRESENTING to you and the Senate what it is that the IPCC have ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
This statement by Dr. Moore: “These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate”, is factually FALSE. It is a mis-statement of the real truth of the matter.
Dr. Moore goes on to claim that: “… and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
That is a PERSONAL OPINION, a JUDGEMENT without any scientific foundation whatsoever. The very thing that Moore is criticizing the IPCC for doing. This is hypocritical of him to do this so blatantly. The IPCC references peer-reviewed science papers. Moore does not. It is grossly disingenuous, and obvious sophistry here designed to win an argument, versus to present the Facts of the matter for due consideration by all.
203 comments so far and yet not person picks up this flagrant logical flaw in Moore’s own argument. This is unconscious cognitive dissonance at work.
http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/stop-lying.html
If anyone has a problem with the IPCC process or findings, then that’s your choice. I am simply pointing out the actual facts on a few points. The facts upon which all claims made by anyone and everyone should be held accountable to. This is what I believe is a key issue for all to remember, but no one ever goes and checks the actual facts for themselves.
If people would actually read the IPCC reports themselves they might notice that they REPEATEDLY ADMIT THEY: “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.” Just as Moore points out, whilst pretending that this is what the IPCC actually does. It doesn’t.
It would HELP EACH PERSON if they also knew exactly what was meant by the words used in the IPCC reports, such as predictions, forecasts, projections etc. For those who don’t see here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf
I also believe that it would useful for the Politicians to actually read the IPCC SPM and the rest of the material BEFORE they go holding Committee Hearings and asking questions. Clearly many have never done so since the FAR in 1990. That is what politicians are paid to do. KNOW the FACTS first, then make further inquiries and debate what if anything can be done about it. But they do NOT do this. They play politics instead.
Unfortunately there are mountains of scientific evidence and facts everywhere to be found, but so little critical thinking and almost no common sense to be found on all sides of this “debate”. Pro-AGW climate science scientists included!
Luckily, “You don’t need a PhD in climate science to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is talking nonsense. You simply need a bit of science, a bit of critical thinking and objectivity.”
Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.
Thank you. Have at it!
Walter K,
What’s your point? That the IPCC is anything but a taxpayer-funded organization pushing an agenda? As I understand it, that is at least some of what Dr. Moore is saying. Further, Moore has seen the politics from the inside, and he has seen both sides. You have seen only one side.
Finally, criticizing as you do what is “completely misrepresented”, all of your holier-than-thou pontificating about the IPCC founders upon the words of the IPCC’s own Ottmar Edenhofer, who has, in a rare moment of candor, admitted the true motivation of that statist, anti-human organization:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
Thus, the IPCC has “completely misrepresented” their behind-the-scenes remit, which is to redistribute the world’s wealth.
Instead of defending the IPCC, you would be much more appreciated if you supported freedom around the world, by calling for the disbandment of that wretched organization. We do not need them, or their enablers.
I believe he is on Hannity on FoxNews right now. (I don’t watch TV that much so I can’t confirm)
Great interview on Hannity Dr Moore! Well done.
Walter (anonymous) K (and dbstealey)
Suppose, Walter, that I produced a study like that referred to above which showed (with >99% statistical significance) that higher levels of water vapor lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures (that is, water vapor cools, rather than warms as the IPCC would have you believe) would you then be prepared to acknowledge that such a study establishes (with 99% probability) that the greenhouse hypothesis is false?
Or would that just be too hard to take, Walter?
Because I would bet that, for just $5,000 or less, such a study of existing temperature data could be funded and would produce the same conclusion as the somewhat lower-budget study to which I referred, that you will find on a recent post on Dr Roy Spencer’s blog.
Walter,
There’s a lot to disagree with in your post. Reserving the right to return to other issues, I will take exception to your rant about predicting the future.
AR4 WGI SPM reads as follows:
A projection is nothing more or less than a conditional prediction. If scenario X is realized, warming Y will result. These conditional predictions were made by GCM’s that are central to a significant amount of research and a lot of peer reviewed papers, they are not some irrelevant side line of the science. These crystal balls were indeed used to attempt to conditionally predict the future, your attempts to qualify and obfusicate notwithstanding.
Hopefully Dr Moore is still keeping tabs on this post by A.W., as I just came across this MediaMatters post today written by Denise Robbins (at the time of posting, the article was ~4 hours old);
Who Is Patrick Moore? A Look At The Former Greenpeace Member’s Industry Ties And Climate Denial
Patrick Moore’s Climate Misinformation Is Nothing New
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change — without any expertise in the matter — is nothing new.
———–
Patrick Moore Is Not A Co-Founder Of Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace, a title often repeated by the media. But Moore was not a co-founder, as explained by Greenpeace:
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF). [Greenpeace, 12/7/10]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-at-the-former-green/198266
I just got through watching to Dr. Moore’s appearance on Hannity, on Fox News. His presentation was, if anything, even more devastating than his article here. Hannity is on again at 10 p.m. California time, 1 a.m. EST. Well worth staying up for, if you missed it!
