Case Smit and John Smeed are working to get Patrick Moore to visit Australia soon. Details on how you can help below.
In the video below Patrick Moore talks about his extensive work with Greenpeace during its first 15 years and the useful contributions they made before he split from them because of their increasingly irrational policies. He’s a powerful, sensible advocate for compassionate reason. This is his journey from eco-warrior to defender of science, logic and the environment. He is a rare man and obviously sceptical of “catastrophic” global warming.
At the Heartland conference July 2014
From Case Smit:
Australia is hosting a “climate information” visit by Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) in October – November this year. Rather than lecturing to the “converted”, the principal purpose of this visit is for him to meet with opinion leaders in the media, politics and business to convey a rational environmentalist’s views on why policies instituted because of the “catastrophic climate change” scare need to be realistically addressed.
Australia was the first country to impose an economy-damaging tax on carbon dioxide emissions which the current Government has now repealed. However the Government still believes that the public wants to see “action on climate change”, so it continues with policies requiring billions of dollars to be spent to stabilise the global climate. Those opinion leaders that Patrick meets with will realise, as Patrick has done himself, that virtually all climate change is natural and that mankind’s contribution is minimal; they will then be able to convey this to the public.
Patrick’s visit will affect the future climate change policies of our government and present an example to the world. Such an example has the potential to be influential on policies adopted in other nations particularly now that our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has achieved global recognition as a statesman with his handling of the Malaysian Airlines disasters. With the G20 meeting in November which Mr. Abbott will host, he will have the opportunity to explain to other world leaders the uncertainties surrounding current climate policies and the desirability for the world economy, of scaling back such expenditures.
Substantial funding is required for this visit and while it is realised that funding sources for projects by environmental realists are extremely scarce, our appeal for help is going out internationally to make this most important visit a success. Would you please help this initiative, with potential world-wide benefit, by making this appeal known to your followers and by giving us an introduction to potential donors.
Case Smit
John Smeed
(joint organisers of Lord Monckton’s 2010 Australian Tour)
To contribute via EFT: -Galileo Movement Pty Limited, National Australia Bank Ltd., BSB: 084855, Acc. No. 191696855 please include “Moore Appeal” as the Payment Reference.
To contribute via PayPal – click the Paypal “donate” button on web site: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/donations.php please include “Moore Appeal” as the Payment Reference.
A man of intellectual integrity. It is no surprise that the alarmist collective hates him so much …
370
Patrick Moore is scientifically incompetent (or very dishonest):
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/help-bring-patrick-moore-former-greenpeace-founder-to-australia/#comment-1553509
06
Dishonest? You mean like someone turning up 10 days after the last comment to hijack the top of the thread with an ad hom one liner?
Your “certainty” over his character stems from your faithful belief of a Royer paper — one which gets cause and effect confused — it’s hardly surprising that CO2 is lower during an ice age. We know low temperatures reduce atmospheric CO2 – Henry’s law. Royer also refers to Global Climate Models which we know are broken and worthless.
Royer has none of your certainty at all: Last line, note the multiple qualifiers. “This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally averaged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.”
What Patrick Moore said that you quote is reasonable and accurate. Your problem is with what, in your opinion, that implies. Your interpretation of those implications is ridiculous. Moore has never said CO2 is not a GHG.
41
[SNIP Griss, that’s an ad hom. No thanks. –Jo]
01
David I see on your blogsite you have also been misled into believing the re-writing of Greenpeace history and are now stating that Dr Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace changed their website in 2007 to write Dr Moore out of the club – but you can read about that and check out the original page here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/help-bring-patrick-moore-former-greenpeace-founder-to-australia/#comment-1553946
Greenpeace can change their website but they can’t change the truth!
20
Early on it was apparent that the “science” of man made global warming bore no resemblance to a coherent and complete assessment of mass, heat and momentum transfer within the Earths atmosphere.
The focus on the innocent CO2 from humans and exclusion of many other factors such as the energy absorbed in the creation, lifting and lateral movement of clouds was seriously flawed.
Here is a simple reality check on clouds and their presence which has a very big impact on energy balances.
So, if you find a nice cloud moving overhead, not too high up, it is so easy to see it as light and fluffy and inconsequential;
especially if you are a politician or a tenured Climate Scientist.
The reality is far different.
Hold your thumb up at arms length to the cloud and imagine a cube of that fluffy white stuff the size of the tip of your thumb.
That cube has a mass of between one and two tonnes, all of which was lifted from ground level or ocean top to its’ place above.
Of course the water vapour in those clouds may have gotten their by some magical process and the heat saved may have then been stored deep in the oceans.
Only a climate scientist would know for sure.
A great deal of “the missing heat” or energy is accounted for in the energy involved with clouds and was delibeartely left out of climate science for obvious reasons; it made it easier to blame CO2.
KK
280
The fraud is far simpler to understand if you do a simple energy balance. SW energy IN = 238.5 W/m^2, LW energy OUT = 238.5 W/m^2
OLR comes from a single -18 deg C zone**; applying Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to that zone means -238.5 W/m^2 DOWN (2-stream approximation).. Add the 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ and you get the following sums.
Energy evolved in atmosphere = 238.5 + 333 – 238.5 = 333. Energy to Space = 238.5. The difference, 94.5W/m^2 is totally imaginary, a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind. They then fine tune in hind-casting by using double real low level cloud albedo, about 3 W/m^2. This fraud was designed to be fraud from Day 1: the rest of the pseudo-science is there to put people off the scent.
