by PATRICK MOORE I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told the debate is over and the science is settled. My skepticism begins with the believers certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures. In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization. The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous. Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about. IPCC Conflict of Interest By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We dont understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. Political Powerhouse Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it. Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate narrative. Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy. So we are told carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die. Human Emissions Saved Planet Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today. At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earths slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children? Celebrate Carbon Dioxide The IPCCs followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Lets celebrate carbon dioxide. source Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions, and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the worlds largest environmental activist organization.
I would take Dr. Moore's argument more seriously if I thought he actually understood what the IPCC was saying. It is not the magnitude of the temperature increase which is the problem, but rather the rate at which it is increasing. No one is saying that CO2 itself is the problem, just the 30 gigatonnes humans are adding to the atmosphere each year. And while many plants would do better with higher temperatures and CO2 levels, that is not the case for crops like wheat, rice and corn which fulfill 75% of our dietary needs.
Geenpeace? Yeah, there's a real scientific organization for ya. (Not.) Maybe that's because you haven't studied the issue carefully, like climatologists do. There is no "scientific proof" of anything, including heliocentricity. The term is an oxymoron. Science is always open to new data. And data is what we have, mountains and mountains of it, from dozens of sources and disciplines, all pointing the same way. When the mountain of evidence gets that high, it becomes perverse to withhold one's provisional assent. That's because from a scientific perspective, the debate is over and the science is settled. There is no competing scientific hypothesis that accounts for the existing mountain of data, or even attempts to. Since there is no "other side" actively being debated in peer-reviewed literature, there is no scientific debate. The remaining debate is political, not scientific. Every scientific law is a model. If you don't like models, you don't like science. In this particular case, the law we're modeling is Conservation of Energy, which is the most important, and most well-founded, law in all of science. Skepticism is fine as long as you have a basis for it. What's the basis of your skepticism, Patrick? We don't know because you're not saying. This is the unscientific "argument from personal incredulity" more often seen among creationists. Which is about the level of scientific expertise displayed here. Utterly false. Civilization can (and would) collapse long before temperatures become unlivable. Crop failure will do the trick nicely. Also false. According to the latest research, the Earth has been very slowly cooling for the past 6000 years, before the invention of the steam engine and the concomitant surge in coal use -- at which point it began warming very rapidly. Also false. If you blather on long enough, will you say something correct sooner or later? Back to the unscientific argument from personal incredulity again. Creationists would be proud of you, son! A flat-out lie. As anyone who has read the IPCC report would tell you. The word "doom" does not appear in it. Utter nonsense and balderdash. All it means is decarbonizing our energy supply. Sensible plans for doing so cheaply have already been published, and many nations are already on the path to doing so. Not true. The IPCC is tasked with studying anthropogenic climate change, but they are not proscribed from studying natural climate change and indeed one must do so in order to correctly attribute the causes of climate change -- and in fact the IPCC did explicitly look at possible natural causes in each of their reports. Of course one would have to actually read the IPCC reports to find that out, so I guess Patrick doesn't qualify as being informed. (But we knew that already.) Utter and total tommyrot. Dishonest, disingenuous, and dangerously deceitful rubbish. Causes of both natural and anthropogenic climate change are well known, well studied, and well understood. I can cite a dozen peer-reviewed papers showing that. Moore is simply lying here. I'm absolutely confident that the IPCC would be happy to fold up its tents and go home if climate change were no longer problem. Once again this is a severe (and deliberate?) misreading of the IPCC mandate, and of the IPCC reports.
