In what seems to me to be an indisputable refutation of an oft-repeated claim, ScienceBlogs has shown that any claim by Patrick Moore that he founded GreenPeace, or was a co-founder, is false.
Of particular note is a letter written by Moore to Greenpeace asking to be included on a voyage to participate in a nuclear protest, written well after the founding of Greenpeace. You should read the post and view it for yourself, as well as the letter which GreenPeace sent in response.
Then there are the founders of GreenPeace, who should know pretty well who they are — and aren’t.
The next time you hear, anywhere, from anyone, that Patrick Moore founded or co-founded GreenPeace, demand a response. I would love to hear him explain this one.
Open Mind 
Another “Bjorn-again Environmentalist”
–by Horatio Algeranon
I once believed,
The earth was doomed,
From toxic waste,
And fossil fumes.
I
sailed withfounded Greenpeace,Way back then,
But I’ve seen the light,
I’m Bjorn again!
I’ve witnessed The Truth,
I was naive,
It’s just not grim,
Like I believed.
The “Birthing Bomb”
It now is clear,
Is naught but
Enviro-alarmist fear.
And species extinctions?
Exaaaaggerated!
The polar bear?
Not near post-dated!
And Global warming?
Not so bad.
So cool it, dude!
It’s just a fad.
In recent years,
The earth’s been cooling!
Scant cause for alarm,
Over fossil fueling!
The IPCC
Has been “Falsified”,
“Alarming” futures
Unjustified.
The billions slated,
For mitigation
Are better spent
On irrigation.
So let’s not panic,
Make undue haste,
To act in that way,
Is a sinful waste.
Horatio, I nominate you for Poet Laureate of the Sane.
“Insanity is Underrated”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Insanity is underrated
And Normalcy mundane
Inanity misunderestimated
And Bjorn, y’all see, one Dane
Sure you don’t want to add an “In-” to that title?
Are you planning to publish a collection, a best of Horatio? I’d buy!
I was really confused by this post, until I followed the link and saw the picture of Moore. I’ve never heard of this guy.
I am pretty sure that I am not the only reader who immediately thought of astronomer Sir Patrick Moore.
No, you’re not. Sir Patrick Alfred Caldwell-Moore CBE, FRS, FRAS had some pretty crappy political views, perhaps a results of having his fiancee killed by a German bomb, but at least he wasn’t a profiteering clown like this one.
That is a good one. Patrick is my elder brother. I remember when he lived on 12th Ave in Vancouver and the Don’t Make a Wave group was forming the first ideas on going to Amchitka. because we both grew up in a logging/fishing village on Norther Vancouver Island, he was the only member who had any idea how boats work, and was able to help convince John Comack that his halibut boat should serve as the first Greenpeace vessel. (John, like most fishermen referred to every other member of that crew as ‘farmers’ – always with a good heart.)
The reason Patrick became the head of Greenpeace in Vancouver for over a decade was because he had not only a doctorate in ecology, but also because he was a good manager of people, and the early Greenpeace members were a very wild bunch on all sides – strong personalities.
Patrick led the decision to file suit against organizations using the name in the US who were raising a lot of money on the reputation of the anti-whale campaign (which had incurred a 120K debt) but who did not feel thay should help pay that debt. A settlement out of court the day before the hearing ( registered trademarks had in fact been taken out by the Canadian founding team that he was part of) resulted in the decision to create Greenpeace International, where he served as the Greenpeace Canada representative until he left the organization in 1986. at that time he was the only member of the International board with a science education beyond Grade 12. Their decision to ‘ban chlorine worlwide’, calling it ‘the Devil’s Element’ put him in direct conflict with the other directors, who were not interested in the fact that adding chlorine to our water supply had been the greatest single advancement in human health, and that 75% of all our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry.
Greenpeace then shifted from political centrist to extreme left, using more and more the sloganeering approach and sensationalism, disregarding science entirely.
It is understandable that they (and the writer above) would like to imagine that such a critic could not have been a founder, and the running joke for the last forty years has been that you can find a founder of Greenpeace in every bar in Canada.
