La República Catalana

News Comment/COMENTARI AL DIA

The Totalitarian Global Warmer/L’ESCALFADOR TOTALITARI

The Totalitarian Global Warmer

by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace

 

moore green_html_b22e8610Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore in 1971 (left). The first president, journalist Bob Hunter: “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation and his ability to inject practical no-nonsense insights into the discussions.” Below: Patrick Moore became the second president of Greenpeace but left in the late eighties after Bob Hunter created “ecofascism,” a belief system people could adhere to with blind faith. Moore called this totalitarian.

 

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and its second president, who was on the Rainbow Warrior sunk by the French, criticizes the unscientific nature of global warming proponents. The numbers are wrong and the conclusions even more so because warming is good for the planet, not another ice age. His statement to the US Senate:

 

“In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver, Canada, and sailed on a small boat to protest US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace. 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. There is no scientific proof that human emissions of CO2 are the dominant cause of the minor warming over the past 100 years. The UN’s IPCC states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term. The IPCC defines extremely likely as a 95-100% probability. These numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been invented as a construct to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors. These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. A computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods. Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than ten 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. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were ten times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. 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. 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. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C. Then there was a 30-year pause until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been perhaps a slight decrease. 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.Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940? It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. 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. It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with extreme certainty is that the climate is always changing and that we are not capable of predicting which way it will go next.”

 

(“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies,” statement of Dr. Patrick Moore before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight, Washington 25 February 2014)

 

L’escalfador totalitari

 

per Patrick Moore, cofundador de Greenpeace

 

Moore now_html_d5c41019Patrick Moore fou el segon president de Greenpeace però va marxar a finals dels vuitant quan Bob Hunter va crear “l’ecofeixisme,” un sistema de creences que la gent podria adoptar amb fe cega. Moore ho considerava totalitari. Primera foto: El fundador de Greenpeace Patrick Moore el 1971 (esquerra). El primer president, el periodista Bob Hunter: “Moore fou ràpidament acceptat en el cercle de poder per la seva formació científica, la seva reputació i la seva capacitat per introduir observacions pràctiques i realistes a les discussions.”

 

 

El Dr. Patrick Moore, cofundador de Greenpeace i el sue segon president, que estava a bord el del Rainbow Warrior enfonsat pels francesos, critica la naturalesa acientífica dels partidaris de l’escalfament global. Les xifres són errònies, però les conclusions encara més perquè l’escalfament és bo pel planeta, no una altra era glaciar. La seva declaració davant el senat americà:

 

