Greenpeace founder: Humans not to blame for global warming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ick-Moore.html

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

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...68_634x412.jpg
Heated debate: Patrick Moore, pictured here giving a speech in Montreal, has claimed that there's no scientific evidence for man-made global warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.

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.’

Moore pointed out that there was an Ice Age 450million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher.

He said: ‘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.’

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’.

He said: ‘It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’

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.’

---

Hear Hear, well done for speaking out. Common sense if you ask me. The Australian and Canadian Governments are/have coming round to this point of view also - that even if it is really caused by humanity then it's simply best to adapt in time.

Thoughts?

O wow how interesting

so you'd rather listen to one guy over the thousands of scientists/scientific institutions that disagree, including nasa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

so you'd rather listen to one guy over the thousands of scientists/scientific institutions that disagree, including nasa?

---

it's in the daily mail, got to be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

so you'd rather listen to one guy over the thousands of scientists/scientific institutions that disagree, including nasa?

---

And there are thousands of scientists and policymakers who disagree with those scientists and policymakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle

it's in the daily mail, got to be right.

---

So the Daily Mail are saying this? Or are they reporting what somebody has said?

That's like if the BBC report what Gordon Brown has said, I reply with "well its the BBC so its got to be right". Illogical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

And there are thousands of scientists and policymakers who disagree with those scientists and policymakers.

---

I seem to remember you saying this before, then when I asked for proof you provided a link to loads of people who weren't environmental scientists, let alone published ones, and majority all had ties to exxon and other oil companies. Who exactly are these thousands of opposing scientists? Because from my research roughly 90-97% beg to differ.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's my post from the last time you dragged this subject up which you never replied to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

But the point is that somebody else has read those reports, unless of course you're suggesting they are lying, which brings me back to the point of that being applicable to literally anything you disagree with. Unless you have reason to believe that they are false, there's no reason to not treat them as true.



It's hardly destroying western economies, stop sensationalising everything.



Ah, skimming over the 97% part because it completely obliterates any credibility to your argument. The list you provided isn't full of scientists, in fact a lot of them don't have degrees (not sure how they are scientists then?) and a large portion of them are linked to big oil companies, like I previously mentioned. Let's take some names from the list and see what we find...

List

1. David Archibald

A Geologist for Summa Development Limited and Associated with the Lavoisier Group, which receives funding from the coal and oil industry.
Lavoisier Source (scroll down to his article) Source 2

2. Leon Ashby
A Dairy Farmer from South Australia (not exactly an academic scientist)

3. Timothy F. Ball
Scientific advisor to Exxon-Funded Friends of Science
Another Source

4. E. Calvin Beisner
Ah, an extremist christian nut who uses the concept of stewardship as a denial tactic


Wow, such science.

5. William M. Briggs
Debunked here


6.Robert M. Carter
Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message"

7.Paul Chesser
Speaker at the think tank 'Hearland' which has received over $700,000 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.
Page 3 has $30,000 Donation listed (at the bottom) amongst the receipts
Link to all the rest

8.Roy Cordato
Background in Music and Economics (not climate science) and has links to Heartland (previously mentioned big oil funded company)
Starting to see a pattern here....

9.Richard S. Courtney
Numerous links to Heartland

10.David Legates
Links yet again to Heartland Institute, and also CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute) which has links to Exxon, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, as well as countless others.

That's just 10 "Scientists" from that list which you provided. Now that your source has been debunked, could you please provide a more credible argument to explain why majority of scientists agree that climate change is real? I ask again once more, what's more likely, Thousands of scientists are part of some elaborate conspiracy (which one would think to have been exposed by now since so many parties would be involved) or a few are shills paid off by big oil (see my above list for just a few examples)


Gonna need some citations for that right there Dan.




James Delingpole is an idiot and has been debunked extremely well here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wmuhKzYp4s



Any other response to this point?


Based on what? Your gut feeling? "sounds like a cop out" isn't a suitable response (without backing it up) in a debate, Dan.



Going round in roundabouts, completely miss the source I provided? The one where it shows it has been dismissed countless times as it was taken grossly out of context. Or are we now not debating upon fact? Or have you got some sources which counter the ones I provided earlier?





ok, so the only mention of the 97% argument in this article is

Other than calling it 'silly' I see no other mention of it in the article, so please tell me how simply calling something you disagree with as silly is equal to debunking it...


Same article as before, Debunked up above....

Same guy, exact same premise and requires the exact same response which i've already provided, since the guy who is slandering the 97% argument admits in the source i've provided that he didn't actually read any of the papers. Try harder Dan.


Nope, the list you provided isn't full of scientists, many are mathematicians, lawyers and there's even a farmer on there. Again, the overwhelming majority of scientists all agree, providing lists full of big oil shills doesn't somehow counter this.



Debunked above.


*yawn* see above, there's not a 'whole bunch' of academic scientific organisations, and the few that are, are also the underwhelming majority, and more often than not have ties to energy companies that bribe them.



I've been providing actual sources for my arguments which is a whole lot better than relying on my gut feeling and downright refusing to believe the evidence i'm provided (without reason).