**In reality, it comes from between 0 and ~20 km and there is no DOWN IR from each sub-emitter.
120
Hi Turndout
You mentioned Back radiation.
Good one.
The important thing controlling back radiation is the temperature gradient involved.
There is a meager amount of heat from Solar Radiation which we are lucky enough to “trap” in the solid Earth or atmospheric boundary layer near the surface.
This trapped energy is lured to outer regions of Earths atmosphere by a well known scientific process which seems to have been ignored by “climate science”.
Heat or energy travels from regions of high energy to regions of low energy. The greater the difference in the energy levels the grater the urge to move.
The Earth has a temperature gradient ranging from say plus 10 deg C in the habitable regions to near absolute zero which is minus 273.16 degrees C just outside the atmosphere.
Now it’s not quite that bad, because the space between the planets is not at absolute zero; it is about 1.6 C deg above it, so the gradient is just that little bit less threatening. Not much though.
The temperature gradient might be 282 C degrees. All the “dangerous” heat supposedly liberated by CAGW is drawn along this temperature gradient never to be seen again but thankfully the Sun always seems to rise the next day to save us.
Now back to the point: back radiation.
Back-radiation cannot exist to any meaningful extent in this system and is nothing but a wild theoretical construct of the Klimate Movement.
As you say : “there is no DOWN IR from each sub-emitter”.
And if there was it would only extend a few nanometers before it was captured.
KK
50
They also forget “saturation” – just how much IR in the narrow bands that CO2 can handle is there to go around (remembering that water vapor also absorbs these same bands)? Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does nada.
30
Hi Backslider’
“Saturation” another name is the asymptotic effect relating to CO2s ability to absorb more and more of the Solar origin energy when there is no bandwidth left!
Yep. Lots of items left out of consideration.
KK
20
Sorry
“more and more”
should have been “less and less”
KK
20
It widens the bands. The limit is when the adjacent bands become self-absorbed.
20
Que?
10
My reaction too.
The warmer idea that regions of absorption can be increased by “widening” or using the shoulders of the absorption curve was invented to counter the very obvious and real problem that there comes a point where all of the Solar energy has been absorbed.
Adding more CO2 cant absorb radiation which isn’t there.
The only solution is to have MORE SOLAR ENERGY otherwise known as A HOTTER SUN.
KK
10
Of course… that is known as “self-absorbed”… the warmists, not the IR bands.
10
Perzactly
00
What missing heat? Oh, you mean the ‘projected’ heat created in a super computer with proven imprecise results by an indentured programmer?
How can something that was probably not there be missing? And how can an end become a pause?
I must be getting old.
150
There is no missing heat because the atmosphere controls all well-mixed GHG-AGW to an average of zero.
The only warming is solar, directly and indirectly.
121
Interesting – govt to keep renewable energy target.
First retaining the nod to climate change
Now keeping the renewable enrgy target.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewable-energy-target-to-stay-says-mathias-cormann-20140818-3dv4l.html
There is no difference between both Labor & liberal – both serve their globalist masters….
40
Scaper,
Do the Liberals realise they are going to lose a fair proportion their Liberal vote to the “Informal party” if they don’t stop acting like a mid-left socialist party !!
The Liberals are meant to be providing a choice to the Lab/Green mess we had, it appears they are not.
50
better Moore than Gore!
15 Aug: Politico: Dylan Byers: Al Gore sues Al Jazeera for fraud
Former Vice President Al Gore and business partner Joel Hyatt have filed a lawsuit against Al Jazeera on charges of fraud and material breaches in their acquisition of Current Media, POLITICO has learned.
Gore and Hyatt, the co-founders of Current Media, say that Al Jazeera has unlawfully refused to turn over tens of millions of dollars currently located in an escrow account. That money is owed to Current Media shareholders per the terms of the $500-million merger agreement made in January 2013, the plaintiffs say…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/08/al-gore-sues-al-jazeera-for-fraud-194016.html#.U-4ss3_fHIU.twitter
50
You have to chuckle about this.
On the subject of reporting supposed global warming, Al Jazeera makes the ABC and the BBC look quite reasonable and unbiased.
60
That depends upon which Al-Jazeera feed you subscribe to … 🙂
50
I’ll be there. The last one at Sydney was a hoot! Jo and David spoke at that event. Jo’s talk was based on sex. Could have cut the air with a knife when she brought up, VIAGRA.
It’s great news that John has recovered from his ailment. I expect the Environment Minister to meet with Patrick. Yep.
91
Well that sounded like a very interesting talk indeed, going by Jo’s past experiences with mice! 🙂
I’ll be going no matter what, even better if he came here (Ballarat) hell even Lord Monckton ventured here twice I might contact John Smeed.
70
Well Greg Hunt needs a lot of educating. I hope they get locked in a room together for 2 days,
80
On to it already.
40
> former Greenpeace Founder
Oh come on, this is just trolling on your part. http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/12/greenpeace-co-founder-patrick-moore-not-co-founder-all etc etc etc.
Also, it doesn’t even make sense. “Former member of Greenpeace, who was a founder” would make sense (but be wrong). If he had been a founder, he always would be.
451
desmog.. roflmao… What a joke they are…
A den of [snip] if ever there was one.
