Thursday, February 27, 2014

Founder of Greenpeace testifies to US Senate that global warming is a fraud

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D.

Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on

February 25, 2014

“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

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 across the Pacific 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. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it
certainly is now.

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.

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 ...

Read full testimony here:

No comments :

Post a Comment