Freeman Dyson

Patrick Moore’s testimony to US Senate in climate change

Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change.

This is his submission. It is well worth your time to read.

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.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: ?It is?extremely likely?that human influence has been the?dominant cause?of the observed warming?since the mid-20th?century.? (My emphasis)

?Extremely likely? is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines ?extremely likely? as a ?95-100% probability?. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been ?invented? as a construct within the IPCC report to express ?expert judgment?, as determined by the IPCC contributors. ?? Read more »

More from Krauthammer on Climate Change and ‘settled science’

Yesterday I posted a video from Charles Krauthammer…today we can read a bit more from his Washington Post article.

I?repeat: I?m not a global warming believer. I?m not a global warming denier.?I?ve long believed?that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

?The debate is settled,? asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his?latest State of the Union address. ?Climate change is a fact.? Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less)?or be subject to termination.

Now we learn from?a massive randomized study?? 90,000 women followed for 25 years ? that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives?unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great?physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today?s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

The science is never settled…as we learn more we discover more.

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: ?You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.? Not surprisingly, these models have been ?consistently and spectacularly wrong? in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists?Richard McNider and John Christy?? and always, amazingly, in the same direction. ? Read more »