No wonder you link to them. 🙂
gees next you will be citing something even more irrelevant [snip] like Stoat.
301
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Patrick-Moore-background-information/
243
Yes, we know Greenpeace have tried to dis-own their founder.
Greenpeace is no longer what they were meant to be, they have become a far-left socialist propaganda unit, willing to lie and adjust history whenever it suits their purpose.
The WC would know all about adjusting the real truth.. !! 🙂
441
The Griss
WC is exactly the reason we are here
He knows Social Media = Google, Wikipedia, Blogs, Twitter, Facebook & the billions on line that are searching for info. They are all young. Google hits now dictate how the new generation are searching for info & facts. My son hardly shops in a shop, EVERYTHING is online. And this is where is his failing.
WC is aiding this with his involvement.But he’s losing badly as indicated by his presence here. Wikipedia is now a “Well stuff it, that’s the oldie bullshite area of the internet!”
Lets search for something different. What are they finding, some sites like this, but also many others, the majority Skeptic. No wonder WC is here, he’s trying to stop the questioning of the GREEN Gravy Train.
This Video is terrific, and by an OLD Greenie. A person who is passionate and has the facts with a sense of humour. My 22 year old, who I had to email the YouTube clip (he’s in the next room) actually came out and told me:
I said Google him and double check.
He came back after a short time and said he was an oldie like me, and a lot MORE intelligent, but will send the video to his mates.
WIN to Joanne & Patrick Moore.
Keep it up, and email, twit, face book it, but SPREAD the word people.
Thanks Jo
290
“WC is exactly the reason we are here”
We are exactly the reason the WC is here.. he seeks attention, but knows no-one is listening to him.
At least here he can get told the truth about himself. 😉
231
It’s a matter of regularly disseminating your message across all social media. It takes an army of nerds updating with daily releases – and those who control the SEO pipeline control the information – or the disinformation.
Take a look at ‘Global Warming’ on Google. It’s been monopolised by releases promoting CAGW. Unless realists can get organised and respond in kind, well, I guess, it’s just…
Who’s your daddy?
70
While the Alarmists owned the phrase, “Global Warming”, and they could convince people that this year was warmer than the last, they had something.
But when the current year was demonstrably not warmer than the last (with heavy snows in Copenhagen, during the IPCC shindig, for example), the propagandists lost their nerve, and shifted the meme to one of “Climate Change”.
“Yes,” the skeptics said, “we agree, climate changes. When has it not?”
“Damn,” thought the alarmists, “what do we do now?” “Let’s call it ‘Climate Disruption’, because that sounds more like people are at fault.”
But of course, by then, even the most dim-witted punter had gotten the message that this was all a crock of stuff to make the roses grow.
The average response to Climate matters, is now, “Yeah, whatever.”
And, apart from all that, the climate scare was only a Western phenomena. Eastern countries would pay lip service to it, but did so with their hands out for assistance from the West, and none of them acted as if they were really concerned.
At all levels of western society, and across all demographic groupings, it is now viewed as a fraud, and it is only the likes of Mr Connolley, who still cling to their memories of their days in the sun.
120
Yes, they’re commonly referred to as the ‘bitter enders’.
20
If you poke a stoat with a stick!!! You will get a response, irrelevant as usual. Are stoats and weasels closely related?
60
What is most relevant is how fervently WC defends Greenpeace, as if it is a bastion of truth and all good things in the world, despite the fact that it is simply a political, extreme left organization which bends, twists and breaks logic at every turn.
The Greenpeace piece on Moore is quite illuminating, as it reveals how spiteful the collective becomes when a former cultist strays from the faith.
WC just shot himself in the foot with a bazooka defending the ironically-named organization, who’s followers are quite at home breaking laws and threatening scientists who dare to speak against their ideology.
Linking Desmog just topped it off … A coup de grace for the mortal credibility wound.
71
Weasels are weasily identified, but stoats are stotally different.
41
To quote a certain Mr Smith: “Every touch leaves its trace”
http://web.archive.org/web/20051216000251/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders
140
Right,
My emphasis.
So William is stoatally wrong again, english semantics notwithstanding.
281
Got it one Griss.
71
According to Wikipedia, Patrick Moore became a member of the Greenpeace politburo in 1971, shortly after the formation of Greenpeace.
I guess it all depends on how you define the word ‘founder’.
The problem is the source for this info is Greenpeace itself. Facts and the truth are not Greenpeace’s strong points, while hyperbole and distortion are.
You have to remember Greenpeace is an organisation whic models itself on the pseudo-Christian cults in America’s Bible Belt. The sole purpose of both is to separate the faithful from their hard earned cash, everything else is just fluff.
140
Peter, don’t use Wikipedia on a thread where William Connolley is using it as evidence that we are wrong. It is likely to have been altered by William himself.
130
“former Greenpeace Founder”
You really didn’t understand what Jo said, did you, you poor little thing 😉
Then you go and reinforce what she is saying with your links.
Seriously, The WC, you got OWNED…… roflmao !!!!
201
WC if you want actual facts about the founding of Greenpeace ask Lord Monckton who was a good friend of Eric Ellington (a Greenpeace founder) who left Greenpeace broken hearted when it became hijacked by Marxists, or ask Patrick Moore to verify this (who is a founding member) in person when he arrives for the tour.
