Greenpeace co-founder recants to U.S. Senate on climate change

Re blogged from wattsupwiththat.com 26 February 2014.

…Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia. (Update: Feb 27, 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see at end.)

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

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. Continue reading

Advertisements

2013 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,300 times in 2013. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

God in climate change

Guest post by Kevin O’Brien

Christians worry too much, relying on their own understandings and accepting the misinformation barrage.God has a simple logical proof as well as his word that disproves the reality of the whole of the climate alarmism.

The latest leaked draft IPCC report AR5 attempts to cover over their previous failed scary projections by offering “trust me it will get worse”. Unfortunately science in the climate arena has largely abandoned truth for advocacy and PhD student models. This is no comfort to those who have come to believe their island homes will swamped or other speculative alarmist scenarios.

God has his answers:

Firstly for us to try to reduce the global temperature by only 1/20 of a degree would cost 4/5ths of the worlds productive output. What sort  of God do we have that would put us in that position? This chart is based on accepted science referred to on the 50 to 1 site:

Claymore_1_edge

Secondly we don’t have the world-wide productive capacity or land to enable a switch to biofuels, nor are wind farms or solar panels sufficient. Renewable energy is more aspirational than real. Here it is described as a disaster: it should be described as totally impossible on a global scale. Can we trade topsoil for fuel oil? Where do we get scarce phosphorus for future food crops? God does not expect us to beggar ourselves or our neighbours to produce motor fuel.

Thirdly the switch to renewable energy brings great injustice. Who is to bear the rising food prices and resulting famines? Our God is a God of justice so this is against Gods’ will.

The solution that fits all this: we will adapt to the natural climate changes, the islands will not sink unless supporting water reservoirs are used up, coral will still grow up to sea level; the earth has an unmeasurable equilibrium which each of us will find different in our own lifetimes.

There is energy. God hasn’t abandoned His every growing people to a world without adequate agreeable energy. Nuclear fuel has got a bad reputation because the electric power industry preferred to use uranium to provide a by-product for atomic weapons.

Thorium is no use for bomb making nor popular with terrorists but does make good heat and hence electricity. While it is radioactive, you can hold it safely in your hand. It is now being used in low temperature reactors which cannot explode or do a Chernobyl. The reactors have the potential for factory assembly for neighbourhood use and the fuel is plentiful. Trust God to have provided even before we were aware of our needs.

IPCC Climate change “Pig in a Poke”, Where’s the truth?

This month the IPCC will meet with great publicity to write the political executive summary of their 5th Assessment Report. See Vincent Gray on the background to these here. David Rose at the Mail on Sunday questions how they got it all so wrong.”Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.

A fine technical explanation countering man made global warming.

IPCC AR5 Renews Demands For Governments Buy Their Climate Change Pig In A Poke

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”

Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.

They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed. For 17 years global temperatures have declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. Arctic summer ice, supposedly all gone by 2013 has recovered by 60 percent in one year. Severe weather has not increased. Damage done by policies already implemented, such as green jobs and alternate energies, is already evident. Newspaper coverage declined dramatically as people sense problems even if they don’t understand (Figure 1). Decline followed the peak created by Gore’s false fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.

2000-2013_climate_coverage

Figure 1

Instead of acknowledging error, the IPCC [tries] to defend the indefensible. This alone warrants disbanding of the agency. Continue reading

Living with the climate is cheaper: 50 to 1

The 50 to 1 Project site for more –

I heartily recommend this short video to you – it tells us why climate change should not be financially crippling our planet.

You may recollect some of the same information in our previous blog about Lord Christopher Monckton.

Viscount Monckton – The triumph of the individual over the hive mind

Some earlier posts on this site:

Deprivation & no climate change

Salvation in traditional vs green theology

Global warming takes a vacation

Global cooling from UN

Warmist injustice

Essay: Salvation in traditional vs green theology

This essay seeks to examine traditional ideas about salvation/redemption, in particular examining the contribution to theology of Gerhard von Rad, whose ideas centred around the salvific event of the Red sea. It will then examine what happens when green philosophy and conservationism enters the domain of theology, in particular the Earth Bible movement and the work of Thomas Berry. It will then address some of the concerns around the new ‘Eco-theology’, and the ongoing response of some mainstream New Zealand churches in this area. Continue reading

Good news for all the people…

“The angel said, Do not be afraid – I am bring you good news of great joy for all the people.” This text from Luke 2:10 is very familiar – we hear it as part of the Christmas story.

But what good news do we as a church bring to all the people? Do we tell them the Gospel, that God loves them, that Jesus is real and cares, that the Holy Spirit is an ever-present helper, or do Christians jump on the latest band-wagon of political correctness, that is, the Green movement.

This youtube extract, from a BBC documentary about Papua New Guinea, is a brilliant example of how the green concerns for conservation are putting trees first and people second. There is no good news for the people. Here we see a worried young mother, whose little baby has malaria. Fortunately, the medics attached to the documentary team are able to give the child some medicine, without which we are told that it would definitely die. The local tribe explain to the scientists that even though they own vast tracts of land and trees, they need to log them so they can afford education and medicine for their children. The Greenies leave us with the question hanging in the air – should these people be allowed to sell their trees? Or rather, are their little black babies worth less somehow than our cosy white city babies, who have access to medicine?

The church should be about the business of saving people – spiritually, physically, whatever it takes. But whenever a church leader urges us to plant trees for the sake of the planet, my thoughts go back to the worried young mother in Papua New Guinea, and her baby.

The tree-planting ideas are based on bad science too, that has been discredited. We are learning more and more about the sun’s role in climate, and people cannot change that. At least if we’re going to plant trees, let them be food-bearing trees, like our local (secular) city council.