But anyone with any inside knowledge needs to lie through their teeth to portray him as anything other than a core component in what made Greenpeace successful.Of the three social movements which combined to create Greenpeace – the Peace Movement ( anti-Vietnam war, anti-nukes) the Counterculture ( media savvy, baby boom anti-establishment, gonzo journalism, spiritual communal open thinking) and the Ecology movement ( Rachel Carson, save the planet from pollution and habitat destruction) Patrick represented the third, being the first Ecology graduate from the University of British Columbia.
He may have his flaws, but posing as a Greenpeace Founder is not one of them.
Michael Moore
Executive Director
Allow Golden Rice Society
[Response: What a wonderful job you’ve done denying the issue.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why this post refers to Moore as “Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies.”
Or why the so-called “Heartland Institute” has announced he will receive an award at their upcoming anti-global-warming conference like so: “Speaks Truth to Power Award: Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace Presented by the EarthFree Institute.”
Or why an interview with Patrick Moore refers to him as “Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.”
Or why Patrick Moore himself, in testimony before the United States Senate, said
in spite of the fact that Greenpeace began a year before that.
Or why this refers to Patrick Moore as a “founder of GreenPeace” and mentions his being a part of the first activity in 1970, when Patrick Moore’s own hand-written letter requesting participation is dated March 11, 1971. By his own hand.
I could go on. And on. And on. And on.
To put it quite simply, I don’t believe you. Or your brother.
]
Patrick Moore certainly did make contributions to the development and operation of Greenpeace, and no one is denying that.
By the way, this trope where “Greenpeace made a radical move to the left” may or may not be true, but why leave out the part where Moore made a radical move to the right, right into the science denialist camp? Which is what this is all about, after all. It is what he is paid for these days.
It looks as if dishonesty about science and technology runs in the Moore family. Michael and Patrick Moore love to get money from the large multinational companies they used to decry when they were members of Greenpeace. The Moores are a great example of the similarity between AGW deniers and GMO promoters:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15339-what-do-climate-denial-and-promoting-gmos-have-in-common
Just about everything they say about golden rice is false and a distortion of reality.
Ian, why do you need to belittle your own argument by citing gmwatch?
That’s like referring to WUWT!
Marco, ad hominem attacks on legitimate scientists should be beneath you. There is no way anyone can equate the pseudo science at WUWT with actual peer reviewed science discussed at gmwatch. Just because they are critical of work which you for some reason seem to support while an ever increasing body of science shows that all is not well with biotechnology as it is being used in the agricultural industry does not equate them with Watt’s group of junk scientists. Please read some of the peer reviewed literature showing the problems.
Ian, the “discussion” at gmwatch is mainly by people with the same expertise in this scientific field as Watts (and many of his guest-bloggers) in the climate arena. That is, none.
The supposed “criticism” of GMWatch is so asymmetric, it is the same type of pseudoskepticism seen at WUWT. Paper shows GMOs or Roundup is bad? See, peer reviewed science shows it’s bad! Paper shows there is no problem? Must be paid off.
The consensus (thaaaaaat’s right) shows GMOs are safe. And since you are male, Séralini’s paper suggest you should be drinking roundup. Extends your life!
What nonsense from someone who I actually thought was a scientist. The people at gmwatch are far more knowledgeable than you or any one at WUWT.
Are you employed by the GM industry? The only people these days who have anything positive to say about what is happening in AG-biotechnology seem to have direct or indirect affiliation with that industry. There are many, many reasons why GMO crops are not working the way the GMO industry predicted or are still claiming.
And what is that nonsense you are saying about Round Up and/or glyphosate? Have you not read any of the many papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature showing the many problems it can cause? Scientists have even shown the pathway by which it causes birth defects in humans and other species, the retinoic acid signalling pathway.
Here is a link to one paper, there are many others showing negative effects of glyphosate:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
And don’t rubbish the journal, it is an American Chemical Society journal.
Grow up and do some reading, not rubbish like AgBioWorld, now that is in the same league as WUWT.
And there is no census that GMO’s are safe. As i said previously, don’t read junk like AgBioWorld.
Since you brought up Seralina’s paper, you do realize that all the negative comments put out by the spin masters at SMC equally apply to the papers published by Monsanto to show that GMO/round up is safe and was used to get approval in Europe? Why do these people viciously attack scientists using the same methods as Monsanto but quietly support an inferior (90 days vs 2 years) study by the GM industry?
