Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.
“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,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony.

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

Moore helped found Greenpeace to protest nuclear weapons testing in Alaska. His group transformed into an environmental protection organization, whose tactics became more radical and lawless over time; and has since been a critic of radical environmentalism. He now heads up Ecosense Environmental.

Moore’s comments come after Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama declared global warming not only a “fact,” but a matter of national security; rivaling weapons of mass destruction.

He explains the difference between belief, faith and science in depth later in his prepared remarks. Much of what Moore says is common sense, but is so contrary to the AGW dogma, that he stands to face much name-calling and vilification.

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.

www.epw.senate.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.epw.senate.gov...

Of course, no "climate scientists" will post any "proof."

reply to post by jdub297


I was waiting for this one to be added lol. S&F.

At this point I could care less if it is humans that caused it or not. This constant arguing as to the why of it, is taking away from the argument we should be having. Which is; What can we do about it?. It is time to find solutions all this blame game crap is simply a distraction.

The Koch Brothers (and others of their ilk) don't want to face up to their societal obligations. Constant arguments (many funded directly by the Koch's) are nothing more than a distraction.

reply to post by jdub297


"the science is settled" "there is a consensus among all scientists" blah blah blah..............

Those are the only 2 pieces of proof that have ever been offered up and peer reviewed.

The farmers almanac can more closely predict the weather than their models, which they wont release the source code to because then everyone will know they are cooking the models, just like they are cooking the heat records etc....

Glad to hear a greeny finally grow a brain and then actually use it for some critical thinking on the issue.

Mamatus
At this point I could care less if it is humans that caused it or not. This constant arguing as to the why of it, is taking away from the argument we should be having. Which is; What can we do about it?. It is time to find solutions all this blame game crap is simply a distraction.

The Koch Brothers (and others of their ilk) don't want to face up to their societal obligations. Constant arguments (many funded directly by the Koch's) are nothing more than a distraction.

Dont forget to mention Soros along with the Koch's.

He is at least as bad, and every bit as manipulative as the Koch's.

Thanks. Good find.

This might turn into some thread. There are too many 'angry' opposers to the truth and to anything that isn't propagated by governments.

There is a lot of research that suggests other factors are to blame for Earth's climate fluctuations, hopefully the truth will surface and be known.

The problem with finding proof of human causing global warming is, it can't be done in a short time, it needs to be studied for a hundred or five hundred years before we can get to any concluding evidence.

Ofcause if it speeds up we might find something before, but the proof will still be a "guess", though if humans are causing global warming, well, it will be to late to worry about proof.

Thanks for posting OP.

Moore would probably be smart to avoid plane journeys for a while, especially if he was thinking of a trip near Hawaii.

Manmade environmental damage and pollution...YES, of course and it needs to change.

Manmade climate change...Nope. No evidence, and certainly no proof..there is proof however, of major climate change, both warming and cooling on Earth throughout detectable history...even before we discovered the wheel, let alone fire.

Use the money and the effort wasted on AGW and use it to engineer better, cleaner ways of living, that would make so much more sense and so much less damage and pollution.

 

reply to post by Mamatus


Worthwhile 'solutions' are best applied when the CAUSE has first been established.

As it happens, if it is a cause beyond the control of humanity, ie. caused by the sun / space weather / position in the galaxy etc then solutions are unlikely, though ways of dealing with and negating negative impacts can be established and implemented.

First and foremost, the truth is essential.

“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,”

I'm tired of that comment, cause it's not the actual problem, it's just part of it.

Again i will post this link, but again it will get ignored.

Interesting Education Read me

Human interference had altered the surface of the earth long before the present era (Thomas, 1956). The first major change started about 7000 years ago when man developed agriculture. This led to systematic changing of forested areas to fields and pastures. Other reasons for deforestation were the needs for structural timber and lumber. In recent times, paper requirements have led to large-scale reductions of forests. Only gradually is a systematic harvesting and replacement policy taking over.

Agriculture and lumbering have undoubtedly led to mesoscale climatic changes, but these are poorly documented, although one can make some approximate guesses at their magnitude. In many instances secondary changes have been more far-reaching. After the clearing, wind and water erosion have washed or blown the top soil away. Bare rock has become exposed, and now far more extreme temperatures and lower humidities prevail where once the even-tempered mesoclimate of the forest dominated. Stretches of Anatolia, the Spanish plateau, and some slopes of the Italian Apennines are silent witnesses to this development.

But by far the most alarming development has been the substitution of rocklike, well-compacted, impermeable surfaces for vegetated soil, a development that is the natural consequence of urbanization. Square kilometer after square kilometer has yielded to the bulldozer and has been converted to buildings, highways, and parking lots. Reservoirs and irrigation also have become important.

There are so many theories and worthwhile scientific research being done on Earths climate fluctuations, some of which hasn't been included in standard 'man made global warming' theories. And as soon as a study comes along that explains the other factors some other research appears attempting negating it, such as this.

However such studies are made using conventional parameters of GCR (Galactic cosmic ray), which is perhaps feasible seeing as the level of science used has only been around for a limited time and might not be aware of altered parameters during galactic travel (which is measured over millions of years). The current transit through the Orion arm might be bringing unforeseen parameters due to unforeseen aspects of the influence of the Oort cloud and other possible aspects.

For example, the influence of Cosmic rays on Earth's weather.



www.viewzone.com...

Svensmark's Theory Explained

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

arxiv.org...

Cosmic rays and climate change over the past 1000 million years

T. Sloan, (Dept of Physics, University of Lancaster), A.W. Wolfendale, (Dept. of Physics, University of Durham)
(Submitted on 29 Mar 2013)
The Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity has been postulated by others to vary cyclically with a peak to valley ratio of ~3:1, as the Solar System moves from the Spiral Arm to the Inter-Arm regions of the Galaxy. These intensities have been correlated with global temperatures and used to support the hypothesis of GCR induced climate change. In this paper we show that the model used to deduce such a large ratio of Arm to Interarm GCR intensity requires unlikely values of some of the GCR parameters, particularly the diffusion length in the interstellar medium, if as seems likely to be the case, the diffusion is homogeneous. Comparison is made with the existing gamma ray astronomy data and this also indicates that the ratio is not large.The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10-20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect. The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10-20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect. In addition we show that the variation of the GCR intensity, as the trajectory of the Solar System oscillates about the Galactic Plane, is too small to account for the extinctions of species as has been postulated unless, again, conventional assumptions about the GCR parameters are not correct.

www.sciencebits.com...

The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system (cosmic rays with energies below the "knee" at 1015eV, are most likely accelerated by supernova remnants). Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically (as shown below), also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations.

reply to post by jdub297


Moore was not realy a "co-founder of Greenpeace" at all -

The current Greenpeace web site lists the founders of The Don't Make a Wave Committee as Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Robert Hunter.[38] According to both Patrick Moore and an interview with Dorothy Stowe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen and Robert Hunter, the founders of The Don't Make a Wave Committee were Paul Cote, Irving and Dorothy Stowe and Jim and Marie Bohlen

- Greenpeace founders

He was 1 of the crew of the original voyage in 1971 - but that was crewed by over 30 people.

Claims to authority - not good, whoever uses them.

reply to post by Mianeye


You could have just talked about the dust bowl, it is the same thing, and all Americans should be able to relate.

The real issue for me is more efficient energy sources and transportation mediums for the energy. Too bad Tesla was stolen from us by Edison, he was so close to the wireless power grid, this would have changed everything.

No more batteries, no more trouble with electric cars low mileage between charging, no clearing miles upon miles of forests to put up towers for the high tension lines, no more millions of telephone poles.

Not to mention the amount of energy lost just in transmission of the electricity do to resistance in the lines. I bet we have already lost enough power to run the entire world for a year just in the American power grid between now and the 80's to resistance alone.

Our entire infrastructure is just to damned inefficient. It is basically the same as it was back in the 50's, only bigger. There have been a few improvements, but not many.

There has to be a better way. We will find one, or invent one, or we will continue on this present course and perish as a race.