I’m sure you’ll be there to publically discredit him with your vast knowledge of climate change, just let me know which talk you’ll be attending as I haven’t had a good laugh in a while.
190
OK William, I’ve taken out the “former”. Thanks for the proof reading. 😉 The headline reads better now.
As for the founder claim — Greenpeace used to call him a founder too: http://web.archive.org/web/20051216000251/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders. I see Aaron beat me. Thanks!
You must hate that hardly anyone ever shifts the other way.
331
Laughable. I suppose you’ve got statistics to back that up, Jo. Or is David working on a Fourier transform to demonstrate the undeniable truth of it?
I think Jo subscribes to the George Costanza school of truth.
140
And you, Chester, do not subscribe to any school of thought.!
Random ranting seems to be your life’s only achievement.
221
Darn, I meant to type … “And you, Chester, do not subscribe to any school of truth.!”
An understandable mistake.
Still.. the first post stands, as well! 🙂
211
Yap yap yap yap yap!
Good dog.
131
I see that, as usual, you have absolutely nothing to add to the topic. 🙂
Your stock in trade. Its all you have.
211
I’ve read your comment. Can you pleasse direct me to any intellectual content. Seems tp be missing on my PC.
150
Gees Ted, Give the poor child a break,
his comment above (@ #5.4.1.1.1) is far more erudite than his usual comment.
80
Chester, lovely of you to pop in with the requisite anonymous attempt to pour scorn.
I don’t need statistics. I said “hardly anyone”. Go right ahead and name “lots of people”.
281
Your whole notion is flawed to begin. Every scientist worth their salt is a sceptic. They read and research the evidence and then become convinced one way or the other of the validity of the theory. And therefore the vast majority of sceptics have turned from scepticism to belief in the validity of AGW.
Your ex-Greenpeace political turncoat is of no interest to me and has absolutely zero bearing on the science – another thing you have in common with him.
135
They “become convinced”? You mean that they lose their skepticism…..
161
Since when was “belief” a scientific term?
No theory is “proven”. It is just generally accepted until such time as contrary evidence refutes it, or at least modifies it.
Had you typed, “… the vast majority of sceptics working in government funded institutions have turned from scepticism …”, you would have been more honest.
241
” (He) has absolutely zero bearing on the science ”
Who does? It is only data which have an impact.
140
We have absolutely no interest in you or your rantings, they irrelevant and have absolutely zero bearing on the science.
Yet you still post them. A pointless exercise on your behalf.
Yes, we know that, thanks. !! 🙂
171
So. Empty hand again Chester. All bluff.
161
Thanks for the link Jo.
The Desmogblog article starts with the comment
If that allegation were true then Greenpeace would have sued Patrick Moore, and received backing from many wealthy backers. All what they can do is distort the evidence. For Patrick Moore, this clear evidence of distorting the truth also undermines the credibility of those who oppose him.
Compare Jo’s link of the webpage on Dec 16 2005, with the same page on Oct 12 2007.
Further, on both pages, Patrick Moore was one of only 3 Greenpeace activists on the original boat.
William Connolley,
On a similar vein, another gentle reminder that you are still free to offer counter-arguments to my claim that you are wrong in your assessment of the Mann v. National Review and Steyn case. The link is here.
200
William Connolley,
Thanks for the reply on the Mann v Steyn case. I have in turned posted a reply.
Others can evaluate who has the better argument.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/08/14/william-connolley-supports-the-climate-faith-against-expert-opinions/
70
I don’t take things that come out of the WC seriously.
It doesn’t matter how many times he repeats himself or re-edits something.
In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, William Connolley with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
231
I don’t think even he could really take himself seriously any more. 🙂
151
William Connolley, just like his room-mate Greg Laden, has failed to do any research on the early history of Greenpeace……and both have FAILED miserably. Here is a brief history on the formation of the Greenpeace Foundation, the ORIGINAL Greenpeace;
From 1969-1972 there was a little committee called the Don’t Make A Wave Committee (DMAWC). In 1970 the DMAWC organised an anti-nuclear protest voyage on a vessel called the Phyllis Cormack (named after her captain John Cormack’s wife) which was purchased by the DMAWC with funds raised by an out-door concert organized by the DMAWC. The flyers produced for this concert had the name ‘Green Peace’ written on them, paid for by the DWAWC. The Phyllis Cormack was nick-named the Greenpeace.
In 1971 when this voyage took place, Greenpeace was yet to be formed. All letters written for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack (the Greenpeace) were addressed to the Don’t Make A Wave Committee, including a letter from Bob Hunter, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/bob-hunter/ who is regarded as the Father of Greenpeace;
http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/correspondence-jim-bowlen-to-robert-hunter/
On January 21, The Don’t Make a Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the Greenpeace Foundation. The Metcalfes, the Hunters, Patrick Moore, Rod Marining, and others remained active. The Stowes and Bohlens withdrew but stayed in contact with the Metcalfes. Stowe’s closing financial statement showed that between June 1970 and December 31, 1971, the Don’t Make A Wave Committee raised $62,703, and spent $53,025 on the Amchitka campaign. Stowe turned over $9,678 to Dorothy and Ben Metcalfe.
On May 4, 1972, The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name, Greenpeace Foundation.