Sorry but you have no idea about GMO crops, except for the misinformation put out by the biotechnology industry. Reminds me of the way AGW deniers act towards fossil fuels, they can’t be doing anything wrong.
[Response: The topic is now off limits.]
If you’re going to run this line about Moore, you better have a word to the Greenpeace folks who contributed to the Wiki entry under his name:
“According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don’t Make a Wave Committee was formed in January 1970 … Moore joined the committee in 1971 and, as Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions” Cited from Hunter, Robert. (1979) Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace Movement. Henry Holt & Company. ISBN 0-03-043741-5 p9
C’mon, you guys are better than this half arsed attempt at discrediting Moore. If you can get Hunter to recant his inclusion of Moore from as book he wrote MUCH closer to the actual relevant events, you might inject a bit more credibility into the argument.
[Response: If you are going to run this bullshit about Moore, take it somewhere else. Being “quickly accepted into the inner circle” doesn’t make you a co-founder. Yet Patrick Moore has consistently claimed, and allowed claims on his behalf, to be a co-founder. He isn’t. Plain and simple.
I doubt, however, that you are better than this half-arsed attempt to salvage Moore’s reputation.]
Uh, Andy, there had to already be an inner circle for Moore to be accepted into it. Maybe you ought to look into a refresher course on basic logic.
Hey, I thought this was supposed to be ‘Open Minds’ not let’s abuse anyone who questions us.
[Response: Either you fail to understand the difference between “quickly accepted into the inner circle” and “co-founder” or you duck the real issue — that Patrick Moore has repeatedly claimed, and allowed to be claimed on his behalf, co-founder status. In other words, your comment was total bullshit.
But when your bullshit is called bullshit you try to blame it about me. This is “Open Mind,” not “be nice to those spewing bullshit.”
Who founded GreenPeace? NOT Patrick Moore.]
The whole kerfuffle over whether Moore was a “founder” of Greenpeace is really beside the point. The relevant facts are that Moore is NOT a climate expert and DOES NOT understand the science of climate change. The designation of Moore as a former lefty environmentalist is straight right-wing, science-denial apologetics. It makes better copy than Moore finding out that the denialism pays better than environmentalism.
Horatio, see if you can work in “foundered” somehow …
“Truth Founders”
— by Horatio Algeranon
It’s just a little lie
Means nothing much at all
But truth is bound and tied
And founders on the shoal
I agree with the idea that being or not being a founder is more of an ornament than a core issue – it indicates one’s allegiance to a community, perhaps, to deny or accredit Patrick with this, but the issues we all face remain what they are.
[edit]
[Response: Being or not being a founder is a matter of plain fact. It’s a matter of truth or falsehood. And it’s the topic of this post.]
It’s an interesting task trying to square the description of the early days of Greenpeace by Michael Moore abpve (that Greenpeace was a combination of three social movements – anti-war/nukes, counterculture & third in the list eco-ism) with the comments of Patrick Moore who says he left Greenpeace due to a new “era of zero tolerance and left-wing politics,” when Greenpeace apparently “took a sharp turn to the political left” Sounds to me like Greenpeace was strongly in-your-face & lefty from the off, making ‘sharp turns’ in that direction pretty-much impossible.
And P.Moore himself is apparently on record saying that the ‘sharp turn’ kept on turning. (Either that or, as asserted in the link, he contradicts himself.)
I note P.Moore also styles himself as having been (he uses that past tense) “a leader in the international environmental movement for over 40 years” and that he describes the people who seemingly hijacked Greenpeace as a minority. Otherwise, how else could P.Moore tell us that “not all my former colleagues” agreed with his analysis: in other words, most did agree with him.
So when he left Greenpeace after 15 years he must have remained this ‘leader in the international environmental movement ‘ for at least another 25 years.
But that leaves some tricky questions – What has P.Moore been leading for the last 25 years? And did Greenpeace take a big hit when P.Moore the great leader depart from the internationally-renowned organisation he says he co-founded? What evidence is there of the great leader’s parting? There must at least be something from some third party somewhere to back up his claim of his resigning rather than him being given the old heave-ho? Surely?
