![Dr-Moore-Photo-2010-120x180[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/dr-moore-photo-2010-120x1801.jpg?quality=83)
Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.
“The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific “proof” at all.”
Moore goes on to list some key facts about “climate change” which are ignored by true believers.
1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
For more:
===========================================================
Dr. Patrick Moore will give a keynote address at ICCC9, and I will be on a panel. There is just one week left to register. Go here if you want to attend:
http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Frankly, I’ve always felt that casting greens as religious fundamentalists is unfair to actual religious fundamentalists.
Merrick says:
June 21, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Exactly
PS: Another synonym is “true believer,” from Eric Hoffer’s book of that name (subtitle: “Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.”) It’s on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403382794&sr=1-1&keywords=true+believer+eric+hoffer
Is H2O a pollutant? It’s a green house gas and I boiled a pot of water today.
Marxism has a problem. People keep trying to escape from it. The solution is simple. It must be world-wide! At least it’ll foster space colonization.
“Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.”
—
I assume it is the “Ice Age” and not the current “interglacial period” that began 2.5 million years ago. There are two ways to read that sentence.
NikFromNYC says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:56 am
In reference to your video demonstrating heating of water by application of hot air: using such a small quantity of water in that tall bowl allows the possibility that the hot air directly heated the bowl, which then heated the water by conduction. Something seems to be amiss as the temperature gain for the first period of heating was 6 degrees over 47 seconds while the second period of heating gained 8 degrees over 29 seconds. The difference in heating rates suggests loss of water due to evaporation (a result of the flow of air upon the water surface) during the experiment exposed more of the bowl to the hot air, resulting in more heat being transferred to the water via the hotter bowl. Had the water been solely heated by hot air contact with the water surface, the rate of heat gain by the water during the 2nd test would have been lower due to decreasing surface area as the water level dropped within the bowl, or would at least have varied in accordance with the change in surface area to volume ratio of the water. That parameter would have to be monitored in order to properly evaluate the test.
Using a cylinder made of styrofoam or other nonconducting material filled to the rim would reduce the possibility of heat transfer from container to water, and simplify calculating surface to volume ratios. Run sequential tests, compare heating/cooling rates compared with evaporation, and make sure the thermometer is not warmed by the hot air stream.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
And for his honesty, I’m sure Dr. Moore is now reviled in the group he once founded.
Merrick says, “Frankly, I’ve always felt that casting greens as religious fundamentalists is unfair to actual religious fundamentalists.”
If you are looking for additional contestants for the most intolerant and arrogant cohort upon the face of this earth, I would like to suggest that the Baby Boomer fundamentalists actually take the biscuit for that category. Their anti-agriculture, anti-fossil fuel “sustainability” activism is now stooping to such deep lows of ignorance that the Boomers can now be included with the world’s most stupid movements and governments:
We need to keep in mind that the majority of UN nations are neither economically, politically, nor religiously free, and are all united in calling for controlling fossil fuels, agriculture, and cattle, and for forcefully legislating so-called “sustainable” development. There must be a category or a term for fundamentalism like that, and all of the Western intellectuals who happen to side with decidedly unfree, murderous, oppressive governments regarding “sustainability.”
Zeke says:
June 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm
No source for your quoted material and no mention of Baby Boomers in it.
‘Nothing as in zip, zero, nada, zilch to support your hysterical slurs against an entire generation.
But, in the final analysis, I try to have empathy with you, and seek understanding of whatever personal trauma you must have endured at the hands of my generation to inspire such impassioned contempt.
Steve P says, “zilch to support your hysterical slurs against an entire generation.”
Since the subtheme of the article is Fundamentalism:
Noun
1. A form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
2. Strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.
Fundamentalism is an attitude which is ascribed to religious people and is used in this WUWT post as a derogatory term. What I am attempting to introduce into the equation is that we who take our sacred texts very seriously do not own a monopoly on fundamentalism; instead, there is a very real possibility that the Baby Boomer generation can be considered some of the most entrenched fundamentalists of all. Some examples of subjects which Boomer Fundamentalism encompasses are: environmental regulations to the point of criminalization of normal and beneficial economic and social activity; recreational drug use, organic farming, government expansion and debt, and population control, to name a few. The Baby Boomers are in the highest positions in academia, politics, media, and entertainment right now and their fundamentalism has come to its final fruition in efforts to harmonize all economies in a world government under the environmental rubrick of “sustainable” development. Although it is not possible to make the full case here, I think this is The Baby Boomer Project. And now look what company Boomer Fundamentalists have landed themselves with in the G77+China Sustainability Summit. Trashy dictators and foreign interests.
But Steve P, thank you for your rap on the hand, I did deserve it, because the subject is too large, subliminal, and unacknowledged to try to mention it in a small comment.
Steve P says, “But, in the final analysis, I try to have empathy with you, and seek understanding of whatever personal trauma you must have endured at the hands of my generation to inspire such impassioned contempt.”
