Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenpeace co-founder says ‘no scientific proof’ humans cause climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Greenpeace co-founder says ‘no scientific proof’ humans cause climate change

    Greenpeace co-founder says ‘no scientific proof’ humans cause climate change

    A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the “dominant cause” of climate change.

    Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like Greenpeace use faulty computer models and scare tactics in further promoting a political agenda, Fox News reported.

    PHOTOS: Top 10 handguns in the U.S.

    “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,” Mr. Moore said. “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.

    “It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” he continued. “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.

    “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,” he said.

    Mr. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, accusing the organization of political activism.

    “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,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

    A United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September indicated that global surface temperatures had not increased for the past 15 years.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2udcuozs9
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...fic-proof-hum/

  • #2
    It's the cows that did it.

    Comment


    • #3
      But the media isn't talking about this at all. Crickets.


      What about that UK article that if you got rid of all CO2 in its existence you'd still wouldn't affect it.


      Can't get a grant without pushing global warming.

      Comment


      • #4
        Of course we are helping heat up the planet, the question is what can we do about it in a way that still meets our energy consumption needs, does not crap out the economy, shift burdens in energy sourcing- and how do we do this when other countries simple don't care about polluting the planet?

        Comment


        • #5
          My father is listed as one of the supporting Scientists on the original publishing about Global warning, as he was working at George Washington University at the time. He and all his colleagues determined that the study was too shallow and incomplete. That said he was still listed as a peer reviewer, without mentioning that he actually disagreed. He tends to complain whenever it is mentioned.

          Comment


          • #6
            http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/c...isoned/c45ciej

            **Not in dispute**

            CO2 absorbs infrared light. Air is mostly blue (it absorbs non-blue light), but it is also complement-of-infrared, in the sense that the CO2 in the air absorbs infrared. You can confirm this with a [cool tabletop experiment involving a candle and an infrared camera](http://j.mp/GSX8sw), cue the BBC. The [Myth Busters have their version too](http://j.mp/GSXoI5).

            The Earth surface radiates 390 W/m2 of infrared, while the top of the atmosphere radiates 240 W/m2. The difference is the infrared energy absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2).

            You can tell which gas is absorbing the energy by looking at the colors carefully. Water vapor absorbs the most. CO2 absorbs around 30 W/m2. ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVKq1))

            The industrial age has brought up the concentration of CO2 concentration by 30%, from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. We burned roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon in 150 years. That's enough carbon to raise the atmosphere's concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm, but 110 ppm have been absorbed by the ocean in the biosphere. ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVLds)) We know the carbon is ours because, aside from there being exactly the right amount, its isotope signature exactly matches that of fossil carbon. ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVLds))

            ------
            **Data points with uncomfortably large error bars/Being researched further**

            This 30% increase in CO2 (along with increases in other greenhouse gases) have increased the amount of energy captured by the atmosphere by 2.5 W/m2. Other chemicals we have released have generated a cooling effect of 0.9 W/m2. So the net extra amount of energy at the moment is 1.6±1.0 W/m2.

            Generally, more energy translates directly into warmer temperatures. But the climate has many positive feedbacks and many negative feedbacks, so the relationship is not that direct. If you add up all the known feedback (positive and negative) you get 0.75°C warmer temperatures for each W/m2 of additional energy (with rather large error bars ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVNSx))). This number is called the climate sensitivity. Since the extra energy at the moment is 1.6±1.0 W/m, if we stopped all emissions today, we should expect 1.2°C of warming. We measure 0.7°C, so another 0.5°C is "in the pipe" even if we stop all emissions now.

            We have burnt 500 billion metric tons of carbon so far. How much is there left? If we burn all of it, how high will the CO2 concentration get? Credible numbers range from [450 ppm](http://j.mp/GSVO9h) to [1300 ppm](http://j.mp/GSVRSx). If we are really unlucky, and there is a whole lot of carbon, and the climate sensitivity is super high, how hot does it get? MIT calculated 7°C of warming. ([ref](http://j.mp/OCjOQU))

            What are the consequences of 7°C of warming? Warmer air holds more moisture ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVSWo)). At 7°C, the air sucks all the moisture out of the ground and nothing can grow. Food production collapses, and humanity dies. ([ref](http://j.mp/H6C7QJ))

            ------
            **Not settled/Being researched**

            * The ocean and the biosphere have absorbed 110 ppm so far. Can they absorb much more?

            * Are there big negative feedbacks we haven't discovered yet? This would be great news, and people are looking as hard as they can, but nothing so far. But we are allowed to hope.

            * Are there any big positive feedbacks? These would make global warming even more catastrophic than the current predictions. There are many candidates at the moment which are being studied.

            * Are there ways to take the carbon out of the atmosphere? Soil carbon sequestration looks promising ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVWFF)).

            * Are there ways to increase the 0.9 W/m2 cooling effect caused by our pollutants (most of which are toxic) without poisoning people?

            * Which one will come first, peak oil (causing a crisis in transport), peak coal (causing a crisis in energy), population collapse due to climate change, or the deployment of forward-looking practices in commerce, in government, and in our lives, that will give us a chance to avoid all three catastrophes?