Huh. I left Greenpeace during the Chlorine Is Evil period, but I didn’t think in terms of left/right. I left because the organization became less and less informative (they used to publish a newsletter that I got a lot of good stuff from but they stopped) and more and more obstructive.
In the US this usually starts, . . . as a lifelong Democrat, I . . . .
Moore, Lomborg, does Eli sense a trope here.
“Being or not being a founder is a matter of plain fact. It’s a matter of truth or falsehood. And it’s the topic of this post.”
Greenpeace claims Patrick Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace. QED?
Michael, as Tamino has pointed out there are many many sources claiming that Patrick was a founder pif Greenpeace. that has much more propaganda value, than saying he was an early and valued member.
And of course the point is, that his arguments against ACC are all either inaccurate, speculation, or deliberate attempts to confuse people about the full weight of evidence on the subject.
Tony’s point is the real important one here. Regardless of what P. Moore has done in the past, it is only being used now for propaganda value in a pursuit that is highly objectionable on both scientific and ethical grounds.
Ye olde argument from authority logical fallacy. Well surely if a ‘founder’ of Greenpeace doesn’t buy into AGW, then…. etc.
As believable as some of Romney’s best friends being ‘the blacks’.
Greenpeace themselves claimed for years and years that Patrick Moore was a co-founder. Here’s one of the later the webpages:
web.archive.org/web/20050404143017/http://www.greenpeace.org/history/
The ‘founders of Greenpeace’ link at that page points at
web.archive.org/web/20050308200452/http://www.greenpeace.org.au/aboutus/founders.html
It says:
“In 1970, the Don’t Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop the second test. The committee’s founders and first members included:
• Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia
• Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy
• Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer
• Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia
• Bill Darnell, a social worker
Darnell came up with the dynamic combination of words to bind together the group’s concern for the planet and opposition to nuclear arms. The committee was renamed Greenpeace.
[Response: This doesn’t support your contention — one can be on the list of “founders and first members” as a first member but not a founder. Which, if I understand what GreenPeace has to say, is how they regard Patrick Moore. They have also explicitly stated that he is NOT a “founder”:
]
The group organised a boat, the Phyllis Cormack, and set sail to Amchitka to “bear witness” (a Quaker tradition of silent protest) to the nuclear test. On board were: The Vega crew
• Captain John Cormack, the boat’s owner
• Jim Bohlen, Greenpeace
• Bill Darnell, Greenpeace
• Patrick Moore, Greenpeace
• Dr Lyle Thurston, medical practitioner
• Dave Birmingham, engineer
• Terry Simmons, cultural geographer
• Richard Fineberg, political science teacher
• Robert Hunter, journalist
• Ben Metcalfe, journalist
• Bob Cummings, journalist
• Bob Keziere, photographer”
Uh, I kind of have to agree that Greenpeace has gone off the deep end with their anti-nuclear and anti-GMO stances. This and asking questions about fracking are going to make me look like a conservative or a shill, but there, I said it.
Tamino,
but Greenpeace say on their website:
“In 1971, motivated by their vision of a green and peaceful world, a small team of activists set sail from Vancouver, Canada in an old fishing boat. These activists, the founders of Greenpeace, believed a few individuals could make a difference.”
By that definition every activist then aboard that vessel could consider him-/herself a Greenpeace founder – Patrick Moore included.
In rexweyler.com/greenpeace/greenpeace-history/founders/ it says
“There was also no group of founders in any formal way, although several people played crucial roles in the early evolution of the organization.”
If GP can present any facts or objective criteria about who must and must not be called a (co-)founder but only a fist member they better not make vague statements for years like “the name, idea, spirit, tactics, and internationalism of the organization all can be said to have separate lineages”. It doesn’t add to their credibility in that matter.
Btw: Who is that Phil Cotes Greenpeace mentiones?
[Response: The fact that GreenPeace makes vague statements, doesn’t make Patrick Moore a founder. Follow the link and read his letter requesting a berth on the initial voyage — the one they were planning even before he was involved in any way.
And if there was “no group of founders in any formal way,” why does Patrick Moore so insist on co-opting the label?]
wflamme,
I worry that you are cut&pasting what you want to make your case but are presenting a less than full account. So does your case stack up when no stone is left unturned?