As I said, that is a very brief history of the forming of Greenpeace. For a more comprehensive history, I suggest you either buy or borrow from your local libary Rex Weyler’s — Greenpeace, an insider’s account. How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists and Visionaries Changed the World (Rex Weyler was a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation and co-founder of Greenpeace International).
190
Founder Shmounder. Who cares about titles? The guy knows what the original principles were and how they have been subverted by infiltration, as have so many other global institutions.
He was there then. That’s all that matters to me.
170
Yes, Tim.
When the likes of Connolley have no evidence to present, their needs must resort to semantics, and whinges over spelling or grammar.
Mister Connelley has yet to learn, that it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to express their opinions, and remove all doubt.
140
You need a coffee.
70
Very true – with an extra shot.
50
Quite aside from the fact he was a co-founder, the main rhetorical value here, just as Tim and BruceC have pointed out, is that he has Green credibility. A quick Google for the words “Patrick Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed 1985” should establish that easily.
At the very least that helps get the Green-coloured fence sitters to at least listen for more than 30 seconds to a non-alarmist view of climate change.
130
Moore was an active member of the Don’t Make a Wave Committee when preparations of that first Greenpeace voyage were being made. Infact it was Moore, Jim Bohlen and Paul Cotes who inspected the Phyllis Cormack at the Fraser River docks to see if it was sea-worthy enough for the planned voyage.
Not only was Patrick Moore a co-founder, when Bob Hunter stood down as President of the Greenpeace Foundation in 1977, Patrick Moore took over as Pres. In 1979, the Greenpeace Foundation morphed into Greenpeace Canada and Moore retained his postion as Pres. of GP Canada until he left in 1986. He was also on the Board of Directors of Greenpeace International (which took over from the Greenpeace Foundation) from 1979-1986.
Moore was also present at the Vatican when Greenpeace was invited to a mass audience with the Pope.
130
Thanks Bruce, which goes to show that the whole “founder” question is pretty irrelevant. If he wasn’t called a Founder of Greenpeace, he’d be called a former President of Greenpeace. Same effect in the media.
130
You’re welcome
🙂
30
“If he wasn’t called a Founder of Greenpeace, he’d be called a former President of Greenpeace. Same effect in the media.”
I think that’s right. So why not just get it right?
As an amusing sidelight, here is Patrick Moore defending his claim to be a co-founder, and condemning Greenpeace revisionism. But even more firmly, he insists that Paul Watson, of Sea Shepherd, is not to be considered a founder.
And here at Sea Shepherd, is an article headed ‘Greenpeace Attempts to Make Captain Paul Watson “Disappear”‘. It complains, in identical terms, of Greenpeace having earlier mentioned Watson as a founder, and now not.
Both, BTW, were on the first cruise.
00
Paul Watson was not on the first voyage, he was on the second voyage. Watson was a ‘radical’ and rarely attended meetings. Moore done more ‘behind the scenes’ work than Watson did.
10
Yes, I hadn’t realised there were two voyages to Amchitka. Sorry about that.
00
To be totally honest Nick, I’ll rephrase my comment from second voyage to back-up voyage. Unknown to the crew of the Phyllis Cormack, except for Metcalfe and Bohlen, there was a second vessel, The Edgewater Fortune, renamed Greenpeace II (or Greenpeace Too). Unfortunately, like the Phyllis, it too failed to reach Amchitka before the bomb test.
10
October 6, 2000:
Clouds won’t counter global warming
Don’t count on clouds to come and rescue us from global warming, says a NASA researcher, who claims that the minimum amount of warming predicted by
scientists should be revised upwards by half a degree Celsius.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/06/196029.htm
January 1, 2014:
Study finds link between cloud changes and global warming
“Chief investigator Professor Steven Sherwood says while their findings don’t support an increase in temperatures by the turn of the century above the forecast upper level of five degrees, the lower predicted level of a two degree increase can be discounted.
“What we’re saying actually is you can kind of lop off the lower half or so,” he said.
“We found that there’s a, what we call, feedback operating with clouds.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-01/an-unsw-study-on-role-of-clouds-on-climate-change/5180574
Listen to Prof. Sherwood on ABCRadio, AM:
Climate study paints even uglier picture of the future
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3919223.htm
. . .
Seems like the skeptics can say: “I told you so.”
June 42, 2011:
@theConversation, CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor David Karoly goes down the rabbit hole of Bob Carter’s climate theories.
https://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553
It is Karoly living down the rabbit hole.
80
Prof. Sherwood makes it all clear. The temperature can’t go up 2 C but looks like it can go up by 5C, apparently without passing through 2C. Such clear logical thinking seems to be characteristic of a lot of Climate “science”.
Since I am in Paris I suppose I have to say L’catastrophe, l’ catastrophe toujours l’ catastrophe.
We certainly need Patrick in Australia to highlight the falsity of the AGW cult.
70
A visit by Patrick Moore has the potential to create a lot of impact on the Climate Change Debate. He can certainly attract a lot of attention, which I cannot.
We skeptics can then get more exposure for our cause, which is return to rational political policies based on actual empirical observations, and not extraordinary theories with doomsday outcomes.
I will be supporting this, both by attending and with money to make it happen. Hopefully Patrick Moore can generate enough interest to pay some of his own expenses.
160
Onya.
70
I have now watched the video of Dr Patrick Moore’s presentation at the Heartland Conference 2014.
