Co-founder and 15 year leader of Greenpeace now a climate skeptic

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.

Article is here: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

The math scares me a little bit:

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

Plants took 150 million years to bring CO2 down from 3000 ppm to 280 ppm.. Human industrialization in 100 years brought the number from 280 to 400 with 75% of that in just the last couple of decades...

Edited March 23, 2015 by OnMyWayID

[GandD 5,966]

From what I remember, Oxygen levels were at their highest when the Dinosaurs roamed, hence the massive size of the creatures. The meteor event that ended the dinosaurs pretty much destroyed all plant life as well. The world that followed required a compact size to succeed both due to sparse resources and less oxygen. Or magic, whatever.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I find the apparent self-misrepresentation of this corporate shill as a Greenpeace co-founder more troubling...

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Patrick-Moore-background-information/

[Pooky 3,784]

As if being linked to Greenpeace is any claim to green credentials, these days.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As if being linked to Greenpeace is any claim to green credentials, these days.

The Heartland Institute would appear to think so. It's why they falsely slap that label on the author that shills for their corporate sponsors.

[Pooky 3,784]

The Heartland Institute would appear to think so. It's why they falsely slap that label on the author that shills for their corporate sponsors.

SFW?

Greenpeace are not much more than a serial fundraising organization, at this point in time. They have the occasional action that's on message, such as their escapades in Russia. Then there's their PR disasters, like vandalizing the Nazca lines. But most of the time, they're raising money for causes, but doing nothing. BFHD.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I find the apparent self-misrepresentation of this corporate shill as a Greenpeace co-founder more troubling...

He was a co-founder and leader in it for 15 years.. In the end he left when he disagreed with the direction they were heading. Re-framing him as a corporate shill because you don't like his politics now is just avoiding the argument. How about looking at his claims in this article? There is plenty to comment there without going to the attack-the-source tactic.

Edited March 24, 2015 by OnMyWayID

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

From what I remember, Oxygen levels were at their highest when the Dinosaurs roamed, hence the massive size of the creatures. The meteor event that ended the dinosaurs pretty much destroyed all plant life as well. The world that followed required a compact size to succeed both due to sparse resources and less oxygen. Or magic, whatever.

I remember reading that is why insects used to be larger.. though that would be O2 and not CO2 - no reason they could not both be higher in the past even though we tend to think of them in ying/yang terms today

O2 levels over the last one billion years:

The second bumps looks about right for dinosaurs...

I tried finding a similar graph for CO2 but you really cant find one easily - too many graphs to show extremes of either viewpoint drown out the rest.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

he is a corporate paid clown and does not matter in 3 2 1

[GandD 5,966]

I remember reading that is why insects used to be larger.. though that would be O2 and not CO2 - no reason they could not both be higher in the past even though we tend to think of them in ying/yang terms today

O2 levels over the last one billion years:

The second bumps looks about right for dinosaurs...

I tried finding a similar graph for CO2 but you really cant find one easily - too many graphs to show extremes of either viewpoint drown out the rest.

I was referring to oxygen, not co2. Oxygen spikes have typically been a result of large amounts of plant life (obviously) and co2 with the lack there of. The largest planetary extinction event was a run away green house effect millions of years before the dinosaurs. A large volcanic event in present day Siberia released volcanic ash and burned vast reserves of fossil fuels (yes there were decayed plant life even that long ago). I don't recall the specific percentage but the high 90's percentage of all life was destroyed. I think it had to do with the positioning of continents at the time as well. They covered it pretty well in the new cosmos series.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I was referring to oxygen, not co2. Oxygen spikes have typically been a result of large amounts of plant life (obviously) and co2 with the lack there of. The largest planetary extinction event was a run away green house effect millions of years before the dinosaurs. A large volcanic event in present day Siberia released volcanic ash and burned vast reserves of fossil fuels (yes there were decayed plant life even that long ago). I don't recall the specific percentage but the high 90's percentage of all life was destroyed. I think it had to do with the positioning of continents at the time as well. They covered it pretty well in the new cosmos series.

The Permian-Triassic extinction was >95%. Often suggested to be an anoxic event, but the exact mechanism can probably only be speculation.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I was referring to oxygen, not co2. Oxygen spikes have typically been a result of large amounts of plant life (obviously) and co2 with the lack there of. The largest planetary extinction event was a run away green house effect millions of years before the dinosaurs. A large volcanic event in present day Siberia released volcanic ash and burned vast reserves of fossil fuels (yes there were decayed plant life even that long ago). I don't recall the specific percentage but the high 90's percentage of all life was destroyed. I think it had to do with the positioning of continents at the time as well. They covered it pretty well in the new cosmos series.

The big extinction event happened 250-300 million years ago (I just looked it up, could not remember, i was thinking it was much longer ago) which would line up that first big drop - that second big drop is right where dinosaurs died and O2 levels went into decline from there - took the plants that long to convert the extra O2 in the air maybe? Ga! That looks like a fun field to be in...

[eieio 1,594]

I do my part. Whenever possible I avoid buying any products that have a "green" label.

[unsmiley 111]

He was a co-founder and leader in it for 15 years.. In the end he left when he disagreed with the direction they were heading. Re-framing him as a corporate shill because you don't like his politics now is just avoiding the argument. How about looking at his claims in this article? There is plenty to comment there without going to the attack-the-source tactic.

These usual left wing leaning suspects can't help it. It is something in their blood. Or congenital. Can't win the arguments on the merits, so they always resort to character assassination or discrediting the source.