And yes, of course, there’s the Walter K’s and Bruce C’s that can’t accept defeat. Get over it – you’ve lost the argument, and Dr. Moore’s statement is the final nail in your coffin.
I think you are mistaking me as being against Dr Moore. I am all for what Dr Moore has spoken about and stood up for. FYI, the above article was sourced from Mann’s twitter feed.
Your apology will be accepted, if and when you decide to make it.
Dr. Strangelove says: February 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm
“If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.”
That notion is a very common misconception and misunderstanding in the public domain. Some would label it a “strawman” because it is totally disconnected from the actual argument being made by the other side. If you wish to prove someone’s arguments and claims are false, it always helps to get those accurate from the get go.
When they speak of 2C it refers to an increase in the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), or the average temp across the planet, which is less scientific a term, but good enough for here.
It is NOT referring to “local temperatures … all over the world” rising by a flat 2C. Every local environment has it’s normal range of temperatures, of minimums and maximums, from one season to another. These all range much greater than 2C already. This would be obvious.
For the GMST to rise 2C means that across the planet local environments will experience increases in temperatures far greater that 2C alone. While their yearly average temperature may may or may not rise by 2C. The important thing to realize about the 2C average is that for this to be a Global increase it means that some days, some weeks, some months different locations o the globe would need to have temperature increases of a much higher order.
Take Las Vegas, if 40C is their maximum summer temp, then this may rise to 50C for days on end. This has impacts upon the locals there, including increasing air conditioning (electricity), medical emergencies, and water costs
Take Helsinki, maybe their maximums in summer go to 23C. It will make a huge difference to them if they rise to 30 degrees for several weeks to a month. The effects will have an impact because their built environments were not made for such high temperatures.
Take Australia already. Let’s assume GMST have only risen 0.7C the last 100 years. Yet in 2012 and 2013 Australia has broken their maximum (and Minimums) recorded temperatures by locations and the average across the whole continent. If you live in a bearable environment with 42C maximums now and then, and these rise to be 50C+ maximums over weeks on end, with associated changes in the intensity of bush fires and decreases in seasonal rainfall, then the effects are far greater than a simplistic 2C increase. The place becomes unlivable or more expensive to be there, and perhaps uneconomic.
It is known that the greatest natural disaster killer across the globe is in fact Heatwaves. Not tornadoes, or floods, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, but Heatwaves. And they are happening more now than ever known before. So it;s a hard fact.
Now whether or not this has to do with AGW is another debate entirely. I am simply pointing out the facts involved in the arguments actually being made by climate scientists and IPCC about the current climate changes already present, and those expected to come if their science is sound.
Whatever people choose to believe about that is their business. But at least get the facts right about what the arguments really are, and what they mean on the ground for people living everywhere over the long term. Should they actually be correct then 2C (another 1.3C more than now by 2050) has very serious implications.
Given the IPCC Reports from 1990 to 2007 have under-estimated EVERYTHING in their “forecasts” to 2013 except SLR should be some cause for concern and raise serious doubts about the basis for their models as well as their data collection ability. Yet already SLR science “experts” who actually published Papers are again claiming the IPCC scenarios are under-estimating SLR too in the AR5.
The IPCC estimate for total Arctic Sea Ice loss in the AR5 already appears to be 25+ years out from the current reality. Estimates for CO2 ppm are no better. Not supposed to hit 400 ppm until post ~2022, yet that has already been passed last year.
Worst of all the 2C cumulative increase by 2100 on BAU many scientists have been complaining to others about the conservative scenarios of the IPCC summaries saying it’s more like looking to be 4C or higher, and 2C before 2050.
Absolutely nothing of any effect has been made to decrease Fossil Fuel emissions from 1990 to now, which steady rise exponentially higher than the IPCCs RCP 8.5 which is BAU, Business as usual projections. All the other RCPs which “assume” moving to renewables and nuclear are worthless fantasy at this point in time, for none of those are anywhere close to being realistic.
So to those who believe that there is no AGW, or no climate change, or that if there is then it is no big deal, then you better hope you are right. But all you have on your side at present is “hope”. That’s it.
As to this by Dr. Moore: “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.”
Besides the obvious that past climate changes were caused by all manner of things totally disconnected from burning of fossil fuels and GHGs of today. Those climate’s beginning and end points were all totally different than today’s global climate in which we actually have to live. The present one is the ONLY one that counts or matters. That’s the reality which Moore is evading here.
Bringing this up in such a “narrative” of what came before about the “past” is pure sophistry. It isn’t science. It’s simplistic rhetoric that’s meaningless waffle. It’s an “opinion”, a “political view” not based on the whole gamut of already known facts.
In all these periods of the past that Moore points to there was no Bangkok on a river with 18 million people. No Mumbai or Philippines. There was no New York City, no Detroit or St Louis in the mid-west. There was no London nor a Moscow. There wasn’t 1.3 billion people living in China either. There wasn’t 7 billion on the planet as a whole all needing to be fed. There was no towering buildings or The Palm Island at Dubai. No IMF, no WEF, no UN, no global financial system.
There was no Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, or North Korea. No OECD. No electric power generators, no nuclear power plants, and no nuclear armed ICBMs. It’s a different world. Dr. Moore should be dealing with this world today, and leave the bullshit to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Thanks, that’s what I think. I bet there are many who’ll disagree. Fine by me. Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe after 25 years the IPCC and the UNFCCC has been a total waste of time and effort. It lacks credibility for all kinds of reasons that are justified, and some that are not. But essentially nothing has changed, nothing is about to change either.
The IPCC crowd has lost, and the WUWTs, the Monckton’s and the Tea party brigades all over the world have won. Congratulations are in order.
Thanks, Walter
Slightly off topic, and apologies for being such.
It’s some time since Dana Nuccitelli’s conflict of interest was disclosed wrt. Tetra Tech.
http://omnologos.com/guardians-nuccitelli-linked-to-leading-alternative-energy-company/
He gets regular page space in the Guardian, and I don’t know if people realise how the U.K. has become an epicentre of propaganda promulgation, not least with the leftist statist BBC operating in tandem with the Guardian. In many ways this is where the U.K. deviates from the U.S. because in the U.S. conservatives were alerted and opened their minds in the aftermath of Climategate, whereas the “conservative” government in the U.K. is headed up by David Cameron, who (rather foolishly) pledged to lead the “greenest government ever” prior to his election in 2010.
Anyway, on reflection, and in seeing Dana’s columns and comment sections for his articles I wonder how he has been let off the hook with his conflict of interest. Are we not ruthless enough, because the alarmists would sure be if they found something related to a key figure amongst “sceptics”. I note that any commenters for his articles who try to raise his conflict of interest are rapidly censored. Surely the Guardian should be forced to include a statement of disclosure within his articles, that would only be right from a journalistic integrity point of view. So just wondering, how we, as a community allowed him to get off so easily when his conflict of interest was discovered? Is there a basis for a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission on the basis that there is no disclosure of his conflict of interest? I find the hypocrisy stunning from the Guardian, as no one would stand for someone who worked for a military contractor writing articles to put forwards the case for military intervention somewhere across the world.
Walter K… If IPCC has lost then why did you just write an essay saying that Dr. Moore is wrong and that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?
If co2 is responsible for the warming then why did the ice age 450 million years ago have 10 times as much co2 as today, how did the earth go into an ice age with so much co2?
Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Mark please READ what I was referring to explicitly
Moore says: (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Findings and Judgments made about the PAST to date.
Moore then says: “These ****judgments**** are based, ***almost entirely***, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the ****future**** of global climate.”
Mark, you say this:
“I will take exception to your rant about predicting the future.”
AR4 WGI SPM reads as follows:
Projections of Future Changes in Climate <"
I was explicitly speaking of the PAST, as per what Moore actually said, and I quoted him. That is what I focused on regarding Dr Moore. That is the context and the content of my comment. He was MIS-representing the facts, and he was mixing the evaluation and judgments of past observations, with the FUTURE evaluations and "projections" done by the IPCC.
Two different things entirely. I made no comment about future GCMs in the AR5. Moore was speaking about the AR5 finding s about the 20th Century. I stayed on topic. If you have something to say about that, then go ahead.
And it was NOT a "rant". These matters are complex. Please deal with the complexity as it is, which requires detailed explanations and quotes, and stop mislabeling it as a RANT. I find that kind of default response as unnecessary, untrue, tiresome, a typical ad hominen insult, and offensive. It just makes you look bad. I won't wear it.
Thanks. I hope that sorts out any confusion there.
Walter, could you put down the crack pipe for a second?
Heatwaves are the biggest killer? Can you support that? It’s not my field, but a quick search seems to imply that the floods in China in the 1930’s had the biggest natural disaster death toll in modern times. Other floods, earthquakes, and cyclones look to rank behind that.
First the SPM’s don’t make predictions, now heatwaves are the biggest natural disaster killers.
.
..
…
I’m going to bed now.
Walter,
I see we cross posted.
You know Walter, I think I understand your point now. But you are focusing on a detail that really doesn’t seem to be relevant in any way shape or form. I don’t think whether or not the IPCC drew their conclusions about certainty from models or from some other process is anything that remotely resembles a necessary foundation for Dr. Moore’s argument. It’s an irrelevant detail to obsess about, in my view.