![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/
Wow, you guys are spending way too much time and effort refuting the surface tension loon troll.
“lemiere jacques says:
…yes..and that s enough to say even 100 % of scientist belived in this theory…it is only a theory…”
In science, Theories are organized rules explaining verified observations- two of the biggies are Newton’s Theory of Universal Graviation, explaining the paths of planets, stars, galaxies, etc., and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, explaining why so many species, like horses, donkeys, onagers, zebras, or moose, elks, antelopes, etc, appear to show various degrees of relationship to one another. Theories are generally NOT
guesses, but organizations of well established fact. I’d call “Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming” a hypothesis rather than a theory.
RMB made a simple claim repeatedly over the years that you can’t heat a bucket of water with a heat gun. So I took a thermally insignificant thick paper bowl and the water in it heated exactly as any user of a hair drier would expect it to heat. You have atoms arranged in space and energy input. That spells heat and a thermometer shows this simple everyday influence of adding heat to a system of atoms. Skepticism has been sadly infiltrated by crackpots and thats my point. Either shun them or become them in the public eye. You could barely design a better crackpot bot than RMB if you wanted to politely deface the reputation of climate model skepticism.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/water-is-replacing-climate-as-the-next-un-environmental-resource-scare/#comment-1463852
[excerpt]
… Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, made particular mention of the fall of the Berlin Wall in this essay written in 1994 – see paragraph 2 below.
Keep in mind that I am not saying this, rather I am quoting Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace – but I tend to accept his analysis.
For more evidence, read http://www.green-agenda.com/
Regards, Allan
[excerpt]
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.
**************
I categorize extreme environmentalism as a cult. Their demands to save the earth are extreme and judgmental with a huge dose of punishment promised if everyone doesn’t agree with and implement their solutions. The movement might fade from view faster if not for many governments fueling their zeal with huge piles of money. The governments believe a huge cache of gold will be theirs through taxes, fees and regulations on the evil carbon rich “fossil fuels”. Everything is justified by claiming their policies and programs will save the earth.
Meanwhile the Greenpeace chief in charge of anti-travel campaign have been commuting from his home in the tax haven of Luxembourg to Amsterdam via plane for 2 years… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666479/Greenpeace-chief-commutes-plane-Executive-flies-250-miles-Luxembourg-Amsterdam-despite-organisations-anti-air-travel-campaign.html
I would believe in whatever Greens spews if they act like they believe in it as well.
We had early warnings since the 1990s – see late addition book covers at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html
And to put all that IPCC claimed global warming into perspective, I suggest a look at
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html
And for a real eye-opener:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/tyger-spoors.html
Read this book and ‘How the World Works’ becomes more understandable. The Future is open…
@ur momisugly Ferdberple your answer relating to the causes of the planets spin, has nothing to do with the actual causes of the proofs, when viewed on the basis of existing laws and logic.
“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.” ~Steve P
The difference is that the Greatest Generation fought these political and social movements in WWII, and also by proxy all over the world, but the hippies embraced them, utterly and coldly betraying both their parents and their children.
NikFromNYC says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:18 am
———————————
“You could barely design a better crackpot bot [..] if you wanted to politely deface the reputation of climate model skepticism.”
I did make that point 😉
Such a creation could then be deployed against anyone doing anything like this –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
A meaningful contribution by a once supporter of “global warming” need for action, provides much needed rational discussion.
Dr Patrick Moore is right, except for one thing… climate change (i.e. catastrophic man made global warming) is not a theory but a supposition (at best, an hypothesis). It has been propped up by flawed climate model projections and scenarios, cherry-picked data, and misleading information, and placed on a pedestal with the claim that it represents indisputable “gold-standard” science… and God help any real scientist who dares challenge this “gold-standard” science with valid scientific evidence.