Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’


By: - Climate DepotFebruary 25, 2014 2:01 PM with 56 comments

[Gore Effect Strikes Another Global Warming Hearing: Senate climate hearing met by DC snowstorm – ‘snow coats D.C. area’ – Area under ‘Winter Weather Advisory’ on day of climate global warming hearing.]

Watch archived hearing here.

Click Here to Watch Live Senate Hearing at 2pm Est. & Read Full Testimonies of other witnesses

Obama Science Czar John Holdren’s testimony here.

Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:

“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.

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 is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘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.’

On UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming: ‘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.

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?

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.”

#

Full Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D.

Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight - “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

February 25, 2014

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 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC 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 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC 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 2oC 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.

Click here for Moore’s full chapter excerpt

#

Related Links: 

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans’ – Moore: ‘CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth…At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth’

Former Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore calls NAS ‘tipping point’ study ‘pure junk’: ‘Low point for US National Academy of Science. Warns of ‘tipping points’ in climate like ‘drunk drivers’

Former Greenpeace Founding Member Dr. Patrick Moore refutes warmist’s attack point by point:

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: Oil is the ‘most important source of energy to support our civilization’ – ‘If it is the aim of ‘environmentalists’ to stop fossil fuel production and use, end fracking, end coal mining, end use of oil, then they are promoting a policy that would have disastrous consequences for human civilization & the environment. If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish & there wouldn’t be a tree left on planet within a year, as people struggled to find enough energy to stay alive’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore Rips Windfarms: ‘They are ridiculously expensive and don’t work half the time…The industry is a destroyer of wealth and negative to the economy’ –Moore: ‘And no matter how many are built, they won’t replace coal, gas or hydro or nuclear plants, because they are continuous and wind is not always reliable’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore Questions Man-Made Global Warming, Calls it ‘Obviously a Natural Phenomenon’ – ‘We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people’


  • janhglaser

    As if this guy is qualified to speak about the environment. Talk to an expert with an academic resume on climate. Talk to Al Gore.

    • Graphic_Conception

      :)

    • JohnOfEnfield

      It’s essential that you turn on the “Irony Alert” flag with this sort of comment. You might be quoted out of context!

    • stmichrick

      Jan; how about responding to what Dr. Moore says, instead of commenting on his CV? This warmist technique of questioning the right to speak is getting old. You guys won’t deal with the science.

      • janhglaser

        I was being sarcastic….

    • mcgirv

      Al Gore! Ha ha ha ! That flim flam man?

    • Joe

      I didn’t know Al Gore was a scientist. I do know that he uses more energy that causes CO2 than 99% of us use in the US.

    • czii

      haha :) Al Gore was too busy inventing the internet to study climate science properly.

  • GoodBusiness

    Ask any of the supporters of this vast majority of scientists that support the AGW theory to please provide any PEER REVIEWED paper on CO2 and man caused AGW . . here are the rules for Scientific Methods –

    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review1.htm

    They have ZERO and they know it is all a political game to secure more GRANT SCIENCE MONEY . . ie: University research JOBS.

    • Tony Lear

      ..don’t forget the Meteorological scientists getting new supercomputers but most of all, a new group of people taking over the energy sector which just happens to be the most lucrative business in history.

      • GoodBusiness

        The Progressive attempt to turn science into a Opinion poll where instead of Scientific PROOFS which can take decade to prove or disprove [see Einstein] but they seek to use the majority rules without any real peer review. No raw data no data sets no computer algorithms no supporting math – what are they reviewing? Feelings and short term observations [less than 100,000 years].

        • Micky Baker

          There haven’t even been observations for a 100,000 years. They didn’t have thermometers(or human beings then).

  • Sunlight

    Perfect! Concise! Plain! Simple! and TRUE! God bless ya Dr. Moore!

  • El Sabio

    The following text is from here:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    “Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot
    - approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous
    reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the
    chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth
    today!

    Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early
    Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by
    the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average
    CO2 concentrations today!

    Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to
    former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous
    atmosphere, is CO2 impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s
    history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary
    Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

    The graph ends in 2001 so here are the latest figures for…

    Global temperature:

    12.7°C (54.8°F) – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

    Co2 concentration:

    397.80 ppm – http://co2now.org/

  • jerwgar

    Of course now it doesn’t show?

  • NoMoreGore

    Of course Dr Moore is the type of real expert that should be defining this issue. But particularly using proxy data, the eco-psycho left will just ignore this information. I’d like to see our experts present irrefutable evidence…. like the photographic evidence of the Muir glacier retreating LONG before 1900. Like trees appearing from beneath retreating glaciers…proving they were growing above the current tree line… there is a lot of irrefutable evidence. We need to spank them with it.

    • Calvinius

      A shill like Moore who has no background whatsoever in climate research is “the type of real expert that should be defining this issue”? He’s not an “expert” at all!

      BTW, are you aware that Moore also advocates the elimination of all tropical rain forests?

      • clipe

        As predicted, the liar denunciation machine kicks-in.

