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

Global-Climate-Change-Manmade-Drama-Death-Doom is just a way for politicians and political groups to make money.

"If we tax you more, we can save the planet!"

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.

If humans couldn't cause it what the hell makes you think humans could stop it?

Grenade

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.

edit on 26/2/14 by Grenade because: Typo

Yes have seen that too, all planets warming not just earth, 99.99 % of our climate is due to complex external and internal things- sun variation, obit wobbles and changes, maybe even galactic factors, vulcanism on earth, methane releases, etc, etc. just we are adding to it but climate will become an ice age very soon in all probability since that is our normal climate, we may soon even wish we had done much more global warming than we have as the next ice age approaches.

For data regarding the ice-age vs warm-period cycles, you should review the previous discussion threads here on ATS. Specifically, these three posts which contain that data (and links to the ice core data sources). From what I've researched, using the actual ice-core data, this warming cycle began after the last ice-age approx 10,000 years ago....long before the industrial revolution that has been claimed to be the cause of this trend.

Epic Thread on AGW: Global Warming Slowdown Is Not Good News
Ice-Core Data Graph (Link to Ice-Core Data)
My post on the data from the last 12,000 years (or so)
My post with annotated graph

Mianeye

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 agree totally, all the alternatives are crap compared to the abilty of hydrocarbons to store and release energy. Coal oil and natural gas are just too much more cost and space effective alternatives.

Solar will only come into its own when we put giant panels into space, and beam the energy back down to earth with microwaves.

Wind...it has killed more birds than anything else we could accomplish, and the wind doesnt even blow all the time, it isnt reliable enough.

Hydroelectric is bad ass at power, but it ravages ecosystems down stream, because the water coming out the bottom is so cold compared to what it would naturally be, that it actually kills most species for many miles downstream until the surface warms it to its proper temp.

Ethanol is a bad joke at best, a complete waste of precious food, that only causes the price of one of the worlds most abundant food stuff to have an artificially inflated price, and some studies I have read state that it actually requires 2 gallons of gas worth of energy to get one gallon of worth of power out of it when it is all said and done.
\
We are just stuck with fossil fuels for the time being, there is no other alternative at present that is actually viable.

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.

Look up "Steyer," "Bloomberg" and "Soros" and come back when you have a better idea of reality.
As far as "societal obligations," can we start at the White House, and demand reason instead of hyperbole?

Mianeye
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.

You are operating from the premise that catastrophic AGW is the "conclusion," then looking for evidence to support it. That is not science.
We have thousands of years upon which to base theories to be tested.
As of this date, AGW is nothing more than speculation.

Mianeye

“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.

Land use and urban planning have very real effects upon local environs and the measurement of the effects thereof.
Urban 'heat islands' may affect our analyses, but they are not affecting global patterns.

Aloysius the Gaul
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.

Whether 1 of 2 or 1 of 30, Moore was there at the very beginning.
Deny or diminish his influence; it doesn't lessen the impact of his observations.

retsdeeps1
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.

edit on 26-2-2014 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)

Bravo!

I've been asking for quite some time, and have yet to get an honest answer, just what makes AGW advocates think THIS is the optimum Earth temperature? Hubris; the idea ology that man is all important and all powerful. None of the AGW faithful I've asked can point out exactly what climate is the "Normal" or "optimum" one for Earth.

This guy wasn't a FOUNDER of Greenpeace. He was a deck hand. LOLZ at everyone taking him seriously.

reply to post by jdub297

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.

Yeah, and the only reason we are in the middle east is to bring "freedom and democracy"…

Ten cases of political hypocrisy.

Simply because they are testifying before a committee I would believe all but zero to come out of anyone's mouths. If you read scientific journals then at least you can look at the information yourself.

The fact that he was on a hippie boat a few decades ago does not lend weight to anything he says.

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. 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.

edit on 26-2-2014 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.

www.pbs.org...

Until we know exactly what caused the ice ages, we do know one thing. We cannot change solar output, we cannot change the distance of the Earth to the Sun, we have no control over the height of the continents nor the ocean's currents, but what we are able to do is effect the Earth's atmosphere.

No matter what the outcome be, screwing with any of these without knowing the cause and effect is very foolish.

I really wish CO2 emissions and GW was not a political subject, because it was far more interesting when there was no bias in the discussion. As soon as you inject politics into something, both sides end up lying or manipulating what we do know.

What can we do about it?. It is time to find solutions all this blame game crap is simply a distraction.

reply to post by Mamatus


Just what are you trying to find a solutuion for? The global mean temperature has only increased by .08 degrees C (1.4 Deg F) in the last 100 years. Considering that the climate is a DYNAMIC system, and is constantly changing regardless what we do, and will continue to do so....what is the issue?