---

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=793479

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I seem to remember you saying this before, then when I asked for proof you provided a link to loads of people who weren't environmental scientists, let alone published ones, and majority all had ties to exxon and other oil companies. Who exactly are these thousands of opposing scientists? Because from my research roughly 90-97% beg to differ.

---

There are many links between oil companies and the pro-AGW movement too, hence why oil companies have been jumping on the 'renewable energy' bandwagon. As for the 90% to 97% claims, I have not seen evidence of a survey that has interviewed every single scientist out there.

http://www.theclimategatebook.com/busting-the-97-myth/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by climategatebook

I get soooo tired of hearing about how 97 percent of all climate scientists believe humans are responsible for global warming due to their insatiable addiction to fossil fuels as well as other anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide generation. My friend Jim Lakely, of the Heartland Institute, has probably put together the best summary to bust this myth, so I’ll let him do the talking:

Quote:

---

One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:

Q1. When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self‐identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.

So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

There are many links between oil companies and the pro-AGW movement too, hence why oil companies have been jumping on the 'renewable energy' bandwagon. As for the 90% to 97% claims, I have not seen evidence of a survey that has interviewed every single scientist out there.

http://www.theclimategatebook.com/busting-the-97-myth/

---

I've physically proven the links between the deniers and oil companies, care to do the same? For example, show me your evidence for thinking NASA is corrupt.

- - - Updated - - -

hahahahaha, just opened the link you provided and this was in the first paragraph:

Quote:

---

My friend Jim Lakely, of the Heartland Institute, has probably put together the best summary to bust this myth, so I’ll let him do the talking.

---

The HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. Let me dig up what I wrote from the last climate change thread about them.

'Hearland' which has received over $700,000 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.
Page 3 has $30,000 Donation listed (at the bottom) amongst the receipts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I've physically proven the links between the deniers and oil companies, care to do the same? For example, show me your evidence for thinking NASA is corrupt.

---

Why are you calling us climate change deniers as though we're on a par with holocaust deniers?

In any case, green groups and AGW groups recieve their funding from pro-AGW governments which are doing exactly the same with as the oil companies are with those climate change sceptics. Both are funded by biased sources, it's simply a question of who you believe has the most believable theory. The University of East Anglia was the prime example of a pro-AGW group, funded by the state, which was attempting to come up with the answers the state demanded.

To add to that, powerful interest groups make huge amounts of money out of government subsidies and regulations that come with the climate change industry: the subsidies given to wind farms, solar companies and the regulations that come with it all which is why so many large corpoations back the concept of climate change as that red tape will help drown out their competition. David Cameron's father-in-law is one example of a rich man who benefits (and his family benefit) personally from AGW theory.

Here's everything you need to read about the Heartland Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Here's everything you need to read about the Heartland Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

---

Why are you so concerned who funds the Heartland Institute? Why are you not in the same way concerned about those organisations and scientists who are funded by the state to give a certain answer? The state is corrupt too, y'know.

In any case, the piece I quoted (oil money or not) seemingly debunks your 97% claim - which sounds like the result of a Zimbabwean Presidential result if you ask me - it would be like my claiming that 97% of Britons want out of the EU.

But EVEN IF a majority or 97% of scientists said AGW was real does this make it true? No, it does not. Science is often wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why are you calling us climate change deniers as though we're on a par with holocaust deniers?

In any case, green groups and AGW groups recieve their funding from pro-AGW governments which are doing exactly the same with as the oil companies are with those climate change sceptics. Both are funded by biased sources, it's simply a question of who you believe has the most believable theory. The University of East Anglia was the prime example of a pro-AGW group, funded by the state, which was attempting to come up with the answers the state demanded.

To add to that, powerful interest groups make huge amounts of money out of government subsidies and regulations that come with the climate change industry: the subsidies given to wind farms, solar companies and the regulations that come with it all which is why so many large corpoations back the concept of climate change as that red tape will help drown out their competition. David Cameron's father-in-law is one example of a rich man who benefits (and his family benefit) personally from AGW theory.

---

No, you're dead wrong and it's ridiculously tedious that the only 'evidence' you have are those leaked emails, which again as I've said multiple times and provided sources for, were taken out of context. The only source you've provided was based on information from heartland institute which works for exxon oil. I can dig up the 97% sources again, but what's the point? You don't want to agree, even though the people you're quoting have actual direct links to oil companies and reason to be corrupt. You keep arguing "yeh but the scientists would get extra funding!" but there's virtually no reason to believe they are lying whereas i've provided countless proof as to why all your sources are not academic, and as to why they aren't to be trusted. If 97% of academics believe something, and the 3% that disagree have ties to companies which lose money if the popular opinion is accepted, which one is logically the more likely to be accurate? You don't want to follow logic though as that would mean accepting you're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why are you so concerned who funds the Heartland Institute? Why are you not in the same way concerned about those organisations and scientists who are funded by the state to give a certain answer? The state is corrupt too, y'know.