Ok- the one BIG issue always ignored in climate change discussions is that we have scientific evidence of what the average climate was during the last million years from ice core samples and other measures. This is not disputed at all. The last ice age ended about 8,000 BC and the most recent ice period lasted 100,000 years duration. North America was covered then with a 1/4 to 1/2 mile thick glacier that stopped at the first line of mountains in PA and went northwards. Humans lived in small numbers, mostly in Africa and maybe South America and around the southern coasts.

Now here is the key point, over the last million years there have been one ice age after another, about 8, each lasting 100,000 years (+/- 10%) with brief temperate periods (only 10-15,000 years duration) in-between, like WE ARE IN NOW. So 10,000 years ago the last ice age ended and very likely very soon.. The average climate of the world for last 1 million years is ICE AGE, not temperate like today.

No matter if we are, or are not, now affecting our climate today, that is overshadowed by the fact that climate always changes on its own and it will not stay as it is now anyway. Global warming may make things worse quickly, or even better quickly, (if it wards off the next ice age), we simple do not know- so you can not put a value judgements on this issue in terms of cost/benefits. and survivability of humans and many life forms.

There has to be a better way.

reply to post by oblvion


There are no easy solution to cheaper or more effecient energy, Tesla's patent is still out there but it's not effecient, solarpanels are very lousy on creating energy, as it's less than a year ago that they actually created the first panel that made more energy than it took to build it but still low efficient.

The best we got in clean energy is wind energy (and water), it creates a small 25% more energy than it takes to make a windmill on good days, but takes up a huge amount of space and maintenance, same with solarpanels Btw.

Everything else is dirty but very efficient, coal, oil and neuclear.

Cold fusion is very far of in the future, so it's not an option so far.

i wish the climate heta crew were sent to some area's of america at the moment the mississipi is frozen we have ice storms now what frigging planet are those people on venus

reply to post by oblvion

"the science is settled"

The political science is settled!

Never letting a good 'crisis' go to waste the progressive agenda will recycle a century old argument to destroy business already more than it is.

That is what 'global warming' is.

A century old 'argument' that had lipstick put on that pig to 'justify' their same old agenda.

And it's advocates push GW to justify 'saving' the planet in one breath, and taxing, and regulating people in to oblivion.

Making goods, and fuels across the board more expensive, while touting we need to spend money on 'infrastructure'.

That use fossil fuel gas guzzlers, and destroy the 'environment'.

reply to post by jdub297

Moore’s comments come after Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama declared global warming not only a “fact,” but a matter of national security; rivaling weapons of mass destruction. 

I honestly believe that the quote above will tell you all you need to know about global warming.
It's all about the Carbon Tax the government wants put in place.
Global warming and cooling are natural phenomena. The earth is heating up and cooling down just as it has for millions of years and just as it will continue to do for a long time to come.
"Global Warming" is nothing more than a scare tactic to get you to give even more of your money and freedom away.
Think about it........
Quad

retsdeeps1
No matter if we are, or are not, now affecting our climate today, that is overshadowed by the fact that climate always changes on its own and it will not stay as it is now anyway.

Nail hit firmly on the head and an excellent post. Man-made global warming is a complete myth, the earths climate changes constantly and our actions would not have any real noticeable effect when fluctuations on a much larger scale lead to regular Ice age periods. The climate was changing long before pollution was ever an issue and it will continue to change regardless of our actions. Man's impact on something so vast and complex as our climate is literally a drop in the ocean compared to the effect of the other factors previously mentioned.

Also, can't remember where i read it but aren't all the planets currently experiencing an overall temperature increase suggesting any warming is the result of some kind of cosmic influence? Would seem much more logical to me that the sun has the main impact on our climate as it does provide all the energy which drives our weather.

Climates always been changing. Wouldn't it be better to be ready to change with it.
Ice ages to warm periods back and forth. Shouldn't we be getting ready to adapt our surroundings, whatever way its going.You know the survival if the fitist thing.
Cause I can see the climate change is going to happen. Even meant to happen.