Greenpeace Cofounder: Earth’s Geologic History Contradicts CO2 Climate Fears

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (he left because Greenpeace took a hard turn to the left), testified to the Senate EPW panel on the 25th, and here is what he had to say (via Climate Depot)

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.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report 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. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, 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.

And the models have failed 95% of the time.

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 10 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.

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.

Warmists will rebut this with the notion that, yeah, that happened, but this time the cause can only mostly/solely be “carbon emissions” from Mankind, and then they’ll jump in their fossil fueled vehicle to attend a “climate change” rally.

From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. 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.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. 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?

Facts are not necessary for the disciples of Gore.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. 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, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

This is a man who cares deeply about the environment, not the ginned up, fake issue of “climate change”. He notes, as I have many times, that the climate could swing to cooling or warming after this pause. Also that we do not know how long the pause will last. Of course, Warmists now say that the pause is entirely within what they predicted, that snow and ice and cold are all part of a warming world, along with plenty of other excuses and Blamestorming.

He has asked that the chapter on “climate change” from his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making Of A Sensible Environmentalist” be added to the Senate record.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Greenpeace Cofounder: Earth’s Geologic History Contradicts CO2 Climate Fears”

  1. Jeffery says:

    These are one man’s opinions. Mr. Moore is not, and never was a climate scientist, and currently makes a good living running a PR firm supporting energy companies.

    Mr. Moore’s central point was that Earth’s history somehow invalidates the theory of AGW. He neglects to mention exactly how. His contention that modern life evolved over 500 million years ago is questionable. There were no land plants and the oceans were alive with primitive invertebrates. Clearly, it was a different Earth then… one with no land plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals or humans.

    So, what’s his point? That at a time when there CO2 was higher than now, the Earth had an ice age? Recall that the Earth’s temperature, and whether it’s in a ice age or a warm period, does not depend on magic but is caused by physical processes. Atmospheric greenhouse gases are a warming influence, the sun can be a relative warming or cooling influence, vulcanism can be a potent cooling influence; the Earth’s orbit can contribute to warming or cooling. Can you as a scientist, imagine a set of conditions where you can have high levels of CO2 and still have an ice age? I thought that you could. Remember too that ice ages are self-supporting in that ice is quite reflective (albedo) to sunlight.

    Again, using your newfound knowledge of how the Earth warms and cools (no magic!), you can understand that the pre-WWII increase in the Earth’s temperature could be from a warmer sun and greenhouse gases. But the sun has been cooling since WWII, yet the Earth continues to warm rapidly. Why was there a pause in warming during and just after WWII? Industrial sulfate aerosols from the war efforts and large volcanic eruptions in Bali in the 60s.

    We should wish the Mr. Moore was better informed.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Knowing how sensitive the far-right is to even a hint of hypocrisy, what do you think of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson and AFP’s Dick Armey suing to keep fracking away from their fancy homes?

    Can’t we do all our fracking around poor folks?

  3. Jl says:

    “The earth continues to warm rapidly.” No, it doesn’t, and rapidly compared to what?

  4. Jl says:

    And as far as Tillerson and Armey, is that sorta like JFK Jr. trying to stop the wind farms off Cape Cod? Yes, I thought so.

  5. Jeffery says:


    So hypocrisy on the far-right is OK. Yes, I thought so.

  6. Jeffery says:


    Compared to the rest of the Holocene. Even the increase during the pause is rapid.

  7. Friday morning links

    Wild beavers seen in England for first time in centuries Axolotl found in Mexico City lake after scientists feared it only survived in captivity Why Is It So Hard for Women to Write About Sex? Son of God 2014 Official Trailer ‘Son of God’ S

  8. Trish Mac says:

    Did you read the article?

    “Officials at Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) said on Wednesday that CEO Rex Tillerson was opposed to the plan not because of fracking but because the tower would be much taller than what the town had originally proposed.

    Tillerson, former Republican heavyweight Dick Armey and other residents of a ranch-filled suburb of Bartonville north of Dallas filed suit in 2012 seeking to block construction of the 160-foot-tall (49-meter-tall) water tower, arguing it would be an eyesore.

    The suit, filed in Denton County District Court, also noted that the tower could encourage the town of Bartonville to sell “water to oil and gas explorers for fracking shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks… creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards.”

    “Mr. Tillerson does not object to the tower for its potential use for water and gas operations for fracking,” said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil.

    Tillerson’s property is already adjacent to several oil and gas wells and fracking operations, Jeffers added.”

  9. john says:

    Greenpeace does NOT list him as a cofounder and he himself does not say he was.
    But it sure does make him seem like we should listen to him

  10. ruralcounsel says:

    Increase during the pause. Interesting oxymoron.

    You’d do better to argue the science than try to create ancillary ad hominem responses. But I suspect you aren’t any better prepared to argue the science or better informed than Mr. Moore.

  11. Jeffery says:


    How about increase during the “so-called” pause. Or maybe a slowdown in the increase. The fact is that the Earth is still warming despite the deniers claims to the contrary.

    My first comment was mostly arguing the science in addition to exposing Dr. Moore.

    Was there something that Dr. Moore said and that I criticized that you would like to discuss? I didn’t think so.

Pirate's Cove