You point out that Greenpeace, in their on-line “The history of Greenpeace”, do describe “the founders” as being synonymous with the “the small team of activists (who) set sail from Vancouver Canada in an old fishing boat … in 1971.” I would suggest that this comment, in the opening paragraph of the web-page, is more intended to set forth the ethos of the organisation, that “a few individuals could make a difference” rather than to define who constitutes the Greenpeace founding fathers. For that, there are ‘find out more’ links provided.
You will note that, despite your juxtaposing this ‘The history of Greenpeace’ page link beside your assertion that “Greenpeace themselves claimed for years and years that Patrick Moore was a co-founder,” there is not a mention of P.Moore on the page.
Of the two ‘find out more’ links, the chatty one makes no mention of P.Moore either. On the subject of “founders,” there is a quote from Jim Bohlen “The founders of Greenpeace are three people. Or the twelve who risked their asses on the first voyage in 1971. When David (McTaggart) got a prize as the “Greenpeace Founder” in Mexico City I was absolutely fuming. “ Do note that of the “three people” – Paul Cote (not Phil Cotes as the official Greenpeace rebutal of P.Moore rather embarrasingly states), Jim Bohlen & Irving Stowe – only one was on-board the Phyllis Cormack. So that could make P.Moore one of 14 co-founders, or 15 if McTaggart is included.
The other link prsents a page entitled “THE FOUNDERS OF GREENPEACE” and could be interpreted as there being 19 founders, or by its ending its account with the arrival of future leader McTaggart perhaps it is saying McTaggart is the “Greenpeace Founder.”
This is the page you part-cut&paste in your first comment above (also picking up the photo caption at the same time – oops!). I think you have noticed that the first list is not of founders but says “The committee’s founders and first members included:” So it is not an exhaustive list. Nor is it saying P.Moore founded anything (he certainly didn’t found that committee) but that he was an early member. This fact is perhaps emphasised by the second list of Phyllis Cormack crew where P.Moore is the last Greenpeace member in the listing.
The other refence you make is to a page on the the Rex Weyler site with the title “Greenpeace History – Who were the Founders?” That page tells us “There was no single founder. There was also no group of founders in any formal way, although several people played crucial roles in the early evolution of the organization.” P.Moore is listed solely as a member of the Phyllis Cirmack crew & with the on-shore ‘crew’ also listed the number of ‘co-founders’ tops 30.
Weyler also presents Chronology, the founding of Greenpeace where P.Moore gets mention only as a crewman & being present when when “The World Greenpeace Foundation” was proclaimed. And he is 9th in Weyler’s List of Characters from Greenpeace.
Your final point that Greenpeace are being too vague about who “must not be called a (co-)founder but only a fist member” rather misses the statement Greenpeace do make on the matter “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. “
So can it be any clearer?
… but the fact that Greenpeace considers everyone aboard the 1971 vessel a founder does, Tamino.
[Response: The fact that GreenPeace has explicitly stated Patrick Moore is NOT a founder, means they don’t consider everyone aboard the 1971 vessel a founder.]
– The letter and reply confirms that Moore applied to join when the movement still sailed as the Don’t Make A Wave Committee.
[Response: And that “the movement” already existed, and had planned their first voyage, before they ever heard of Patrick Moore.]
– According to Rex Weyler’s chronology mentioning first ideas to reconstitute the committee as ‘Greenpeace’ emerged during the return trip of the protest vessel in 10/1971 with Moore already joining.
http://books.google.de/books?id=M1GW445y2n4C&lpg=PA137&ots=kosViI8xUB&dq=%22The%20World%20Greenpeace%20Foundation%22&hl=de&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q=%22The%20World%20Greenpeace%20Foundation%22&f=false
– The official “Greenpeace Chronology – 40 years of protecting the planet” also confirms that only 1972 the former Don’t Make A Wave Committee transformed into the Greenpeace Foundation
Moore is a founder of Greenpeace to the same extent that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate–and both propositions are irrelevant! What matters is that Moore has no understanding of Earth’s climate, so his opinion counts for nothing wrt the science.