We live in a small town and there are now two headshops right on the main avenue. A dork dressed like a clown or a joint holds a sign on the corner, one block from my church, advertising the head shop. There are drinks and candies which contain MJ sold in the local covenience stores as sports drinks. The local high school, which once was great, now is flooded with heroine use. There are heroine users living under bridges and making camps in our woods. They leave mattresses, tents, and needles behind for every one else to clean up. Kids are dying of overdoses. My son was going to enter the reading contest with the local library and one of the prizes was a pen shaped like a hypodermic needle. I went back to visit the hippy town I grew up in and they had population control messages on every business window in the town. Something about two children only. This is the latest trauma I have suffered under the Boomer Generation. Thank you for trying to understand. So Boomers are always getting their way because if it feels good they do it, and I always have had to pay for it my entire life.
“Marxism has a problem. People keep trying to escape from it. The solution is simple. It must be world-wide! At least it’ll foster space colonization.”
Agree the problem with Marxism is that it so far, nationally, has been experienced less developed and poorer than more mixed kapitalistic nations.
The great Marxist solution? Hey let’s use environmentalism and climate fears to create UNEP global government, with the climate treaty, and rid Earth for kapitalism so no one will notice that we are not fre, do not develop and are poor?
NikFromNYC says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:56 am
//////////////////
Nik
The other night I made a jacket potato in the microwave. It took about 9 mins. The plate was so hot that I could not take it out of the micro wave without oven gloves.
A number of questions arise from your experiment.
1. What was the temperature of the bowl (both above and below the water line) before switching on the heat gun?
2. What was the temperature of the bowl (both above and below the water line) after using the heat gun?
3 What was the temperature of the hot air from the heat gun, and its velocity?
Your experiment is not comparable with conditions seen on planet Earth.
The air temperature over water is driven by the temperature of the water below. It is about the same temperature as the water itself. Notably it is not 100 (or more) degrees C warmer than the sea below. Incidentally, I have studied many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of entries in ship’s logs where water temperature, air temperature and sea state are recorded every 4 hours, so I am well acquainted with ocean conditions and prevailing air temperatures.
When it is rough and windy, at least as often as not, one gets cold winds as opposed to warm winds (the cold winds displacing upwards the lighter and warmer air). So presumably in these conditions, you would expect ocean cooling thereby cancelling out (equalising) any warming from periods when there wwere warm winds.
I am of the opinion that you need to re work your experiment by making an insulated container say a polystyrene box. make one half water proof and fill it with water at known temperature. In the other half fill with air say 2 degC warmer than the water. Then check to see how the temperature of the water reacts.
Repeat but gently rocking the box to replicate wave action.
I have thought for a long time that the ‘environmental movement’ has been hijacked by the climate change alarmists, much to its detriment. When I point this out to others I often get stared at blankly or receive replies which indicate they put climate change as the root of all environmental concerns.
Further to my last post regaring Nik’s experiment.
What I suspect is being observed is that the bowl above the water line is becoming heated as a result iof the heat applied from the heat gun. The heat of the bowl is then spread by conduction around the entirity of the bowl itself such that the bowl below the water line is now warmer than when the experiment began and is heating the water by conduction (largely from bottom upwards).
Today’s greens are yesterdays reds.
Greenpeace is trying to stop fracking in the UK, Greenpeace paid by Russia to do this.
By definition, faith involves beliefs that can neither be proven or disproven,
Zeke says:
June 21, 2014 at 9:29 pm
Ah so. Fundamentalism is acceptable in the hands of those who take their sacred texts very seriously, but dangerous when connected, even arbitrarily, to Baby Boomers?
‘Don’t quite follow you there, but again, you offer no support for your assertions, which – to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history – are laughable.
Population control is a Baby Boomer invention? Join me now as as a company of merry pranksters travels back in time to found the Eugenics movement, which will include Arrhenius himself.
I think you’re just jealous that many Baby Boomers are now retiring, with some in reasonably good health because obesity has never been a problem with my generation.. True, tobacco and alcohol have already taken many, but as far as I know, no one has ever died from pot, although many have suffered from its persecution, often led by religious zealots like yourself, cherishing your sacred texts, which I consider a load of hooey.
It may surprise you to learn that the so-called hippie movement did not spring up spontaneously within my generation, but rather was led by a number of scraggly pied pipers, including more than a few with rather curious connections, who had arrived on the scene just as the anti-war movement was beginning to gain momentum, and who were successful in discrediting and scattering its forces.
It was only when the ranks of the anti-war movement were swelled with, and eventually led by increasing numbers of returning Viet Nam vets, hippies kicked aside, that the anti-war movement regained the moral high ground.
But I think you’re really suffering from a bad case of Paisley and Patchouli envy. Say what you will about the 60s and 70s…pretty much everything since has been all downhill, and if I could really travel back in time…
Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
Kingston Trio
more soylent green! says:
June 22, 2014 at 7:49 am
“By definition, faith involves beliefs that can neither be proven or disproven,
Is your point that CAGW proponents have no evidence to support their belief, and thereby earn the label “fundamentalists” because “holding a belief without evidence” is what fundamentalists do?