Is it really a good idea to go tinkering with something as important as climate without fully understanding the mechanisms that drive it and the ramifications said tinkering might bring?

Geoengineering could be potentiall disasterous say scientists

Seems scientisits say no.

Who here supports cap and trade, but doesn't believe in man-made climate change? Anyone? Like smog much? China seems to.

This article claims that to be the biggest predictor of whether you believe in man made climate change or not.

Quadrivium
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

Currently we ONLY have 250 years of recorded weather to compare our daily weather with. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, so we have a massive gap of information, which renders this 250 years almost meaningless.

We can fill this gap with some of our other "ologies" and these tell us that over the past 4.54 billion years, the earth's climate and weather have undergone a lot of extreme changes (without human life being present). In fact, about 716.5 and 635 million years ago the earth was totally covered with ice and the surface of the oceans were completely frozen. These historic changes are to do with the formation of the earth, the changes inside the earth's crust i.e. heating and cooling, the movement and breaking up of the continents as well as the changes taking place in the sun and the magnetic poles.

Our weather/climate undergoes cycles and patterns, both short and long term and is affected by many things, which too have their own cycles.

If we ARE the cause of this current trend in climate change, then WHAT are we doing about it? Green Taxes anyone? Carbon Credits? All I can see happening is profit making of the back of what is a natural weather/climate trend. In fact, if there is a serious and natural change in our climate, I think there is very little we can do about it.

Despite being told that climate change is our fault, countries continue to:
*remove pockets of natural gas, oil, salt and coal - fracking can cause tremors and old mines cause sinkholes and subsidence releasing gasses and polluting water courses etc.
*remove forested areas and replace them with agricultural and concreted suburban areas - tree roots allow water to quickly drain away into the soil and the leaves produce gasses
*interfere with the routes of rivers, building dams and altering the natural flow of rivers and we also continue to build on flood planes which adds to future economic/financial burden when things inevitably go wrong
*reclaim coastal land from the sea which again adds to future economic/financial burden because coastlines are continually being eroded by the sea and when we also build on coasts with low lying land, it makes tsunamis more devastating

These current weather trends make for sensational headlines, especially with short-term memories and only 250 years of records to cherry pick from. If we had 5,000 years worth instead of 250 years worth, we will find that things are not so record breaking at all.

From a UK perspective, if houses had not been built next to rivers, on low lying coastal areas and on flood planes then the impact and hardship f the recent floods would have been massively reduced. People are suffering and it has been unnecessary.

We forget so quickly and when we have a history of propaganda and history manipulation, 250 years is not so long.

As for comparing climate change with WMD's well ... On a wet and windy day recently, I had a conversation with a friend. Being ATS fans, it started by us both saying that we didnt think that HAARP had been mentioned yet, when we expected it to be.

Are we seeing the weaponisation of weather? Has world war three started? At the end of the day, who benefits from all the floods and snow and droughts? Is weather being used to disrupt and destabilize an already failing world economy? Is this when TPTB come in and save us with a one world government?

Its pretty obvious that he's been bought out, as he now supports companies that clear cut forests, GMO foods, etc...

en.wikipedia.org...(environmentalist)
Moore's views and change of stance (see above) have evoked controversy in environmentalist arenas. He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter".[22][46] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[22] Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[39] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."

his stance on Global Warming is that its caued by increases in the sun, a fact that has since been proven incorrect by NASA:

The guys is a paid hack, nor is he a founder of green peace

en.wikipedia.org...(environmentalist)

The thing I don't get with our dim witted, climate change denying brethren, is that taking action to prevent climate change could also have other positive impacts... Such as reduced cost of living via more efficient technologies.

For those debating better energy infrastructure. Do you really think the oil tycoons are going to allow for any kind of "free energy"? I remember about a month ago, I looked this up. There was actually a device that could pull energy from the atmosphere (air) and sustain itself while doing so, but the three different people who discovered this technology disappeared in strange circumstances and either their research was taken away by authorities or it was burned (conveniently).

We will only ever see new energy systems if it appeals to those elite, who stand to gain from them. Free energy will never see the light of day, nor will an infrastructure be set up to "efficiently" disperse it. Efficient inefficiency is what lines their pockets.

reply to post by jdub297


Greenpeace's logic isn't exactly fool proof either:


Don't eat the tuna fish!!!

Why?

Dolphins get caught in the nets!

Then what about the Tuna?

Screw them, they're tasty.


Thank you Mr Leary. These people can argue against climate change with all their might, but when soil salinity destroys crops and fresh water becomes more expensive than gold then they are going to look very silly.

Greenpeace are supposed to protect the environment in all forms, but they neglect the other man made influences in the pursuit of climate change.