“El 1971, quan feia el meu doctorat en ecologia vaig entrar dins un grup activista en el soterrani d’una església de Vancouver al Canadà, i m’embarcava en una petita nau per protestar les proves americanes de bombes d’hidrogen a l’Alaska. Ens convertirem en Greenpeace. Després de 15 anys en el comitè de direcció vaig marxar de Greenpeace que havia pres un tomb marcat cap a l’esquerra política i adoptava polítiques que jo no podia acceptar des del meu punt de vista científic. No hi ha proves científiques que les emissions humanes de CO2 siguin la causa dominant de l’escalfament poc important dels darrers 100 anys. L’IPCC de l’ONU afirma: “És molt probable que la influència humana hagi estat la causa dominant de l’escalfament observat des de mitjans del segle XX.” “Molt probable” no és un terme científic. L’IPCC defineix molt probable com un 95-100 % de probabilitat. Aquesta xifra no és resultat d’un suposat càlcul matemàtic o anàlisi estadístic. Ha estat inventada com un muntatge que expressi “el judici d’experts” determinats pels col.laboradors de l’IPCC. Aquestes conclusions es basen gairebé exclusivament en els resultats de sofisticats models informàtics dissenyats per predir el futur del clima mundial. Un model d’ordinador no és una bola de vidre. Podem pensar que és sofisticat, però no podem predir el futur amb un model d’ordinador més del que podem fer prediccions amb boles de vidre, llançant ossos , o apel.lant als déus. Potser la forma més senzilla d’exposar la fal.làcia de “certesa extrema” és mirar el registre històric. Amb el registre històric tenim un cert grau de certesa millor que les prediccions del futur. Quan la vida actual es va desenvolupar fa més de 500 milions d’anys, el CO2 era més de deu vegades més elevat que avui, però, la vida va florir en aquells temps. Després una era glaciar va venir fa 450 milions d’anys quan el CO2 era 10 vegades més gran que l’actual. El fet que teníem temperatures més altes i una era glaciar quan les emissions de CO2 eren deu vegades més grans del que són avui contradiu fonamentalment la certesa que les emissions de CO2 causades per l’home són la causa principal de l’escalfament global. Avui estem vivint el que és essencialment el Plistocè Glacial, amb una temperatura mitjana global de 14,5 °C, comparat amb una mínima d’uns 12 °C durant els períodes de màxima glaciació d’aquesta era glaciar. En contrast l’era hivernacle tenia una una mitjana de 22 °C. Durant l’era hivernacle no hi havia gel a cap dels dos pols i tota la terra tenia un clima tropical i subtropical, de pol a pol. Avui en dia vivim en un període excepcionalment fred en la història de la vida a la terra i no hi ha raó per creure que un clima més càlid seria qualsevol altra cosa que beneficiosa per als humans. Hi ha moltes raons per creure que un refredament brusc del clima podria portar resultats desastrosos per a la civilització humana. L’IPCC afirma que els humans són la causa dominant de l’escalfament des de mitjans del segle XX. De 1910 a 1940 es va produir un augment de la temperatura mitjana global de 0,5 °C. Després hi va haver una pausa de 30 anys fins al 1970. Això va ser seguit per un augment de 0,57 °C durant el període de 30 anys entre 1970 i 2000. Des de llavors hi ha hagut potser un lleuger descens. Això en si mateix tendeix a negar la validesa dels models d’ordinador ja que les emissions de CO2 han seguit accelerant-se durant aquest temps. L’augment de la temperatura entre 1910-1940 fou pràcticament idèntica a l’augment entre 1970-2000. No obstant això l’IPCC no atribueix l’augment entre 1910- 1940 a la influència humana. Per què creu l’IPCC que un augment pràcticament idèntic en la temperatura a partir de 1950 es deu principalment a la influència humana quan no té explicació per l’augment gairebé idèntic a partir de 1910-1940? És important reconèixer, davant les amenaçadores prediccions d’un 2 ºC d’augment en la temperatura mitjana mundial, que els humans són una espècie tropical. Evolucionàrem a l’equador en un clima en el qual no existia temporades de fred. Les úniques raons per les quals podem sobreviure aquests climes freds són el foc, la roba i l’habitatge. És molt probable que una temperatura més alta que la d’avui seria molt millor que una més freda. No sabem si l’actual pausa en la temperatura es mantindrà durant algun temps o si pujarà o baixarà i quan en un futur pròxim. El que sí sabem amb certesa extrema és que el clima sempre està canviant i que nosaltres no som capaços de predir en quina direcció anirà pròximament.”

 

(“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies,” declaració delDr. Patrick Moore davant el Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight, Washington 25 febrer 2014)

 

27 February 2014 - Posted by | Environment/Medi ambient |

3 Comments »

  1. Josep, info!

    Like

    Comment by Salvador | 27 February 2014 | Reply

  2. I like this

    Like

    Comment by David | 28 February 2014 | Reply

  3. I recently read your musings about global warming. If you are not embarrassed by them, well, I certainly am. Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but no one is entitled to his own facts. Here’s a question I have for you: Do you know more than the authors of this report?: http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf. Choose the one best answer: (a) yes; (b) no; (c) neither yes nor no, but because I am a trained scientist who has devoted his entire professional life to this area, I am equally competent to write about it.

    Note from the editor: The text was not mine, but entirely from a founder of Greenpeace who left when the organisation whne it abandoned science for politics. I found his comments to the Senate very interesting. For example that the temperature today is only 2 degrees higher than in a full ice age (we are still in the aftertmath of the ice age) but ten degrees lower that in a greenhouse earth. Also that CO2 has been ten times higher both during (humanless) ice ages and greehouse phases when life has flourished. And finally that climate warming is not negative, rather climate cooling is. I’ll read the report but I also have a question for you: Why the change in name from climate warming to climate change? Maybe because the computer models are all wrong?

    Like

    Comment by Sam | 1 March 2014 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: