Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic - Cofounder of Greenpeace.

Jul 2014
483
794
Philadelphia
#2
After reading the article, I'm sure not wasting my time watching the video. Moore misstates and overstates the mainstream scientific positions on climate change and then dismisses them with unsupported bravado.

"Patrick Moore is an AGW denier and corporate shill. Moore works for the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defence of biotechnology.
Although Moore was once (1981, 1986) a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and subsequently with Greenpeace International, in 2008 Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes."
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch

In this forum, I've noticed the tendency to dismiss positions based solely on the source. In this case, it's probably appropriate to do so.
 
Likes: 5 people

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,664
63,150
So. Md.
#3
Once I read that he says there has been no global warming for 18 years - contrary physical evidence - then I know he is not to be taken seriously.
 
Likes: 6 people

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,130
6,274
#4
In terms of volume, Water Vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. That is not even in dispute.

The warmists claim that CO2 drives water vapor and thus its status as a "forcing agent" is primary.

But this has not been proven.

Thus, the one frame we see in the OP video is exactly correct.

From the Intelligence squared debate on this very subject (Oh and the Deniers won the debate vote)

'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' : NPR

BRIAN LEHRER Let‘s go to the audience, and, when you ask your questions, uh, members of the press, please identify yourselves as such. Members of the audience who are not with the press, you have the option to identify yourself, or not. Okay. Right down here.

LINDA CARO Hi, my name is Linda Caro, um, it kind of surprises me that , uh, the emphasis is on CO2 which is about one-third of 1% of the total atmosphere, whereas global—uh, water vapor is the vast bulk of it all. Uh, is it possible that we are, um…are not accounting properly for, uh, the giving off of heat such as nuclear power plants which are several thousand degrees Centi—uh, Fahrenheit, that we‘re cooling with water and air, every day, every week, every month, every year, that can‘t—

BRIAN LEHRER Is there anyone you would particularly like to answer that question?

LINDA CARO Whoever feels most qualified. [LAUGHTER]

BRIAN LEHRER Richard Somerville is raising his hand.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE
The, the direct heating from sources like power plants is negligible, uh, compared to these, these other factors, solar radiation, greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, primarily carbon dioxide and other gas is secondary, we can‘t control water vapors. It‘s controlled by the atmosphere itself, largely by temperature, so when you add CO2, you humidify the atmosphere and the water adds to the warming. That‘s one reason why Richard Lindzen‘s talking about CO2 only giving you a degree or so is disingenuous because that feedback is expected theoretically and has been observed.

BRIAN LEHRER I think Richard Stott is, uh—Philip Stott is bursting out of his chair to agree with you. [LAUGHTER]

PHILIP STOTT I could not agree more. Yes, it‘s governed by the atmosphere. Absolutely, and is not under our control.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE But it‘s—

PHILIP STOTT It is therefore one of the big factors, that we have no control over.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE It‘s—

PHILIP STOTT In a non-linear couple system.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE
I‘m, I‘m, I‘m stunned by, by your amazement that non-linear coupled chaotic systems are things that we can‘t understand even in part, that—

RICHARD S. LINDZEN He didn‘t say that—

PHILIP STOTT I said—I said control.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE Very—very good. You can control how much CO2 you put in the atmosphere and that will have a big effect on how much water vapor is in the atmosphere, that‘s not controversial.

PHILIP STOTT Well you can‘t predict—

RICHARD S. LINDZEN That is controversial—

PHILIP STOTT Yeah.

RICHARD S. LINDZEN —and it‘s controversial because it is not a homogeneous distribution of water vapor.

PHILIP STOTT Yeah, exactly.

RICHARD S. LINDZEN
And, you know, to pretend this is settled, is bizarre. Moreover with clouds, which are comparably important, you know full well, that that is not settled.

BRIAN LEHRER Let us—

RICHARD S. LINDZEN By a long shot.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2013
51,537
54,797
Nashville, TN
#5
Another corporate shill denies global climate change, news at 11. Has anyone ever noticed that every single fucking denier thread that gets started is found to be a link to a corporate shill?
 
Likes: 4 people

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,130
6,274
#6
Another corporate shill denies global climate change, news at 11. Has anyone ever noticed that every single fucking denier thread that gets started is found to be a link to a corporate shill?
That is total nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_activities

Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment." He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science" although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[SUP][/SUP] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions.[SUP][/SUP]He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone. The NAS panel on which Lindzen served says that the summary was the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2013
51,537
54,797
Nashville, TN
#7
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace."[1] Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.