I agree there should be a word or phrase that describes any who hold to a scientific proposition that has been shown to be unsupported by scientific evidence. “Irrational” seems apt as a label for their belief, and I previously proposed “irrationalist” for the nasty variety that employ insults instead of scientific evidence to “support” their belief. I do not agree that “fundamentalist” is a good choice for this use because this word has been hijacked the same way “skeptic” has. Skeptics do not deny the scientific evidence, nor do Christian fundamentalists hold a belief without evidence.
There is a distinction between scientific propositions that require scientific proof and, e.g. historical propositions that do not require scientific proof. There is no scientific proof that George Washington was the 1st president of the U.S. Are all who believe he was, exhibiting blind faith? Or are written accounts sufficient proof? The word “fundamentalism” originally meant belief that the Bible is a true historical account.
“Fundamentalism” has a distorted definition in modern society, and so does “faith”. The Bible does not ask us to believe by faith, as God reveals himself to all who seek him (1Chr. 28:9). It asks us to have faith that God will keep his promises. (Heb. 11:7-9)
As a footnote, this reply is on point because religious fundamentalism is a key point in the post and this thread.
SR
NikFromNYC says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:56 am
————————————–
Nik,
RMB’s claim is incorrect, it is possible to heat water through the skin evaporation layer, it is just not very effective. “surface tension” is a mis-direction.
However, the criticisms of your demonstration by Steve Reddish and Richard Verney are valid. This experiment is best run in a square tub filled to the brim, with the hot air source positioned so as not to cause splashing or heating of the plastic tub. The experiment can then be re-run with the hot air directed at the side of the tub to demonstrate the dramatic difference in heating.
I understand that many sceptics are cautious about challenging the “basic physics” of the “settled science” for fear of looking foolish. All it takes to exploit this is a few people who are clearly wrong posting comments that sound similar to those who challenge the “DWLWIR keeping the oceans 33C warmer than theoretical blackbody” meme, and the fearful can be easily steered away from examining the foundation of sand underlying the whole CAGW thing.
Perhaps it’s time to ask the question as to why so many “false flag” efforts are concentrated in the one area? Why are climastrologists suddenly so desperate to abandon SSTs as a metric for warming?
I have run a number of experiments into the issue of DWLWIR slowing the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool. The clear answer is that it is entirely ineffective. DWLWIR is not what is keeping the oceans 33C above their theoretical blackbody temperature.
The answer to why the oceans are so warm without DWLWIR is simple. The oceans are not a “near blackbody” or anywhere close. They are a SW/UV selective surface. The sun alone is quite sufficient to warm the oceans. If you are interested in running empirical experiments then I would suggest building these two –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
– placing these experiments in full sun for a few hours will give a clear demonstration as to the difference between “near blackbody” and “selective surface”.
Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans. The atmosphere in turn has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. The oceans cover 71% of the planets surface. Have a think about what that means for the entire idea of a net global radiative GHE. It’s not a little bit wrong. It’s completely and utterly wrong.
Note – nothing I am presenting here challenges known radiative physics in any way shape or form. I am simply challenging the mis-application of standard S-B equations to moving fluids, transparent materials and materials that cool via evaporation.
Patrick Moore is absolutely right when he says that climate changes have no scientific basis to today’s claims that the changes are based on the consequences of human action and some kind of models that can spruce up the computers at will. The computer made films that were “revived” the dinosaurs.
It is rare that there is someone who uses his awareness when he wants to know the true causes of an event. All run to their computer to do such people without individual consciousness believe his “pet” more than all the things of which they are incurred but not yet aware of who they are and how else can create anything. The biggest fallacy to argue that the climate is changing, depending on what people are doing. There are many logical and influential factor that causes climate change and all the phenomena of the sun. Sunspot cycle of about 11.2 years (the average), the main indicator of change, but not the cause. There are a lot of cycles and sub-cycles generated by the interaction of celestial bodies in the solar system. The solution to this issue is the biggest challenge of science at all times. Why then there is no seriousness to invite those that offer a logical solution. I know from my previous offer, that many of you wonder how a stranger like me can give such explanations. Because I have a true indication of the solution of the enigma, and many do not believe that it is a matter of today’s level of consciousness of the majority, who only want to earn money on deception. This is politics, and even modern science.
To check all who read this, I ask: Does anyone on the planet knows that prove the true cause of the spin of the planet. I know one, and it seems that I am. Do you want to learn, provide a fair correspondence.
NikFromNYC says:
June 21, 2014 at 11:56 am
=========
two correct answers are possible. depending on the humidity and temperature difference between the air and water, a moving stream of air may cool or warm a body of water. using a heat gun with a temperature difference in the hundreds of degrees is not a realistic recreation of ocean conditions.
the true cause of the spin of the planet
========
conservation of angular momentum does seem far fetched as an explanation, given the highly improbable near integer resonance with orbital periods.
why does a boat adrift on the ocean naturally align itself broadside to the waves? for the same reason the planets spin. it is the minimum energy configuration of the overall system.
@highflight56433
Where can I get hold of some of that “dodecane C12H26 216”
Seems like it could make my Humvee go a hellava lot faster
and the clouds of CO2 that it would emit as a result, would
they be richer in the life giving gas. I should hope so.
CO2 is the gift that keeps on giving.