In any case, the piece I quoted (oil money or not) seemingly debunks your 97% claim - which sounds like the result of a Zimbabwean Presidential result if you ask me - it would be like my claiming that 97% of Britons want out of the EU.

But EVEN IF a majority or 97% of scientists said AGW was real does this make it true? No, it does not. Science is often wrong.

---

If you can't see why people payed by OIL COMPANIES opinions shouldn't be listened to when it comes to discussing climate change then there is literally zero hope for you. You keep making accusations, start actually proving them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

No, you're dead wrong and it's ridiculously tedious that the only 'evidence' you have are those leaked emails, which again as I've said multiple times and provided sources for, were taken out of context. The only source you've provided was based on information from heartland institute which works for exxon oil. I can dig up the 97% sources again, but what's the point? You don't want to agree, even though the people your quoting have actual direct links to oil companies and reason to be corrupt. You keep arguing "yeh but the scientists would get extra funding!" but there's virtually no reason to believe they are lying whereas i've provided countless proof as to why all your sources are not academic, and as to why they aren't to be trusted. If 97% of academics believe something, and the 3% that disagree have ties to companies which lose money if the popular opinion is accepted, which one is logically the more likely to be accurate? You don't want to follow logic though as that would mean accepting you're wrong.

---

But you seem to want me to accept it as though it's a religion - something I have to say that the climate change movement seems to have the characteristics of. I have said that let's accept that AGW is real, then even if it is - as you believe it is - the best thing to do, and the only rational thing, is to simply adapt to it.

I look at the history of global temperatures and don't find it convincing that we are changing the temperature. Indeed, given that the predictions of rapid climate change over the past decade have turned out to be false...... the record of history is coming in my direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

But you seem to want me to accept it as though it's a religion - something I have to say that the climate change movement seems to have the characteristics of. I have said that let's accept that AGW is real, then even if it is - as you believe it is - the best thing to do, and the only rational thing, is to simply adapt to it.

I look at the history of global temperatures and don't find it convincing that we are changing the temperature. Indeed, given that the predictions of rapid climate change over the past decade have turned out to be false...... the record of history is coming in my direction.

---

I just want you to use common sense and not deny something which has been agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of experts in that field. What's the point of debating someone that illogical?

Just Take a look...


From some smart guy in this youtube video. If you don't have 10 minutes of your time to watch this enlightening video Ill sum it up the best I can. http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with...e-7?g=2&c=mtla


Basically here is the graph. 4 blocks. For Rows we have Are we the reason for Climate Change ( Global Warming ) True or False.
For the Columns we have Do we take action, Yes or No.

Most of the debates on this issue has been Are we causing Global Warming, we aren't looking at the right area now are we? We need to look at Are we going to Take Action to STOP Global Warming, Yes or No.

Now if we do take action and it all turns out to be false, then we probably will have the cost of all our efforts, and a Global depression will probably follow. If We do take action and It turns out its true we are causing it, then we still have the cost to deal with, but we are happy because we can continue to live on our planet as normal.

Now if we Do not take action and it turns out to be False, Great, no harm done. Yet if we don't take action and things turn out to be true. We will face Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse.


Thing is we need to stop arguing if its true or false we are affecting the environment, we need to decide if we are going to take action. And with that we need to look at the risks on each side. I know whats written down would be the most extreme cases, but that's the most likely outcome.

We nee to decide, Whats more risky. Spending Money and a Global Depression, or Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse (which includes Global Depression).

Honestly no doubt I would Take action, and I plan take my efforts further in the future.

http://www.habboxforum.com/images/st.../wol_error.gif

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1004x644.

http://i58.tinypic.com/2qx7p0g.png

They all seem wrong, mainly because they keep changing their minds. The thousands of scientists that now say we are the cause of it said we didn't not so long ago, and that it is or should be called climate change and not global warming. When they changed their minds and started stating it should be called global warming and that man started/created it I just gave up and labelled it as unsure and unstable - if they keep changing their minds then I can't be bothered listening to either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

They all seem wrong, mainly because they keep changing their minds. The thousands of scientists that now say we are the cause of it said we didn't not so long ago, and that it is or should be called climate change and not global warming. When they changed their minds and started stating it should be called global warming and that man started/created it I just gave up and labelled it as unsure and unstable - if they keep changing their minds then I can't be bothered listening to either side.

---

What your talking about is a paradigm shift. People didn't think it was the cause of our actions, that the Earth was warming up at a much faster rate than normal. With the great amount of Scientific research, it proves we are the reason.
97% of scientists can't be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragga

What your talking about is a paradigm shift. People didn't think it was the cause of our actions, that the Earth was warming up at a much faster rate than normal. With the great amount of Scientific research, it proves we are the reason.
97% of scientists can't be wrong.

---

Yet their previous exhaustive researche stated there is no way humans are the cause and it was caused by oceans or whatever the last reason was. They keep changing their mind that I've given up caring :P As long as we improve technologies to be less wasteful and harmful to the environment, but at the same time at no great cost to humans which may cause some to inevitably suffer, I honestly could not give a crap as to force it upon people is nothing more than scaremongering.