This file is a personal journal of commentary of examples of the Roanoke Times and Liberal Media Slant. firstname.lastname@example.org
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Greenpeace Founder A Man-cause Global Warming AGW Skeptic
Why I am a Climate Change
Skeptic March 20, 2015
Editor’s Note: Patrick
Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than
40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden
Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth
International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.
Click to Watch a video of his presentation
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.
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
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
The IPCC should either have
its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be
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
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
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.
Patrick Moore (email@example.com)
was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and
spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.
AGW Skeptics Under Personal
“The goal here is not to
win. The goal here is to destroy these people.
We want a smashing victory,” Steyer said of “AGW skeptic” candidates he judges
to be on the wrong side of the climate change debate.
Meets Mother Nature