Greenpeace Founder: Humans Not Responsible for Global Warming

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.

Which science-denying flat earther uttered such blasphemy? None other than Patrick Moore, cofounder of the activist environmental group Greenpeace.

In his testimony in front of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on February 25, Moore laid out some of the rarely mentioned facts on global temperatures that call into question the claim that humans are the main force responsible for changes in the earth’s temperature.

We are told almost daily that our carbon footprint is to blame for the earth’s rising temperatures, not to mention tropical storms and earthquakes (…and not to mention that there have been no rising temperatures for the last 17 years). What we haven’t been told are some of the things that Moore told the Senate Committee last Tuesday:

We have seen CO2 levels 10 times higher than they are today…in times of extreme cold —

When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished…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 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

— Basically, if we’ve seen the globe turn very hot and very cold in times of elevated CO2 levels, what makes us so certain that our CO2 emissions are what are responsible for raising the temperature?

We are actually in a relatively cool period —

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5 degrees C. This compares with a low of about 12 degrees C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22 degrees C during the Greenhouse Ages.

Years of warming do not match up with carbon emissions —

The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming ‘since the mid-20th century’, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5 degrees C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year ‘pause’ until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57 degrees C 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.

We saw nearly the same amount warming in the first half of the 20th century as in the second half, yet the IPCC does not think humans were responsible for that first period of warming. Why? —

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?

Basically, Moore’s point was that much of what constitutes “proof” that humans are responsible for warming are judgments that, when compared across history, become weaker and weaker. Warming may have correlated with carbon emissions between 1970 and 2000, but what explains the halt in warming after that? Or the warming from 1910 to 1940? Or the ice age at a time of 10 times higher CO2 concentration? As Moore put it, “No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

So how do global warming advocates respond to this? More on this issue next week.

Print