ridicule source. No rebuttal questioning your opponents intelligence, no rebuttal deflect with definitions, no rebuttal. assertion that the 'debate is over'. It obviously is not. Most of the 'mountains of data are from computer models & speculation. But i agree, most of this debate is not based on science, but politics. There is still no rebuttal, but only assertions. deflecting & dodging with definitions, again. The issue is the science, not the definitions. Then clarify the 'basis for climate change', if it is not increasing co2 levels. That seems to be the central argument, yet you claim that to be false? What is it, then, according to you, since you set yourself up as the defining authority? Dismissal by assertion. Some vague reference to 'latest research' is not a rebuttal. ad hominem, dismissal by assertion, no rebuttal, no counter evidence given. distortion of points, ad hominem, dismissal.. no rebuttal, no refutation of claims with logic or evidence. nit picking terminology. warmers are constantly predicting 'doom'. Your assertion that they are not is false. Argument by assertion. 'sensible plans' is very debateable. nationalizing all energy production is not seen as a valid solution by everyone. Where is this 'alternate energy?' Can you farm with it? Transport food & manufactured goods across the globe? Generate enough electricity & energy for the planet? No. It is stuck in the fantasy stage, & cannot get out. Your opinion vs his opinion. ..hardly an evidenced rebuttal. Ad hominem & distortion. You claim absolute knowledge about something that is not even a good evidenced theory. To cover, you yell & scream & call names. There are more than a few 'peer reviewed' papers questioning the validity of the central claim. right. bureaucrats with a grant will always choose to kill the golden goose. Once again, ad hominem, deflections, distortions, & loud, repeated lies given instead of valid science.
A perfectly legitimate tactic, approved, endorsed, and used by usfan. Oh! Were you wrong to do that? Ditto. You should realize that when someone presents no data, no rebuttal is required.
Does anyone KNOW that taxes are on your Gas bill, on your energy bills, on many items where you never see the charges made, and have zero clue about the level of Taxation the government exerts on you??? All energy is now on the Taxation Block which means we will all paying money never noticed or controlled as it is spent, based on these arguments about climate change. Very bad idea.
Here is how a 'debate' works. 1. a premise is made. 'Resolved: X. 2. Rebuttals are made, with DATA & EVIDENCE to refute the resolution. 3. counter rebuttals are made, that refute the first rebuttals. 4. Final arguments & summations, using the proofs given in the debate. In this thread, the resolution was made in the OP. His general conclusions were given. To rebut them, evidence & logic would have to be provided to refute his premises. You cannot merely say, 'No, it isn't!' & call that a rebuttal. A premise opens debate, & allows the logic & evidence of each side to be presented. To jump right to ad hominem & assertions short circuits the debate & turns it into a shouting match of assertions.
Gee, you must be very, very unhappy with Patrick Moore then, for not following your rules. But actually, you're wrong. It's up to the OP to present evidence FIRST. Which he has not done. Nor have you.
You are making the claim: 1. The world is coming to an end!! The ice caps are melting! The world is burning up because of fossil fuels!! Increased co2 levels will kill us all!! 2. The OP is a rebuttal: My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures. 3. You have made the claim, reasons have been given to dispute it. Prove the claim with real science, not propaganda, if it is so plainly true. The ones making the fantastic claims have the burden of proof, not those who doubt them. The skeptics can simply say they do NOT see the compelling evidence, if none is presented. 4. Why the religious fanaticism for this, if it is 'science'? Just present the data, your sources & reasonings, & you can make your conclusions. But shouting, 'HERESY!!' for anyone who disputes your conclusion is not a scientific discipline. It is an intolerant religious one.
Nope. Nobody has said any of that. You're out. Nobody should believe a thing you say given your stream of lies, straw dogs, and nonsense logic.
This guy is REALLY off in the tall weeds. "science is settled": Science has NOT claimed that ALL issues related to climate change are settled. The claim is that it is settled science that humans are the key player in the warming that is going on right now. "doomsday": There is no "doomsday" prediction from science. Science does not do "doomsday". "the IPCC covers only human causes": Obviously and totally false. Read their charter at https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml "co2": NOBODY thinks we should cut all carbon emissions (which is impossible, anyway), so all parts of the diatribe on CO2 are either irrelevant or false. This guy's article is one more collection of total misunderstanding.
I am still waiting for someone to show me the computer models Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar used to predict anthropogenic global warming.
Seriously? You are trying to deny that this is the message of al gore & all the global warming alarmists? The ice caps aren't melting? We won't have a greenhouse effect? The loss of credibility is yours. I phrased it in colorful terminology, but the content is accurate. What is all the fuss about, if there is not impending doom? That is EXACTLY the message of alarm & terror that you are promoting. How can you sit there & deny it?