        Next!

        • Calvinius

          Every word I posted is true. Moore has no background whatsoever in climate science. Treating him as an “expert” on the subject would be like treating your dentist as an “expert” on heart disease.

          • DList

            or Al Gore..oh oops! Your side does treat him like an expert and he’s not even a PHD or scientist.

          • Calvinius

            Again, nobody is treating Al Gore as an expert. It’s funny how you science-deniers have this pathological obsession with Al Gore.

          • TheSotSays

            You goofy thing you’ve never posted a “true” word in your entire life

            And DList is right, what about Al Gore and the left wing prog flakes like you treating him as an expert.

            Al Gore, what a joke. He’s not only not a climate expert but there are solid Democrats out there not even sure he’s a human being.

          • Calvinius

            Nobody is treating Al Gore as an expert. It’s funny how you science-deniers have this pathological obsession with Al Gore.

      • DList

        He has a better background than Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, George Monbiot,and all the idiots in the media who claim the debate is over.

        • Calvinius

          No, actually he doesn’t. He has exactly the same background in climate research as the likes of Al Gore. None at all. When it comes to climatology, it’s generally a good idea to listen to actual climatologists. Rather like how if you need advice about heart surgery, you’ll go to a cardiologist, not a podiatrist.

  • Gordon Chamberlain

    So where does the concern about ocean acidification fit into the equation ?

    • clipe

      What ocean acidification?

  • Gankfest

    If only Climate Depot was real science not back by oil companies… Idiots!

    • sktuc

      Why don’t you along with all the Global Warmers visit the Cryosphere Today Website. It has daily satellite images of the Arctic and Antarctica from 1980 to 2014.
      I downloaded and copied the Arctic Satellite Image in December 2007 then compared it to the Arctic Satellite Image in 2014.
      There is NO MELTING OF THE ARCTIC ICE CAP. There is more ice than ever and the Website is a site used by NASA.

    • sktuc

      Why don’t you along with all the Global Warmers visit the Cryosphere Today Website. It has daily satellite images of the Arctic and Antarctica from 1980 to 2014.
      I downloaded and copied the Arctic Satellite Image in December 2007 then compared it to the Arctic Satellite Image in 2014.
      There is NO MELTING OF THE ARCTIC ICE CAP. There is more ice than ever and the Website is a site used by NASA.

    • sktuc

      Why don’t you along with all the Global Warmers visit the Cryosphere Today Website. It has daily satellite images of the Arctic and Antarctica from 1980 to 2014.
      I downloaded and copied the Arctic Satellite Image in December 2007 then compared it to the Arctic Satellite Image in 2014.
      There is NO MELTING OF THE ARCTIC ICE CAP. There is more ice than ever and the Website is a site used by NASA.

      • Gankfest

        I just find it sad you guys believe in so much miss information…

        https://www.skepticalscience.com/

        Thank You and move along! :D

      • John

        Sorry, what were you looking at? I’ve just looked on that website at Arctic satellite pictures from 1980 and 2007, and there is clearly more ice in 1980 than 2007. That site also has an entire page dedicated to showing how ice has reduced over this time period.

        • sktuc

          Ah, Dumbass 2007 was the year that they say was the Height of Ice Melting in the ARCTIC.
          TODAY IS 2014 , IT’S 2014 , I’LL SAY THAT ONCE MORE THIS IS 2014.
          NOW LOOK AT 2014, ONCE MORE 2014 THE ICE IS NOT MELTING, IDIOT.

    • sktuc

      Why don’t you along with all the Global Warmers visit the Cryosphere Today Website. It has daily satellite images of the Arctic and Antarctica from 1980 to 2014.
      I downloaded and copied the Arctic Satellite Image in December 2007 then compared it to the Arctic Satellite Image in 2014.
      There is NO MELTING OF THE ARCTIC ICE CAP. There is more ice than ever and the Website is a site used by NASA.

    • sktuc

      Why don’t you along with all the Global Warmers visit the Cryosphere Today Website. It has daily satellite images of the Arctic and Antarctica from 1980 to 2014.
      I downloaded and copied the Arctic Satellite Image in December 2007 then compared it to the Arctic Satellite Image in 2014.
      There is NO MELTING OF THE ARCTIC ICE CAP. There is more ice than ever and the Website is a site used by NASA.

    • clipe

      Gelcome Wankfest.

      • Gankfest

        Thank You for the Welcome… How are you doing today…? Would you like to discuss Global Warming? :D

        • Tori

          You wouldn’t/can’t. Would you like to discuss your psychosis?

    • Tori

      The depths of the stupidity of your “statement” is Marianas.

      • Gankfest

        Yawn… Do realize how stupid you sound to normal functioning people? I don’t even have to point your fail; you do that all by yourself. :D

        Get at me whenever you can do more than Herp Derp!

    • sktuc

      It’s so sad that if you were hit in the Face with a Fresh Hot Cow Pie and they told you it was Chocolate Mouse you’d believe it.
      Misinformation my ass, Cryosphere Today is a University Website used by NASA and NOAA. How’s that Chocolate Mouse taste???

