Greenpeace Founder to Senate: "Man-Made Global Warming Unproven"

[angelatc]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/g...ientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.


Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.


“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,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “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.”

 

[eduardo89]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

 

[Danke]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

 

[AlexAmore]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.
I think being "pro-nuclear power" is ridiculous. Just be "pro-free markets" and let the market sort it out.

Same with GMOs. Do you really think GMOs would be same under a free market? You realize it's the FDA and EPA that regulates the safety of GMOs, correct? Does this not send a shiver down your spine? Can we really call this a neutral environment for real science to flourish?

 

[RJB]

Impossible! How can unfalsifiable hypothesis (climate change, either temp increase or decrease) be unproven

 

[angelatc]

Same with GMOs. Do you really think GMOs would be same under a free market? You realize it's the FDA and EPA that regulates the safety of GMOs, correct? Does this not send a shiver down your spine? Can we really call this a neutral environment for real science to flourish?

Considering that there have been literally thousands of studies on GMO foods, from government, institutions and private firms all over the entire world that have all come to the same conclusion about GMO foods, I think it is disingenious to try to pretend that the FDA is the only organization that has not found any evidence at all that GMO foods are at all harmful.

Global studies reaching a consensus from across the entire spectrum of scientific bodies - that can and does indicate that science is indeed flourishing.

The problem with this argument in this thread is that the same can be said for global warming. There is no debate about it in the scientific community, but yet their models don't seem to be accurate.

GMO food: Introducing a gene from a Brazilian nut into a soybean produced a soybean that triggered a nut allergy. The researchers were looking to see if that might happen, and it did. They built a model, tested a theory and got a result they suspected might happen.

Climate changers don't seem to be able to consistently build models that pan out, but yet the community is sold on the concept. I don't get the disconnect.

 

[eduardo89]

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.
I think being "pro-nuclear power" is ridiculous. Just be "pro-free markets" and let the market sort it out.

Nuclear power isn't extremely risky. It's actually probably the safest and cleanest power source available. In a free market where energy producers really bear the true costs of their product nuclear would be a lot more competitive. You have to take into account the huge amount of subsidies that the petroleum industry receives, not just in tax benefits but also in limited liability in case of spills/accidents and the huge cost incurred by the federal government in protecting the Saudi and Kuwaiti oligarchies.

There have only really been 3 serious nuclear power incident. Chernobyl, which would never have happened in a free market, was caused by substandard designs, training, and maintenance. Three Mile Island which caused no deaths and Fukushima which was pretty much unpreventable.

 

[oyarde]

There is no such thing as mane made global warming . Right now , there is no warming of any kind .

 

[oyarde]

If there was a little warming , that could increase food production ....

 

[Uriah]

Hmm... interesting. Politicians will be fighting back and forth on this for years to come.

 

[eduardo89]

If there was a little warming , that could increase food production ....

That's one of the point the guy in the OP has made before. If we do have global warming we will see increased crop production, especially if couple with more CO2 in the air, and more arable land.

 

[jbauer]

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.
I think being "pro-nuclear power" is ridiculous. Just be "pro-free markets" and let the market sort it out.

Same with GMOs. Do you really think GMOs would be same under a free market? You realize it's the FDA and EPA that regulates the safety of GMOs, correct? Does this not send a shiver down your spine? Can we really call this a neutral environment for real science to flourish?

Yes on nuclear and GMOs.

 

[jbauer]

If there was a little warming , that could increase food production ....

Or hurt it badly. Drought is the biggest fear for food production. All the recent food problems in the US have been caused by drought.

 

[angelatc]

Or hurt it badly. Drought is the biggest fear for food production. All the recent food problems in the US have been caused by drought.

So we probably need to develop some drought tolerant GMO crops?

 

[Acala]

The problem is would nuclear power exist as it does today in a free market? I doubt it. It's extremely risky, and with governments giving them liability caps it's suicidal.

Considering the very large total number of accident-free reactor-years we have under our belt (remember that the US Navy has been nuclear powered for decades) it would seem that the probability of accident is quite low with appropriate design and operation. However, it is also clear that while accidents might be very rare events, they can also be VERY serious.

 

[angelatc]

Considering the very large total number of accident-free reactor-years we have under our belt (remember that the US Navy has been nuclear powered for decades) it would seem that the probability of accident is quite low with appropriate design and operation. However, it is also clear that while accidents might be very rare events, they can also be VERY serious.

Indeed. A couple of years ago a tornado passed close enough to a nuclear plant in Michigan to rip siding off the plant. It had run without incident for 20 years prior to that. I can't imagine a system that is 100% tornado proof, and the potential devastation from an incident like that makes it not worth the gamble to me.

 

[eduardo89]

Indeed. A couple of years ago a tornado passed close enough to a nuclear plant in Michigan to rip siding off the plant. It had run without incident for 20 years prior to that. I can't imagine a system that is 100% tornado proof, and the potential devastation from an incident like that makes it not worth the gamble to me.

Solution: Put the reactor underground.

 

[Danke]

Fukushima which was pretty much unpreventable.

It seems if they had built the plant higher up, or at least had the emergency generators higher up, it would not have been a disaster. Also, taller walls, storage of spent rods, etc. Seems like it could have been preventable.

 

[eduardo89]

It seems if they had built the plant higher up, or at least had the emergency generators higher up, it would not have been a disaster. Also, taller walls, storage of spent rods, etc. Seems like it could have been preventable.

The costs of all that outweighed the potential risks.

 

[mosquitobite]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?