Nothing new, but he is a compelling speaker. I encourage everyone to watch this video. It takes 30 minutes.
120
I put the video up on another blog with plenty of warmists there. Not one comment was written in response. Funny that.
90
Done.
Pointman
120
Thumbs up
91
What was done?
07
Why, watching the video, silly.
60
Done as well (whatever it was … RTFA).
30
Around 20 minutes, this doyen of climate logic says exactly what I have been saying for ages.
We desperately need more CO2 in the atmosphere. !!
211
China is the greenest energy producer in the world, because they release the most CO2! 🙂
191
We not only need more CO2 we are going to get it whether one like it or not. The Greens movement are not only fighting a losing war, they do not understand that they are attacking the wrong “culprits”. They think Australia should shut down its coal industry so that countries like China are forced to use less of it. What all that will do is force China to get its coal from someone else at the expense of our economy. The Greens are nothing but morons. They are also chickens. If they really wanted to stop CO2 increasing they should target China. Of course they are not that stupid – they know they will get nowhere with that idiotic strategy. Actually I wish they did. Then they might be spanked hard by the Chinese for daring to tell them what they must do. Instead the Greens target Australia’s industries. What chickens and morons they are.
130
I am told that the Chinese are planting forests. Not for carbon sequestration (although I am not sure if they are accepting credits, or not), but as a future source of combustible material, should their coal supplies be disrupted. Great strategic thinkers, the Chinese.
So perhaps it is time for the Green to face up to the Chinese. Let’s see who looses face first.
170
The only problem with planting trees for combustion material is that it doesn’t help increase the atmospheric CO2 content..
82
Moore might help Autralia move to become the world’s dominate energy exporting nation by promoting nuclear power. Although Australia has huge coal resources, liquid hydrocarbons may be nearing their long predicted “peak” and actually be declining, fracking notwithstanding.
Australia does have enormous deposits of uranium and thorium. Any public money spent on “action on climate change” should be directed to development of nuclear power. Everything from current generation designs, developing thorium reactors, and production of “synfuel” as described by papers from Los Alamos.
Imagine having a very “clean” major manufacturing industry which extracts the primary raw ingrediant(s) and produces units which, economically, can provide Western-level electrical power to nations like Afghanistan, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Haiti, Sengal, Myanmar, Nepal — and the list goes on. Not only electrical power but micro-mini synfuel plants for their hydrocarbon needs.
We’ve had the Industrial Revolution, the Green Revolution (ref. agriculture). What is needed is the Energy Revolution to provide energy to the world’s populations. Consider what life is like in the third world – no power means no pumps, no water, no sewers, no motors and for the young, no internet. Energy is life; cheap energy is prosperity. Australia is at the right place, with the right resources and pointed in the right direction to lead the revolution.
110
“no power means no pumps, no water, no sewers, no motors and for the young, no internet … “ … no industry, no means of production, no products, no jobs, no consumers and no capitalist system. Congratulations ladies and gentleman, you have arrived at Socialist Utopia. Thank you for travelling with Shanks’ Pony Travel Services. We trust you have not enjoyed your journey and hope you will allow us to assist you in contemplating your evil ways the next time you travel. Please mind the step.
150
Peak oil is a myth invented by the fools that are pushing the global warming rubbish. Someone here mentioned that oil is abiotic, which raised some interest to go looking for the truth.
One of my recent clients is an oil driller who has recently retired. He believes exhausted oil wells actually replenish over time. He’s been around long enough to actually see this occur.
Also, new discoveries of commercially viable fields are happening regularly and I suspect not even half of the resource has been extracted to date.
Here is the latest find in Australia.
Could also link to the humungous find in South Australia that would make us the oil superpower of the world but am time poor at the moment.
50
Sunday Musing,
The beauty of global warming alarmism is that every time they flag up a potential disaster that might happen you can cross it off the list of things that won’t happen.
120
That suggests a revamp of an old nursery rhyme:
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I saw a scare that wasn’t there,
That scare, it wasn’t there today,
I wish that scare would go away.
90
Now you see the corner the narrative has now been painted into.
If there has been no global warming than all the dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications or the result of some other cause, like nature.
If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to “climate change” can not be true.
http://www.brennerbrief.com/climate-change-null-hypothesis/
51
shoudl probably say add it to the list of things that won”t happen
90
> The headline reads better now.
Its now just wrong. Previously (http://www.webcitation.org/6RtGoTc2h) it made no sense at all.
> Greenpeace used to call him a founder too
But Greenpeace have learnt (way back in 2006, more than 8 years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20060701184531/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders). You haven’t. Its no wonder that “skeptics” get nowhere. You’ll be trying to tell us that Murry Salby is a Professor next.
> facts… ask Lord Monckton
No-one asks M for facts.
—
REPLY: I realize this is hard for you. See BruceC. – Jo
129
Have Greenpeace learnt the truth, or corrected their thoughtcrimes following advice from agents of
The Ministry of TruthWikipedia?170
By the way, will still welcome your counter-arguments on that other matter.
120
This site is a rich trove of “discussions”, where WC has been shown to be wrong to the point where he “leaves the field”, rather than publicly admit he was “mistaken”.
It also gives a chronology of “discussions” when he has needed to resort to arguments of semantics, or logical fallacy, for the same reason.
I might ask Jo, if I can compile some, or all, of those instances into a single document. I would make an interesting topic of analytical research, for some of the students we will take on over summer.