Erm, quoting the Heartland Institute quoting the founder of Greenpeace, is like Dick Cheney citing the wonderful benefits of not holding one's gun properly while intending to shoot clipped birds, but shooting his lawyer instead.
You, OTOH, have a lot of handwaving & assertions. Perhaps you are joking. You've never heard any warmers claim the science is 'settled'? It is constantly presented as proven fact, not a hare brained theory. The logic is faulty, the data extrapolated, incomplete, & inconclusive, yet it is trumpeted as FACT. Look at any global warming thread.. the defenders are dedicated disciples, more akin to cult followers than scientific truth seekers. You can retort with ad hominem, or scream, 'Heresy!! Kill the infidels!!' if you want, but it is not a compelling scientific argument to me.
Greenpeace is an ENVIRONMENTAL group, dedicated to preserving the ENVIRONMENT. AGW is right up their alley, if it is indeed a threat to the environment. If EXPERTS in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE think the AGW 'theory' is baloney, perhaps you should reconsider your devotion to a UN backed political movement? ..unless, of course, you agenda is not environmental, but political..
And you're a liar. I made no such claim. Is this your idea of "evidence"? Or is this what passes for honesty in Denierstan? No such claim by me in this thread. I guess you guys in Denierstan find reading too tedious? False claim #3 by usfan. I made no such claim in this thread. False claim #4 by usfan. I made no such claim in this thread. Four statements by usfan, and zero-for-four are correct. But that's just par for the course in Denierstan. By your own rules, it's not a rebuttal because it contains nothing but assertions devoid of data and evidence. I guess in Denierstan, rules are only for the other guy? Or do you just have trouble remembering what you believe from one hour to the next? I have made no such claims in this thread, and you're simply making stuff up because you've lost. When you can't refute what I actually say, you simply refute what you wish that you imagine that you hope that I should have said. It's called the old strawman trick. And it's fundamentally dishonest. I agree that Moore's statement is religious and not scientific. But why aren't you asking the OP this question instead of me?
Then again, the Heartland Institute is a political organization paid by the Petrochemical industry to rebut climate science, so why should anyone give credence to any claim it makes?
Patrick Moore isn't a Greenpeace founder. He was an early member, but Greenpeace had been around for a couple years before he showed up. He later left the group after he found there was more profit in being an industry shill. And even if he was a founder and active member, his dumb opinion wouldn't mean a thing, being the logic stank and it got most of the facts wrong. You deniers need to understand that the rational people don't accept argument-from-authority.
The terminology is critical. If it's certain doom, then why worry? If, on the other hand, we can do something to mitigate the problem and/or we can take action to prepare for the predicted conditions, then we have something we should be seriously considering. As Newt Gingrich said (with regard to climate change, but applying to all public policy) we set public policy based on odds times cost. In this case, science says the odds are high and the costs of warming are high - thus warranting consideration of public policy. In other words, we should be considering costs, and considering odds. Science says the odds are high that we will have significant warming - several degrees within a hundred years, or whatever. The Pentagon, public planners, and others point out that this will be incredibly expensive. I agree Gore made a mistake. He projected worst case scenarios that science knew of at the time, thinking that was a way to jolt our nation to reality. The problem is, worst case is the line defining what science sees as not possibly happening. Unfortunately, instead of jolting us to reality it is serving as a way to IGNORE science and instead talk about Gore - who is NOT a scientist.
The phrase does not mean that ALL science is settled. That is a profoundly absurd interpretation. What is settled is that human activity is the major factor effecting the warming that is occurring. No other factor or combination of factors approaches what humans are doing. Yes, you will find that a lot of people are interested in what science has to say on this topic - as they should. Perhaps more importantly, we NEVER wait for certainty when we make public policy. TARP, tax codes, Fed policy, lead levels in water, drugs testing - NOTHING is based on certainty of efficacy. There is no way to support the notion that we need MORE certainty in this case. There is just no excuse for suggesting we need more certainty about warming before we start implementing ways to limit that warming and to live with the warming that we know we can not stop.
