Greenpeace co-founder tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change

[tinydancer]

Do the do ables. Get clean water to the 90% of the planet that drink out of sewers and bathe in sewers.
Show people they can grow their own food and you don't need to get your alfalfa sprouts out of a plasticized container that came from California.

Those greenies always kill me. Means they don't know jack shit. .

 

[william the wie]

Let's see some peer-reviewed science.
good science is verifiable and refutable
Not just opinions

So what does the peer-reviewed science say?

It depends on who are defined as peers.

For example, what is the Horizon of Prediction of AGW models and how was it obtained?

There is rounding error in all measurements and it takes at least 6 measurement to determine what the weather is now at a given measuring station so there is chaos present in the predictions of AGW and therefore an Horizon of Prediction that is not being discussed.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not real interested in opinions
I'm interested in peer-reviewed science

What does that say?

It says that the climate is undergoing changes and it also says that one of the possible reasons is human manufactured gases and pollutants; but with nothing definitive to back it up.

It would be easy to apply humans as the cause except for one thing......

Prior to the ice age, the earth was cooling. Following the ice age, the earth warmed until the mini ice age of the 1700's....and since then it has been warming again.

Now, seeing as humans had nothing to do with THOSE climate changes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to definitively conclude, without actual concrete proof, that humans are the cause of the CONTINUED WARMING since the mini ice age.

Unless you can make millions on a film and grab a nobel prize.

 

[nodoginnafight]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html

Dr. Ole Humlum | the Climate Denier List

OK, now that we know that Ole Humlum is NOT produced peer-reviewed science,

Let's see the peer-reviewed science

97% of climate scientists agree

So you can look at it this way.

If you are standing on a beach with 100 oceanographers and 97 suddenly say, "Crap, here comes a tsunami, and here is the scientific data that supports that conclusion" and 3 say, "I'm not sure we have enough evidence to conclude that a tsunami is coming, but I don't have any scientific data to support the conclusion that it isn't coming."

You gonna stand on the beach with the three or head for higher ground with the 97 ?

You do what you want, but I'm heading for higher ground .

 

[PaintMyHouse]

From his lips to my fingertips.

At one point dinosaurs ranged from the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America. What industrialization was responsible for that global warming?

In addition, 20 years ago which represents the last time the planet warmed to any significant degree, all of the other planets in our solar system experienced the same degree of warming.

Was that caused by our coal plants?

I also wonder why you maintain this stance considering that the United Nations Council on Global Warming the IPCC has admitted there has been no warming.

My stance is always the same, humans change the environment. Have they changed the climate? The science is not to a point where we can say yes or no yet. If they have will that be detrimental to us and other species? Also unknown. Are things changing? They certainly seem to be but mankind has a very limited ability to judge because this is all rather new to us. That is my stance.

I'm big on water and have been so since Grassy Narrows. Yes, I will scare the shit out of you because I am a conservative.........keeding

I'm a conservationist and have been for decades.

I believe in the here and now and taking what limited resources we have to actually clean up the planet.

Not that we can't look at what might be on the horizon. BUT DAMMIT FIX THE HERE AND NOW AND QUICKLY.

Sorry for the caps but I am really passionate about this.

No apology necessary.

 

[healthmyths]

I think I'll stick with nasa, nws and noaa.

Ok... Let's take NOAA..
Why did NOAA remove 600 weather stations?
Temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News
Scientists Using Selective Temperature Data Skeptics Say Global Climate Scam

And NOAA is validating this gross malfeasance ...
Why was 12.5% of the Earth's land mass NOT included in the 60 years of temperature readings?
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

Remember... before computers, satellites which is the last 30 years.. temperatures at the 10,000+ weather recording stations depended on
1) human eyeballs distinguishing a mercury thermometer where the scale was NOT in tenths but whole degrees.
So pretend you are out in the sweltering heat reading the mercury thermometer 50 years and sweat running into your eyes and you
see this:

2) you have to write with a sweaty palm on to a piece of paper the reading.
3) The reading gets transcribed to a central source and what was originally 78 degrees now transcribed 79 degrees.
Again... these were the procedures before computers/satellites... and the BASIS for extrapolating the globe has warmed over
the last 132 years averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.

 

[Clementine]

Liberals pretend to be all about science, yet they only believe the science that seems to back their current narrative. And we know now that the global warming science is seriously skewed. When you remove the bad science, the crisis goes away. The left hates the experts who threaten to derail their scam to control the world's energy resources.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I think I'll stick with nasa, nws and noaa.

I wouldnt. I've seen to many charts and graphs from those bone heads claiming Texas had a warmer than normal summer when I know thats not the case.
Then they got called on it and changed the numbers.

 

[william the wie]

I love all the oxymorons used by the AGW crowd:
Settled Science
Climate scientists

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell us, if much of the changing climate was man-made but we said there's really nothing we can do but just adjust to it, would you little morons still be freaking out?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is "not caused by humans" and there is "no scientific proof" to back global warming alarmism.


The Canadian ecologist told US lawmakers there is "little correlation" to support a "direct causal relationship" between CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

It goes from bad to worse for true believers.

I don't deny the climate is changing, I deny that white men in the USA are the sole cause of climate change or that they are contributing to it. If climate change and carbon footprints were a real concern, we would see the loudest most passionate proponents not jet set, not ride in SUVs, not fight energy windmills in site of their mansions; we would also see a push to limit Russia, India, and China from burning fossil fuels with the same piss and vinegar they go after US.

 

[hipeter924]

I doubt many people would disagree over there being too much pollution, and that it can be bad for health.

Most would probably agree that putting too much carbon into the atmosphere can be a bad thing, just as less oxygen in the atmosphere can be a bad thing.

But when you come down to, humans being a direct cause (as opposed to indirect) of climate change, then that is where the debate can go off into tangents and have alarmism.

Though, the climate will change regardless of human activity, just as it did well before humans came along.

So people have to make a distinction between temperature changes as a result of naturally occurring climate change, and human activity triggering an effect.

Ignoring climate change though, is just as bad as over blowing the dangers, considering that the climate models could well be correct, even if the causes behind them aren't well established.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Greenpeace co-founder tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change


This is hardly "news".

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.

Is this a record?

(Probably not. Leftist loons have been with us a LONG time. )

Recently as the manmade-global-warming loons lose debate after debate, they have started pretending that wasn't what they are defending at all. Instead of arguing that man has changed the climate and he must change it back, now they are saying simply that the climate has change and that conservatives are saying it hasn't. And then they bash them for that instead. "We're not retreating. We're advancing in a different direction!"