Of course, we would not mention him by name.
170
He has not left the field. There will also be more developments from my side as well.
20
But the WC, writing “former Greenpeace founder” made perfect sense.. because it pointed to the revisions of historical reality by Greenpeace.
Jo should ignore you and change it back to the original headline.
Greenpeace, as it was originally envisaged by its founders, one of which was Patrick Moore, is no more.
It is now a far-left socialist propaganda misinformation unit, like you still wannabe, and is heavily into “revising” history and reality.
Greenpeace is an embarrassment to Patrick Moore, I’m sure he looks back at what could have been and sighs with disgust.
151
the originals. 🙂
http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/greenpeace-founders-web-archive/
71
WC don’t just take Monckton’s word for it a quick search will find actual debate and investigation http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/15-greenpeace-and-the-marxist-takeover/ hey not too bad, I might get a job at Wicki.
70
Want some FACTS William, how about these?
Excerpts from Rex Weyler’s Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World.
http://rexweyler.com/greenpeace/
Who were the founders?
Directors: Don’t Make A Wave Committee, 1970-71.
Irving Stowe (Deceased: October, 1974)
Jim Bohlen
Paul Cote
Dorothy Stowe, secretary, correspondence
Marie Bohlen conceived the idea to sail a protest boat to Amchitka Island
Bob Hunter coined the name “Don’t Make a Wave” for the ecology group SPEC
Bill Darnell coined the name “Greenpeace” at a meeting in 1971.
Crew of first Greenpeace Boat to Amchitka Island, 1971:
Jim Bohlen
Bill Darnell
Patrick Moore
Lyle Thurston
Dave Birmingham
Terry Simmons
Richard Fineberg
Robert ‘Bob’ Hunter (Deceased: 2005)
Bob Keziere
John Cormack (Deceased: Nov. 17, 1988)
Ben Metcalfe (Deceased: Oct. 14, 2003)
Bob Cummings (Deceased: 1987)
Rod Marining (Replaced Fineberg in Kodiak, mid-October, 1971)
Chronology, the Founding of Greenpeace
http://rexweyler.com/greenpeace/greenpeace-history/chronology/
March 1970: Paul Cote met Captain John Cormack, 60, on a Fraser River dock, and Cormack agreed to use his fishing boat, the Phyllis Cormack, for the voyage. The boat was renamed Greenpeace for the campaign.
October 5, 1970: Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Phil Ochs, and BC band Chilliwack staged a benefit concert in Vancouver for the Don’t Make a Wave Committee, which raised $17,000. Thereafter, the Sierra Club and Quaker groups in the US contributed funding to the campaign.
1971: Hunter, Metcalfe, Bohlen, Darnell, and Simmons formed the activist core of the boat crew. Underground journalist Bob Cummings, ecologist Patrick Moore, engineer Dave Birmingham, medical doctor Lyle Thurston, and photographer Robert Keziere joined them. When Marie Bohlen decided to stay ashore, Lou Hogan and Rod Marining stood next on the waiting list. Marining deferred to Hogan, believing that a woman should be on the boat, as did Hunter and Metcalfe. In the end, Richard Fineberg, who had met Bohlen in Alaska, joined the crew instead of Hogan. Marining later met the boat in Kodiak in October 1971 and replaced Fineberg on the crew.
September 15, 1971: the Phyllis Cormack, rechristened Greenpeace for the voyage, departed Vancouver.
October 29, 1971: On the way back to Vancouver, Hunter and Metcalfe proposed that upon their return, they should reconstitute the organization as the Greenpeace Foundation. Hunter borrowed the term “Foundation” from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy.
November 1, 1971: Jim Bohlen, Irving Stowe, and Paul Cote met to wrap up the Don’t Make a Wave Committee. They decided that Hunter should set up Greenpeace Foundation as a separate organization, but this isn’t what happened. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee had legal standing and a surplus of funds, so upon reflection, it seemed counterproductive to start over. Ben Metcalfe brokered a deal to keep the organization in tact and turn its attention on French nuclear testing in the South Pacific.
January 1972: Metcalfe organized a protest against Canadian Fisheries Minister Jack Davis and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mitchell Sharp. Davis had attempted to stall boat insurance for the Phyllis Cormack, and Metcalfe wanted to force Sharp to put nuclear testing on the agenda of the United Nations Environment Conference to be held in Stockholm that summer. Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, the Stowes, Bohlens, Hunter, Thurston, Moore, and Keziere went to a Liberal Party brunch, where they confronted Davis and Sharp. After the event, they returned to the Metcalfe’s’ home and proclaimed themselves “The World Greenpeace Foundation” with Ben Metcalfe as chairman.
January 21, 1972: The Don’t Make a Wave Committee resolved to change its name to the Greenpeace Foundation, and turned over $9,678 to Dorothy and Ben Metcalfe.
May 4, 1972: The Provincial Societies office in Victoria, British Columbia registered the name, Greenpeace Foundation.
70
Why are yo posting this? Its just the same stuff as on the GP webpage from 2006, that I’ve already posted.
All of this stuff on your part, and on our JN’s part, is credentialism: Moore isn’t important to you for the logic or quality or his arguments, but because he can (falsely) claim to be a founder of GP. The Galileo people are explicit about this.
112
You need to drop the credentialism.
