Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore Says There’s No Scientific Evidence Of Man-Made Global Warming

Greenpeace Co-Founder: No Scientific Evidence Of Man-Made Global Warming – Daily Caller

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

.

.
Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“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,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “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 and the majority of other species.”

“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “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 could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.

In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“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,” Moore said.

“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.

Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.

Climate scientists, however, have been struggling to explain why global surface temperatures have not risen in the last 17 years and why atmospheric temperatures have been flat for the last decade.

“From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of [0.5 degrees Celsius] over that 30-year period,” Moore said. “Then there was a 30-year ‘pause’ until 1970. This was followed by an increase of [0.57 degrees Celsius] 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 former environmental activist added. “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.’” Moore continued. “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?”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Complete decadence indeed!

The Other McCain has a post about women in combat, a topic I admit I have not really thought about, so I will reserve comment on that. So why am I linking this post? Well, at the very end of the post, McCain notes the story of Sadie. A transgender girl of 11, who was a boy, until at age five, when he, or is it she, decided, on her or is it his own that he or she was really a girl, and transitioned

“Sadie was so proud of President Obama for including the gay community in his inaugural address on Monday; however, she felt like the trans community wasn’t included,” Sage, Sadie’s mother, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. “That inspired her to write her own ‘speech.’”

The Trans Community? Boy, these Liberals do have a community for everything. This community, that community, segregation seems to be a big hit with the Left the way they love to divide everyone, but identity politics is just how they roll I guess. But, back to Sadie for  a minute. 

The speech, which began making the rounds on the Internet soon after the President spoke and was published in full on the TransGriot site, reads:

“The world would be a better place if everyone had the right to be themselves, including people who have a creative gender identity and expression. Transgender people are not allowed the freedom to do things everyone else does, like go to the doctor, go to school, get a job, and even make friends.

I am all for anyone, even a kid writing a letter to Obama, or any politician, so I have no issue with the letter. Or with Sadie. My issue would lie with Sadie’s parents, or whomever has indoctrinated her into believing she is no allowed to got to a doctor, or make friends, or get a job or get an education. Also, I would ask this. How does a five-year-old “decide” that they are the wrong gender? That seems very young to make such a decision, So the issue with me is not whether or not someone can be “trapped in the wrong body”, or whatever the PC term is for that these days, My issue is how this very young person already sounds like a die hard Leftist

Sadie socially transitioned from male to female in kindergarten. She was home schooled until this year and is now in fifth grade and attending public school. A vegan, she loves anything that “protects the environment,” as well as reading, swimming, basketball and texting her friends. She listens to Lady Gaga, Pink and Justin Bieber and wants to work for Green Peace when she grows up. She also wants to be a mom.

Though Sadie has been openly discriminated against, her mother says that she “isn’t shy or ashamed of who she is,” and adds, “I’m always ‘on’ when we go out because I never know when she’ll strike up a conversation with the person in front of her in line at Trader Joe’s. When she chats with people, she introduces herself as, ‘Hi, I’m Sadie, my favorite color is pink, I’m vegan, and I’m transgender. Who are you?’”

Don’t think this child has been coached to be that way? To be so put front with her eating habits, and that she is transgender? Or perhaps mommy dearest is embellishing these stories a bit, or a lot? Maybe mommy is living her activists wet dream out through Sadie? Sorry, but something seems askew with this story to me.

By the way, I would like to congratulate myself for writing an entire post about transgender issues WITHOUT going to the glaring Rachel Maddow/Chris Hayes question.

Oh great, I am now killing Mother Earth, simply by blogging!

William Teach gave me the bad news earlier

I blame you for that devastating 1.4 degrees F rise in temperature that is killing Gaia

(NoTricksZoneSteffen Hentrich here brings our attention to a report appearing in the Austrian pressetext titled: Senseless Surfing in the Internet Is Destroying The Environment“.

