Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace and one of the more outspoken critics of the IPPC concentration on CO2 as the catalyst of climate change rather than looking at all the causes of climate change, has become one of the more controversial authorities on the subject. His reasons for being a climate change skeptic include his belief that we have too little CO2 in the atmophere rather than too much.
He even suggests that humankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may be extremely beneficial.
Excerpted from his Heartland essay published this week:
The OP presumes no endorsement or criticism of Dr. Moore's argument. Certainly he has substantial critics, but almost everybody does who swims against the popular tide. The purpose of this discussion is to explore whether his argument has merit.
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.
2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character or intent of those making it.
3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.
THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:
Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?
1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.
2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.
He even suggests that humankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may be extremely beneficial.
Excerpted from his Heartland essay published this week:
. . .By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. . .
. . .Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. . .
. . .Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?. . .
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic Heartlander Magazine
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. . .
. . .Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. . .
. . .Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?. . .
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic Heartlander Magazine
The OP presumes no endorsement or criticism of Dr. Moore's argument. Certainly he has substantial critics, but almost everybody does who swims against the popular tide. The purpose of this discussion is to explore whether his argument has merit.
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.
2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character or intent of those making it.
3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.
THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:
Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?
1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.
2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.
Last edited: