Greenpeace co-founder tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change

[Antares]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is "not caused by humans" and there is "no scientific proof" to back global warming alarmism.


The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is "little correlation" to support a "direct causal relationship" between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

It goes from bad to worse for true believers.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Interesting, but there is a simple counterpoint. Humans never met anything that they didn't change. The fact that he would like more conclusive science on the matter is not an issue, since so would everyone else.

 

[Antares]

Not true, the entire argument of the Left is that the Science is "settled"...when it is not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not true, the entire argument of the Left is that the Science is "settled"...when it is not.

There is a Consensus. Science, by its very nature, is rarely settled. We're pretty solid on gravity however. That hasn't changed much for a while.

 

[tinydancer]

He's a very interesting soul. I left Greenpeace before he did. I couldn't take their politicization sp? any more.

Just like PETA. Great idea. Great movement and then they got into themselves. You should see what these people pay themselves.

BUT the biggie is their expense accounts.

Ok back to Moore. He's been out there from the get go calling this all a lie. He's only getting face time now.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm not real interested in opinions
I'm interested in peer-reviewed science

What does that say?

 

[william the wie]

AGW is an argument of exclusion but since climate like weather is deterministic but unpredictable, an argument of exclusion does not work.

 

[tinydancer]

Not true, the entire argument of the Left is that the Science is "settled"...when it is not.

There is a Consensus. Science, by its very nature, is rarely settled. We're pretty solid on gravity however. That hasn't changed much for a while.

My husband took umbrage with your statement. I am married to a science dude. I typed as he dictated this to me.

His creds are from the University of Toronto. Double majored in biology and chemistry.

****************************************************************

Gravity existed before the science that explained it did.

Herein lies the difference.

Gravity is a fact. Science had to explain it. Once explained then gravity became the fact.

The fact that we do not spin off into space means that gravity exists. That is good science.

Bad science tries to attribute causation to a phenomenon that has a myriad of inputs, such as fluctuations in climate.

To attempt to contribute one input into variation in climate is not only poor science it's pure stupidity and only politically motivated in order to collect money in the form of carbon tax credits.

****************************************************************

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think I'll stick with nasa, nws and noaa.

 

[tinydancer]

I think I'll stick with nasa, nws and noaa.

Proven liars? Mother and father of all liars?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let's see some peer-reviewed science.
good science is verifiable and refutable
Not just opinions

So what does the peer-reviewed science say?

 

[hazlnut]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is "not caused by humans" and there is "no scientific proof" to back global warming alarmism.


The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is "little correlation" to support a "direct causal relationship" between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

It goes from bad to worse for true believers.

This is not news.

He has not been involved with any environmental groups or Greenpeace since 1986.

And he was not a co-founder.

 

[Antares]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is "not caused by humans" and there is "no scientific proof" to back global warming alarmism.


The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is "little correlation" to support a "direct causal relationship" between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

It goes from bad to worse for true believers.

This is not news.

He has not been involved with any environmental groups or Greenpeace since 1986.

And he was not a co-founder.

Run along pole smoker, Google says he is, sorry.

 

[tinydancer]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is "not caused by humans" and there is "no scientific proof" to back global warming alarmism.


The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is "little correlation" to support a "direct causal relationship" between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

It goes from bad to worse for true believers.

This is not news.

He has not been involved with any environmental groups or Greenpeace since 1986.

And he was not a co-founder.

He was the co founder. You are such a liar. And stop with the big pictures. I am going to report your insanity.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not true, the entire argument of the Left is that the Science is "settled"...when it is not.

There is a Consensus. Science, by its very nature, is rarely settled. We're pretty solid on gravity however. That hasn't changed much for a while.

My husband took umbrage with your statement. I am married to a science dude. I typed as he dictated this to me.

His creds are from the University of Toronto. Double majored in biology and chemistry.

****************************************************************

Gravity existed before the science that explained it did.

Herein lies the difference.

Gravity is a fact. Science had to explain it. Once explained then gravity became the fact.

The fact that we do not spin off into space means that gravity exists. That is good science.

Bad science tries to attribute causation to a phenomenon that has a myriad of inputs, such as fluctuations in climate.

To attempt to contribute one input into variation in climate is not only poor science it's pure stupidity and only politically motivated in order to collect money in the form of carbon tax credits.

****************************************************************

Very good until the end. It's an attempt to stop, or reverse, if that's even possible which is unlikely, the alterations the activity of mankind has made to the climate, if any? There's no question that mankind changes things. The question is have we changed the climate and is there anything we either can or should do about it? The consensus is that we, by our lifestyle, are changing the climate of the planet. That's not a huge leap considering that we have changed everything else we've ever touched.

 

[Iceweasel]

Let's see some peer-reviewed science.
good science is verifiable and refutable
Not just opinions

So what does the peer-reviewed science say?

The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Peer-reviewed: man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Peer-reviewed: man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo has an important new paper published in Global and Planetary Change which finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2"

Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper:

[Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later. This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.
The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.

Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far

The highlights of the paper are:

The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

 

[tinydancer]

There is a Consensus. Science, by its very nature, is rarely settled. We're pretty solid on gravity however. That hasn't changed much for a while.

My husband took umbrage with your statement. I am married to a science dude. I typed as he dictated this to me.

His creds are from the University of Toronto. Double majored in biology and chemistry.

****************************************************************

Gravity existed before the science that explained it did.

Herein lies the difference.

Gravity is a fact. Science had to explain it. Once explained then gravity became the fact.

The fact that we do not spin off into space means that gravity exists. That is good science.

Bad science tries to attribute causation to a phenomenon that has a myriad of inputs, such as fluctuations in climate.

To attempt to contribute one input into variation in climate is not only poor science it's pure stupidity and only politically motivated in order to collect money in the form of carbon tax credits.

****************************************************************

Very good until the end. It's an attempt to stop, or reverse, if that's even possible which is unlikely, the alterations the activity of mankind has made to the climate, if any? There's no question that mankind changes things. The question is have we changed the climate and is there anything we either can or should do about it? The consensus is that we, by our lifestyle, are changing the climate of the planet. That's not a huge leap considering that we have changed everything else we've ever touched.

From his lips to my fingertips.

At one point dinosaurs ranged from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America. What industrialization was responsible for that global warming?

In addition, 20 years ago which represents the last time the planet warmed to any significant degree, all of the other planets in our solar system experienced the same degree of warming.

Was that caused by our coal plants?

I also wonder why you maintain this stance considering that the United Nations Council on Global Warming the IPCC has admitted there has been no warming.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My husband took umbrage with your statement. I am married to a science dude. I typed as he dictated this to me.

His creds are from the University of Toronto. Double majored in biology and chemistry.

****************************************************************

Gravity existed before the science that explained it did.

Herein lies the difference.

Gravity is a fact. Science had to explain it. Once explained then gravity became the fact.

The fact that we do not spin off into space means that gravity exists. That is good science.

Bad science tries to attribute causation to a phenomenon that has a myriad of inputs, such as fluctuations in climate.

To attempt to contribute one input into variation in climate is not only poor science it's pure stupidity and only politically motivated in order to collect money in the form of carbon tax credits.

****************************************************************

Very good until the end. It's an attempt to stop, or reverse, if that's even possible which is unlikely, the alterations the activity of mankind has made to the climate, if any? There's no question that mankind changes things. The question is have we changed the climate and is there anything we either can or should do about it? The consensus is that we, by our lifestyle, are changing the climate of the planet. That's not a huge leap considering that we have changed everything else we've ever touched.

From his lips to my fingertips.

At one point dinosaurs ranged from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America. What industrialization was responsible for that global warming?

In addition, 20 years ago which represents the last time the planet warmed to any significant degree, all of the other planets in our solar system experienced the same degree of warming.

Was that caused by our coal plants?

I also wonder why you maintain this stance considering that the United Nations Council on Global Warming the IPCC has admitted there has been no warming.

My stance is always the same, humans change the environment. Have they changed the climate? The science is not to a point where we can say yes or no yet. If they have will that be detrimental to us and other species? Also unknown. Are things changing? They certainly seem to be but mankind has a very limited ability to judge because this is all rather new to us. That is my stance.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not real interested in opinions
I'm interested in peer-reviewed science

What does that say?

My buddy back in Boston is a Ph D who did his post doctoral at Harvard University and is now a chemist for a pharmaceutical company where he makes six figures a year. He told me a few years ago that peer review is pretty much a joke.

 

[tinydancer]

Very good until the end. It's an attempt to stop, or reverse, if that's even possible which is unlikely, the alterations the activity of mankind has made to the climate, if any? There's no question that mankind changes things. The question is have we changed the climate and is there anything we either can or should do about it? The consensus is that we, by our lifestyle, are changing the climate of the planet. That's not a huge leap considering that we have changed everything else we've ever touched.

From his lips to my fingertips.

At one point dinosaurs ranged from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America. What industrialization was responsible for that global warming?

In addition, 20 years ago which represents the last time the planet warmed to any significant degree, all of the other planets in our solar system experienced the same degree of warming.

Was that caused by our coal plants?

I also wonder why you maintain this stance considering that the United Nations Council on Global Warming the IPCC has admitted there has been no warming.

My stance is always the same, humans change the environment. Have they changed the climate? The science is not to a point where we can say yes or no yet. If they have will that be detrimental to us and other species? Also unknown. Are things changing? They certainly seem to be but mankind has a very limited ability to judge because this is all rather new to us. That is my stance.

I'm big on water and have been so since Grassy Narrows. Yes, I will scare the shit out of you because I am a conservative.........keeding

I'm a conservationist and have been for decades.

I believe in the here and now and taking what limited resources we have to actually clean up the planet.

Not that we can't look at what might be on the horizon. BUT DAMMIT FIX THE HERE AND NOW AND QUICKLY.

Sorry for the caps but I am really passionate about this.