2015-03-21 06:47:06 UTC
There is good reason to study the science of climate, ecology, and more, but
what has passed for science for some is not. --
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
March 20, 2015 | Patrick Moore
Editorâ?Ts 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.
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 â?othe debate is overâ? and â?othe science is
My skepticism begins with the believersâ?T 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
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 donâ?Tt
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.
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
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that
support the climate â?onarrative.â? 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 â?otoxicâ? â?opollutantâ? 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 earthâ?Ts
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 IPCCâ?Ts 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. Letâ?Ts celebrate carbon dioxide.