Where ideology and science part company, Cato favors ideology, as shown by an advertisement[2] published in newspapers in 2009 disputing the state of the science on climate change.[3]
Cato Institute - SourceWatch

TaDa!:

Richard Lindzen | Cato Institute
 
Likes: 4 people
Nov 2006
53,608
19,672
#8
In terms of volume, Water Vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. That is not even in dispute.

The warmists claim that CO2 drives water vapor and thus its status as a "forcing agent" is primary.

But this has not been proven.

Thus, the one frame we see in the OP video is exactly correct.

From the Intelligence squared debate on this very subject (Oh and the Deniers won the debate vote)

'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' : NPR

BRIAN LEHRER Let‘s go to the audience, and, when you ask your questions, uh, members of the press, please identify yourselves as such. Members of the audience who are not with the press, you have the option to identify yourself, or not. Okay. Right down here.

LINDA CARO Hi, my name is Linda Caro, um, it kind of surprises me that , uh, the emphasis is on CO2 which is about one-third of 1% of the total atmosphere, whereas global—uh, water vapor is the vast bulk of it all. Uh, is it possible that we are, um…are not accounting properly for, uh, the giving off of heat such as nuclear power plants which are several thousand degrees Centi—uh, Fahrenheit, that we‘re cooling with water and air, every day, every week, every month, every year, that can‘t—

BRIAN LEHRER Is there anyone you would particularly like to answer that question?

LINDA CARO Whoever feels most qualified. [LAUGHTER]

BRIAN LEHRER Richard Somerville is raising his hand.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE
The, the direct heating from sources like power plants is negligible, uh, compared to these, these other factors, solar radiation, greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, primarily carbon dioxide and other gas is secondary, we can‘t control water vapors. It‘s controlled by the atmosphere itself, largely by temperature, so when you add CO2, you humidify the atmosphere and the water adds to the warming. That‘s one reason why Richard Lindzen‘s talking about CO2 only giving you a degree or so is disingenuous because that feedback is expected theoretically and has been observed.

BRIAN LEHRER I think Richard Stott is, uh—Philip Stott is bursting out of his chair to agree with you. [LAUGHTER]

PHILIP STOTT I could not agree more. Yes, it‘s governed by the atmosphere. Absolutely, and is not under our control.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE But it‘s—

PHILIP STOTT It is therefore one of the big factors, that we have no control over.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE It‘s—

PHILIP STOTT In a non-linear couple system.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE
I‘m, I‘m, I‘m stunned by, by your amazement that non-linear coupled chaotic systems are things that we can‘t understand even in part, that—

RICHARD S. LINDZEN He didn‘t say that—

PHILIP STOTT I said—I said control.

RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE Very—very good. You can control how much CO2 you put in the atmosphere and that will have a big effect on how much water vapor is in the atmosphere, that‘s not controversial.

PHILIP STOTT Well you can‘t predict—

RICHARD S. LINDZEN That is controversial—

PHILIP STOTT Yeah.

RICHARD S. LINDZEN —and it‘s controversial because it is not a homogeneous distribution of water vapor.

PHILIP STOTT Yeah, exactly.

RICHARD S. LINDZEN
And, you know, to pretend this is settled, is bizarre. Moreover with clouds, which are comparably important, you know full well, that that is not settled.

BRIAN LEHRER Let us—

RICHARD S. LINDZEN By a long shot.
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

Dr Lindzen is a sceptic as far as the ramifications of climate change and so am I, he is not a denier.
 
Likes: 1 person

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
103,899
92,742
Most Insidious
#9
Whether you agree or disagree with the man here, the lesson to take away is that you need to throw out preconceived notions of how groups of people think. All environmentalists do not believe the same thing. All Christians don't believe the same thing. All liberals, conservatives, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, poor, rich... do not believe the same things.
 
Likes: 2 people
Jul 2013
51,537
54,797
Nashville, TN
#10
Whether you agree or disagree with the man here, the lesson to take away is that you need to throw out preconceived notions of how groups of people think. All environmentalists do not believe the same thing. All Christians don't believe the same thing. All liberals, conservatives, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, poor, rich... do not believe the same things.
And some are paid handsomely to believe a certain way, or at least to pretend to believe a certain way.
 
Likes: 2 people

Similar Discussions