If the entire Internet were a country, it would be the 5th largest consumer of electricity globally, moaned Claudia Sprinz, super-nag of Greenpeace Austria. And that figure, she claims, will triple by the year 2020. A huge consumption of resources is taking place out of pure boredom, Sprinz says. Youtube videos of cats, wondering aimlessly through the web or searching for worthless information that is forgotten three minutes later. This behavior is destroying the environment, she frets.

Sprinz says that people should go out for a walk in the park if they’re bored.

Just a single search for Chuck Norris causes as much CO2 as a car travelling 7.5 cm. 15,000 Google-searches for “funny cats” generate as much CO2 as producing a cheeseburger. Google alone produces 260,000 kilograms of CO2 per month. Every spam generates 0.3 grams of CO2.

Oh wait, as long as I do not surf in a senseless fashion I am OK? That is sort of like being what? Surfing Neutral?. So, if it is only SENSELESS surfing they blame, then we could cure climate change just by getting Liberals to stop using Facebook, Twitter, and blogs? See, it is so simple!

Greenpeace And The IPCC: Time, Surely, For A Climate Masada?

Greenpeace And The IPCC: Time, Surely, For A Climate Masada? – James Delingpole


For once my sympathy is all with the whalers…

And how are you feeling today, all you Greenies, after your most embarrassing week (well, one of the most embarrassing: the competition, it must be said, has been pretty stiff these last 18 months) since Climategate?

Just in case your only information sources are RealClimate or Guardian Environment let me explain, briefly, what has been happening out here on Planet Reality. In a nutshell, you’ve been caught with your trousers down yet again, viz:

An official IPCC report bigging up renewable energy as the power source of the future turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace and based not on solid science but a wish-fulfilment fantasy scenario devised by, you guessed it, Greenpeace.

Here’s how the press release of the IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers reported its findings:

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

This was uncritically reported by its amen corner in the MSM, led of course by the BBC’s Richard Black and the Guardian. But others more diligent smelt a rat – among them the mighty Steve McIntyre whose magisterially contemptuous blogpost on the subject has been keeping climate sceptics such as Bishop Hill, WUWT, Rex Murphy, Ronald Bailey and Mark Lynas busy all week.

Mark Lynas? Not the same eco activist Mark Lynas who once threw a custard pie in Bjorn Lomborg’s face and was responsible for advising the Maldives cabinet to pose for that nauseatingly disingenuous publicity shot where they’re all under water (because, like, the Maldives are being drowned due to global warming: except, of course they’re not)? Yep, that one. But on this occasion, at least, even as committed an eco zealot as he has been forced to concede that IPCC has done its reputation as the “gold standard” (copyright: B Obama) of international climate science few favours:

The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.

Additionally, the Greenpeace/renewables industry report is so flawed that it should not have been considered by the IPCC at all. Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them. There is a whole section dedicated to ‘dirty, dangerous nuclear power’, and the scenario includes a complete phase-out of new nuclear globally, with no stations built after 2008.

It is a good point well made. Putting a guy from Greenpeace in charge of writing the supposedly neutral, scientifically-based report on which governments are going to base their energy policy is like putting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in charge of a report entitled Whither Israel? It is, in fact, yet another scandal of Climategate proportions. But you’d be amazed how many people there are out there who still don’t quite see the broader significance of this.

Here, for example, is the characteristically wet response from the Economist’s Babbage:

The release of the full text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Renewable Energy this week has led to a new set of questions about the panel’s attitudes, probity and reliability: is it simply a sounding board for green activists? The answer is no—but that doesn’t mean it’s without serious problems.

Er, no, actually, Babbage. The answer is “yes.” Since its very foundation, the IPCC has been a sounding board for green activists. That is indeed its purpose. It has no remit to investigate whether or not climate change is significantly man-made and whether this constitutes a threat serious enough to handicap the global economy with massive tax and regulation because it takes all those as givens: as far as the IPCC’s concerned, the debate is over and the time to act is now. (Which, funnily enough, is exactly what green activists think). This was the point of McKitrick and McIntyre’s brilliant demolition of the Hockey Stick; the point of Climategate; the point of Amazongate, Glaciergate, Africagate et al; the point of Donna Laframboise’s superb research showing how much “grey literature” (ie activist propaganda with no solid scientific basis) from activist groups like WWF and Greenpeace has informed the IPCC’s supposedly state-of-the-art assessment reports.