“The Founderer’s Tale”
Excepted by the inner group
The Greenpeace founders core
An old enviro flew the coop
The tale of Patrick Moore
Floundered on his wayward trip
From glory days of yore
Foundered in his holey ship
Upon the crocky shore
The Founderer’s claim to founders fame
Is challenged by a letter
From GreenPeace founder, signed by name
With logo (even better)
Should have put that after Hank Roberts’ comment, since working in “foundered” was his suggestion and deserves full credit (if he wants it, that is)
We have to be careful who we denigrate because he/she is not a “climate scientist”. Most of the supporters of AGW are not climate scientists, and there really is no need to be if you are an activist supporter. You have to have a good science background and – the key for all argument – an ability to pull the different parts, including social impacts, together to come to a reasonable opinion on what is the “true” risk and what is the most “reasonable” response.
As far as I can see Michael Mann’s major contribution to science is in dendrochronology. He is smart enough to bring other information to the table as well as contributing orginal research. But he is not an atmospheric physicist. Still, I think we would recognize him as having a legitimate voice in the debate.
Moore et al, just like Gore, McKibben and Romm, have an opinion worth considering even if they are not the originators of the climate science under discussion. It is probably wise, though, to recognize that these luminaries have, to a greater or lesser extent, put their faith in the work that others have done and the claims they have made. Arguing about the strength of one’s faith is a fool’s effort, which is only what a lot of the passion has going for it.
Since the signal of AGW has not reared its ugly head clearly above natural variability, the background science is still disputable IN ITS IMPORTANCE FOR FUTURE EVENTS. Moore and McKibben have thoughts they share, opposing thoughts. Based on the work and conclusions of other people. They are entitled to them, both of them: if you think a Moore can’t grasp enough science to determine the way of things, I’d suggest you ask yourself how much credence you should give to McKibben or Gore.
At this stage we have to do our own reading, considering and deciding. Even the Precautionary Principle is not a sure thing, as it applies to itself, and is non-quantifiable (as a range of temp rises in 2100 go between 1.5 and 4.5+C, we really don’t know what we will face: estimates are vague, and “value” in a social sense is subjective).
Doug Proctor,
Yes “We have to be careful…” but P.Moore is not being careful. He is, on the matter of climate change, being eye-poppingly careless.
Here we have the man pronouncing to a Senate Subcommittee earlier this year. You might ask what reason there is for P.Moore to be asked before such a Subcommittee. I think that is the substance of the post here.
But whatever that reason, do read what P.Moore has to say to that Subcommittee. Then ask – If it is “Based on the work and conclusions of other people,” who are those people? They are certainly not scientists but instead some ilk of climate change denier!!!
P.Moore’s message is:-
It’s not CO2. “There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.”
It’s not even necessarily our CO2.“Many scientists assume that human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are the main cause of this increase. Some scientists question this assumption. “ (This from his book extract he appends to his testimony.)
And global warming is good“Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
About the only half-interesting comment he makes in all the waffle that constitutes his testimony concerns the CO2 levels during the Hirnantian glaciations. But does he delve into the matter (eg here)? Not a bit of it.
There is no defence for P.Moore.
Doug Proctor,
Horsecrap! A climate scientist is one who publishes peer-reviewed research on climate science. Expertise counts! There are PhD physicists who don’t understand the greenhouse effect. Their opinion on AGW is no more valuable or persuasive than that of an equally ignorant (on the subject) truck driver.
Anthropogenic warming is an unavoidable consequence of our adding CO2–a powerful greenhouse gas–to the atmosphere, given the accepted model of the planet’s climate. This model has been astoundingly successful not just for understanding our climate, but also for predicting its behavior. Are there uncertainties? Of course. However, all of the uncertainties would have to line up on the skeptic side for the results to merely be catastrophic.
We can already see the consequences of climate change. They are happening now, and they are happening as the models predict. The only questions are how many zeros the damage amounts will have.
Doug, can you provide a ink to some sort of support for the claim that the AGW signal is within the bounds of natural variability?
Cheers.
Doug Proctor:
“Since the signal of AGW has not reared its ugly head clearly above natural variability”
Arguing from a false premise scuttles the rest of what you’ve said.
Dhogaza, unfortunately, your claim fails logic.He’s wasn’t arguing from a false premise – he used it as backgrounding for the discussion. Regardless of that point, it has zero bearing on the topic at hand – ie Was Moore a Greenpeace founder?