            *Based on the post [The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps](http://j.mp/GSVUhc), by [Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York](http://j.mp/GT1RdO) (PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London), and contributor at [realclimate.org](http://j.mp/GSVUO9)*


            ------
            **A Short History of Global Warming Science**

            * In **1896** a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature.

            * In the **1930s**, the United States and North Atlantic region warmed significantly versus the previous half-century; the amateur G.S. Callendar scientist suggests greenhouse warming might be on the way.

            * In **1960**, painstaking measurements confirm the level of the CO2 is in fact rising in the atmosphere, year by year.

            * Through **the '60s** we see the appearance of the first quantitative global warming forecast, suggesting that average temperatures would rise a few degrees within the next century.

            * Also during **the '60s** smog pollution balances out greenhouse pollution and for a moment the Earth temperature stops rising. Smog is toxic, and smog causing power plants are made illegal by the [Clean Air Act in 1970](http://j.mp/GT5gJD). The smog dissipates, and the world's temperature resume their rise.

            * During **the '80s**, readings of the planet's long history reveal that the climate is a chaotic system. Once provoked, it cannot be trusted to return, or stabilize. Policy makers across the world take notice.

            * At the UN in **1992**, the work on the Kyoto Protocol begins.

            * And on **11 December 1997**, the [Kyoto Protocol](http://j.mp/H6uD03) is signed, confirming the world's commitment to prevent catastrophic climate change, somehow.

            *Based on the (fantastic) web book [A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science](http://j.mp/H6uh9H), by the American Institute of Physics*


            ------

            So, yeah, humanity's destruction is in the cards. If we land in the high-end corner of the probability curve, and if our political institutions continue their head-in-sand approach, we're screwed. It's hard to imagine the politico would stay so aloof in the mist of people dying by the billions, so that's two somewhat big ifs.

            I would like to add a personal note on how to make sense of all of this.

            Let's compare this situation with the threat of total nuclear war. Since the arrival of nuclear weapons, if our politicians insist on being maximally-stupid, we all die. It's not a comfortable place to be. On the other hand, for all their faults, political institutions have not blown us up yet, and they usually do come around to big problems. The [dust bowl](http://j.mp/GSW87U) was addressed. We used to have [rivers on fire](http://j.mp/wvihZ9) and that got fixed too. Nuclear war has been avoided and the Vietnam War got stopped. It sometimes take a lot of popular pressure from the public to help our politicians along, but that's why we're here.

            I help out with [350.org](http://j.mp/GSW6gc) and [justandstable.org](http://j.mp/GT1K1Y), and I have re-oriented my career to work in green building. It helps to channel the anxiety into something productive.

            Comment


            • #7
              This was posted just today on one of my favorite science websites:

              http://www.universetoday.com/109831/...w-report-says/

              Comment


              • #8
                http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                I don't know if you guys trust NASA as a source but their website claims that 97% of scientist believe humans are to blame.

                Are we still really discussing this? I think discussing weather Champ is worth 10m a year is a more legitimate argument.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ATL-Eric View Post
                  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                  I don't know if you guys trust NASA as a source but their website claims that 97% of scientist believe humans are to blame.

                  Are we still really discussing this? I think discussing weather Champ is worth 10m a year is a more legitimate argument.
                  I think we are discussing the weather

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ATL-Eric View Post
                    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                    I don't know if you guys trust NASA as a source but their website claims that 97% of scientist believe humans are to blame.

                    Are we still really discussing this? I think discussing weather Champ is worth 10m a year is a more legitimate argument.
                    Denialists will cling to anything they can. It's like Ken Ham showing videos of a few crack pot scientists who believe the world is 6000 years old, as if it's some sort of proof. It's laughable.

                    He showed a video of the inventor of the MRI saying he believes in the young earth creationist model. Really? You're not a geologist or a cosmologist, you're an old man who invented a medical machine, what credibility do you have?

                    The subject of OP's article is an ecologist. It's ridiculous.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Houshyamama View Post
                      Denialists will cling to anything they can. It's like Ken Ham showing videos of a few crack pot scientists who believe the world is 6000 years old, as if it's some sort of proof. It's laughable.

                      He showed a video of the inventor of the MRI saying he believes in the young earth creationist model. Really? You're not a geologist or a cosmologist, you're an old man who invented a medical machine, what credibility do you have?

                      The subject of OP's article is an ecologist. It's ridiculous.
                      http://creationmuseum.org/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                        I watched that debate. I got a headache from banging my head on my desk.

                        Ken Ham actually came to my Christian school when I was a kid. The painful stupidity still lingers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          On the news the other day the reporter said you should never start your car in the garage even if the garage door is open...lol but no one sees a problem with having 1 billion cars on the road.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATL-Eric View Post
                            On the news the other day the reporter said you should never start your car in the garage even if the garage door is open...lol but no one sees a problem with having 1 billion cars on the road.
                            Soooo... coast it out, then start?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ATL-Eric View Post
                              On the news the other day the reporter said you should never start your car in the garage even if the garage door is open...lol but no one sees a problem with having 1 billion cars on the road.
                              T-rex thinks you lie

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X