    • jumper297

      Nice try… Well, not really. You basically reinforced what is a constant within the mouth-breathing AGW community; attack anything that disagrees no matter what. Never, ever, debate on the facts.

  • soppy

    Is global warming real? IDK. If so are humans causing it? IDK. But what I do know is that when I fart it effects the air around me. So its safe to say that the gases like co2 in which humans emit also effects the air around it including the atmosphere. From that I can conclude that the gases we emit effect our atmosphere. Changing the atmosphere is not good so emitting these gases is not good. Thats all I need to know.

    • David A

      CO2 is the basis of your life. Currently, at 400 ppm CO2, the atmosphere grows about 15% more food on the same amount of water as it would in a CO2 starved 280 ppm world. Other then that it is odorless and transparent. No smell, not visible. (YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT)
      Your comment is simply willful ignorance. There has been no increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, tropical storms or SL rise. The computer models projecting climate are all wrong, far warmer then the observations.

  • Micky Baker

    The environmentalists are rabidly and intentionally ignorant. They don’t understand that if you want to save trees and plant life, it requires more CO2, not less. During the extreme smog events in England and other places during the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn’t the CO2 that caused that. It was temperature inversions. Temperature inversions occur when warmer air gets caught under cooler air and the wind is relatively calm. The air rises as high as it can before it cools at a very low altitude. It condenses and then sinks. The wind is calm, thus it just hangs in the air.

  • ablevins

    Ahh! The great Man of Science and the Internet!
    Al the Egore!
    A good ‘ C’ student in college.
    With his daddy occupying a Penthouse sweet in a
    Washington DC hotel – pull Galore must have helped.
    Al went to grad school for Divinity Degree but was asked
    To leave – grades were in the tank.
    Next pull got him into Law School – left due to low grades.
    Last chance was a Journalism grad program, never finished.
    After six deferments for Vietnam, his daddy the Senator got
    Him into the Army as a working Journalist, random draw sent
    The fairhaired son to Saigon with the Stars and Stripes as a reporter
    Al never left the city, but it took sixteen NCO’s to guard the working
    Man 24hours a day with M-16s. After 6 months the Army finally
    Got the Senator to agree to repost Al back to the 48 state World!
    The last thing the Army wanted was Egore to be captured.
    The Navy had to deal with the son of CINCPAC in in the Hanoi Hilton — todays Senator McCain R Az.
    Egore served as required in his military position even tho he never left Saigon to do reporting, just fiked on MACV Headquarters beat.
    Oh, he did get a ‘c’ in his only Science course at college.

    Does anyone want to talk about our current head of the State Department? A ‘C ‘ average lower than Bush43′s at Yale! A total of six ‘D’s at Yale, Bush43 did earn a Masters in Business Administration, MBA…….Oops!

    AB

  • allenbarclayallen

    Some global warmers on this page. ITS A LIE trees cannot lie only humans, lizards,snakes, Satan in that tree can lie like that. Imbeciles Go read Chicken Little !!!

    We the people had nothing to do with it !!!

    We the people had nothing to do with phony global warming/climate change. The cooling was caused by two volcanoes in Greenland just like it was in 1918′ record cold spell. And it will happen again in another 86 years. We had nothing to do with it . We The People of the United States have always cleaned up our own messes. We, with Nikola Tesla’s invention of the ignition system with a spark plug and Henry FORD’s invention of the automobile cleaned up John D. Rockefeller’s environmental disaster of pouring Gasoline on the ground at all his refineries as we burned it in that automobile to keep it out of our groundwater. Since that time 1903 our climate has been getting colder. At that time Mrs. Deland and her Son’s fruit industry was all over South louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia and it stretched all the way to the southern tip of Florida. This industry has moved farther south every year since 1903 because of the climate getting colder. It is no longer frost proof in Frostproof South Florida. It is impossible for God’s creation the fruit tree to lie.

    Stop stalling on Keystone pipeline! Mr. President Mr. Secretary of state John Kerry

  • allenbarclayallen

    Sulfur Dioxide proven by Geological Science and proven. Found in each layer of earth’s mantle where a ICE AGE was evident. Both Before and during Sulfur Dioxide was present and proven with Radiocarbon dating to each period of each Ice Age. Greenland here had eruptions previous to 1918′s record cold as well as recently for this one 2014. Sulfur Dioxide desplaces Ozone and blocks out the Sun by reflecting sunlight back into space. Every real Scientist knows that. This cold happened in 1918 and now 2014 and it will happen in another 86 to 100 years. There are also 35 active Volcanoes in our world capable of putting the same Sulfur Dioxide above the troposphere. And yes it does displace Ozone but by no means does it have anything to do with Global Warming or Climate change because these eruptions are NORMAL. Tell Pr. Obama if he wants to do something about to go put his thumb down a active Volcano stopping CO2 would have nothing to do with it as the PH D above explained.