Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade
- Patrick Moore has poured cold water on manmade global warming theories
- The Canadian said that a hotter earth would actually be better for humans
- He said that there's 'no actual proof' of manmade global warming
- Moore was a member of campaign group Greenpeace for 15 years
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.
He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘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.’
Heated debate: Patrick Moore, pictured here
giving a speech in Montreal, has claimed that there's no scientific
evidence for man-made global warming
Moore pointed out that there was an Ice Age 450million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher.
Could giant walls protect the Midwest from TORNADOES?...
Geoengineering could have 'catastrophic consequences':...
Share this article
Even if the earth does warm up, Moore claims that it will be to the advantage of humans and other forms of life, as ‘humans are a tropical species’.
Patrick Moore pictured talking about nuclear power in Augusta, Georgia, in 2011 in Mayor Copenhaver's office
The largest warming to date has been at the northern mid latitudes, according to the Florida State study
PATRICK MOORE ON THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL WARMING
'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.
'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 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.
'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 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970.
'This was followed by an increase of 0.57C 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.”'
'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.
'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 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.
'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 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970.
'This was followed by an increase of 0.57C 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.”'
Humans, he added, just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes.
Moore said that he left Greenpeace because it ‘took a sharp turn to the political left’.
Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist at Greenpeace UK, told MailOnline: 'On climate science, Greenpeace accepts the consensus view put forward by 97 per cent of climate scientists, every national and international scientific institute and every government in the world – climate change is happening, it’s caused mainly by human activity, and it’s highly dangerous for the future well-being of people on this planet.'
Moore has made several other assertions over the years that have been at odds with Greenpeace's views. He has advocated logging, claiming it actually causes reforestation, and attacked campaigners for fear-mongering over nuclear energy.
His latest comments came as two of the world’s leading scientific organisations warned that man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.
‘People do have persistent questions all about climate change,’ said study author Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. ‘This is a one-stop shop for many of those questions.’
The report, released on Thursday, addresses new issues such as the recent slowing in the increase of world temperatures and how heat-trapping gases are connected to extreme weather. Increases in extreme weather, melting glaciers, rising seas and oceans getting more acidic are already happening, the 36-page report said.
And those changes ‘are expected to increase greater warming and will threaten food production, freshwater supplies, coastal infrastructure and especially the welfare of the huge population currently living in low-lying areas,’ the report said.
The report said that while the rate of warming is slower in the 2000s than it was in the 1990s it doesn't negate the 150 years of observations that show the world is warming. The report also says that more the 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases lately has been absorbed into the oceans' deep water, which for a while slows surface warming but not the long-term trend.
There is enough evidence on the science to warrant action, Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said in a news release.
‘We've changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere; that's not a belief system. We know that beyond a shadow of a doubt,’ Santer said in an interview. ‘We ignore this at our peril.’
No comments:
Post a Comment