The Man Made Global Warming industry is a crock, a scam on an epic scale, fed by the world’s biggest outbreak of mass hysteria, stoked by politicians dying for an excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us while being seen to “care” about an issue of pressing urgency, fuelled by the shrill lies and tear-jerking propaganda of activists possessed of no understanding of the real world other than a chippy instinctive hatred of capitalism, given a veneer of scientific respectability by post-normal scientists who believe their job is to behave like politicians rather than dispassionate seekers-after-truth, cheered on by rent-seeking businesses, financed by the EU, the UN and the charitable foundations of the guilt-ridden rich, and promoted at every turn by schoolteachers, college lecturers, organic muesli packets, Walkers crisps, the BBC, CNBC, Al Gore, the Prince Of Wales, David Suzuki, the British Antarctic Survey, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Knut – the late, dyslexic-challenging, baby polar bear, formerly of Berlin Zoo.

And you really don’t need to be a contrarian or an out-there conspiracy theorist or a hard-core libertarian or a rampant free-market capitalist or a dyed in the wool conservative to think this way any more. This is reality. This is how it is. This is where all the overwhelming evidence points. So what kind of a bizarro, warped, intellectually challenged, cognitively dissonant, eco-fascistic nutcase would you have to be to think otherwise?

Look, I’m sorry to be blunt all you Greenies (you know how normally polite and respectful I am to you and your cause) but don’t you think the charade has gone on long enough? Do you not think, maybe, that given that the IPCC is the basis of all your so-called “science” on climate change, and given that the IPCC has been proven dozens of times now to have been hijacked by activists with about as much of a handle on objective reality as Syd Barrett locked in a cupboard during a particularly bad acid trip, it mightn’t be time finally to do the decent thing?

Either come over to the side of reality, truth and climate scepticism (as your Lynas has sort of done) and admit you’re wrong. Or gather together in your last redoubt with your Hansens and your Gores and your Porritts and all the other die hards and do the only other honorable thing: show the courage of your convictions by staging a Climate Masada.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Because the Left is peaceful, tolerant, etc

Now, I know, as I am sure y’all know, that the Left paints itself as peaceful, non-violent, blah, blah, blah. Yey, I found this at National Review from Greenpeace

This appears on the Greenpeace official blog, written by “Gene” from Greenpeace India:

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

On the Greenpeacethugs website this weak “explanation” appears

A lot of folks commenting are sizing on the words, “we know where you live”.

Gene has a tendency towards the dramatic. So at first I didn’t think anything much about them. After all, I know he’s a peaceful kind of guy, I know Greenpeace is a peaceful organization and I know what he’s got on his mind.

It’s no coincidence that Gene’s blog post came out just two days after we published a report about how one giant corporation, Koch Industries, is secretly funding the climate denial machine.

In that report, we name names (specifically David and Charles Koch). We’re going to hold powerful people like them accountable for their actions – through protest, civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful direct action.

That’s all Gene is saying we should do.

But then I got to thinking: Would we ever protest at someones house? And would that be OK? Of course it would be a peaceful protest. But would it be ethical?

Hmmm, I call BS! The words are very clear folks. “We know who you are”, “We know where you live”, We know where you work”, “We are many, you are few” These are direct threats, issued by a common cowardly thug. A thug who is so intolerant as to be driven to threatening violence against those who disagree with him. All I can offer is this advice to Gene. Shut up, stop threatening people like a common street thug. Grow up and learn to disagree like a civilized human being, act like you have been in public before. Understand that if you go around threatening people, eventually, someone is going to take you at your word.

H/T Jill