010
….and yet you continue to put it on a pedestal by arguing about it. Why?
100
I reckon our Federal Govt. could sponsor Patrick Moore to Oz and ask him to consider heading up a new and reborn Climate Commission.
There would surely be bipartisan support from Christine Milne and Bill Shorten for a Greenpeace founder. 😉
130
Well, I just hopes he gets here before we all die.
The dragon has arrived (apparently).
60
It never ceases to amaze me that this truly incredible resource, the internet, by which ANY person can find ANY information (of sorts) within seconds is so neglected by persons professing themselves to be intellectually questing when a few clicks can clarify (or not) any question in your mind, and certainly correct your apparent confidence in what you believe to be the truth. Take your link here – it takes a few moments to discover the word “pingbo”, googling which tells you that these phenomena are very common throughout artic and sub-artic regions and have been documented and understood for centuries. Mind you this information comes from Wikipedia which, as we have seen, may have been subject to manipulation by certain parties. However the links are infinite and limited only by your own desire for confirmation of your own predjudice.
So Backslider your links may well bring amusement (as they usually do) but they also bring a degree of despair at the unnecessary folly of human laziness and ignorance.
90
I’ll just get my birch and sack cloth…what a joke!
Fizzing like a soft drink…often wonder what the density of water aerated with methane is. There used to be OWTs in the oil industry about oil rigs lost with all hands around the south china sea near the Phillipines. Supposedly, the story goes, the rigs “pierced” a shallow deposit of gas resulting in a blowout that engulfs the rig causing it to drop to the bottom…disappearing into the very hole it created, then covered over by all the debris falling back over the hole…just loved that one.:)
10
The daily mail tells us: ‘We’re f*****’: Climate change will be catastrophic for mankind after study reveals methane leaking from the Arctic Ocean, scientist warns.
This is according to one Dr Jason Box.
Alarmism at it’s worst.
51
While it is leaking, it is not a problem. When it is not leaking, is the problem, because considerable pressure can mount up, sufficient to trigger earthquakes and tsunami, when the pressure is released.
We need Eddy Aruda at this point …
60
I wonder how old the word “tsunami” is ? (or its equivalent.)
40
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/
[Let us know what it is and/or what you think. – Mod]
08
> Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Oh dear. Have I used a naughty world? is “r3a1cl1ma73” better ;-?
19
You cannot post just a link without a comment to accompany it. That’s why it went into moderation.
So Billy, do you agree with the alarmist stance that we are now on the verge of Catastrophic Abrupt Climate Change (CACC)?
60
Actually I think the offending word is ‘Connolley’.
31
That phrase is enough to turn me right off. None of these “look-at-me, look-at-me” people are leaders in opinion, except their opinion of themselves
50
Sorry Ian but by their weight of exposure tjey do have influence so it becomes nesisaract with them
.
Doug
00
Yep, it’s just the way of the world really.
But imagine . . . a meeting between Patrick Moore and Clive Palmer at Clive’s favourite restaurant.
That would get some media exposure.
They could discuss Clive’s luncheon with Al Gore and everything . . . 😉
30
I see CSIRO has their biennial climate advocate glossy out:
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/
40
Incidentally, watching AW get Really Angry at Nick Sotkes over at WUWT is well worth a laugh http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/17/moore-tour-needs-some-backers/ Eventually, AW has to shout at him and censor him.
115
Yes, and just like Nick Stokes @WUWT you are derailing the main topic of this thread. Have you donated WC? I have. If you haven’t then just bugger off!
101
I hadn’t realised this was a pay site. And stop whinging: if you don’t want to reply to me, then don’t. But if you do, don’t blame me for you writing stuff.
016
Why should we be surprised that a troll enjoys the antics of another troll?
80
How odd.
I recall you weren’t amused when AW censored yourself.
Alternatively, perhaps you should be censored here given you’re attempting to spread the same deceit and display the same intellectual dishonesty?
Would that be laugh-worthy? . . .
110
Look at [snip] WC who has to come here and troll as no one visits his sorry excuse of a blog.[snip]
[If you have a critique make it, steer away from ad homs please. – Mod]
70
Don’t let the trolls hijack this thread. They are desperate to keep Moore and other credible well informed voices for clilmate reason from speaking.
Let’s give money to the cause and let the Wikwi-liar and and other fanatic cliamte apologists behind in the dust.
71
Patrick Moore (PM) will be speaking at some town hall-type public meetings (at least one in each of the cities he visits). At such meetings he would typically be addressing fellow sceptics who expect reinforcement of their views. The principal aim of this visit is to have him meet with small groups of editors, producers,CEOs, commentators, writers, journalists,etc.; all people who would not come to public meetings but who have a huge influence on the information given to the public in the media. The problem with this is that most of the costs have to be funded from donations. PM has offered to reduce his honorarium hugely for this visit, but there are very substantial travelling, accommodation and other costs to be covered.
This visit is not sponsored by any particular group of sceptics; it is too important for petty rivalries. The Galileo Movement bank account is being used because it is well-managed.
81
> very substantial travelling, accommodation and other costs to be covered
$100k is far far more than you need for travelling and accommodation. So what is the “other” that’s soaking up so much?
19
From what I have read, it cost us Australian tax payers somewhere between $30,000 – $100,000 for Al Gore to be here for 2 days William. Not to mention the 600+ tonnes of that evil, dangerous global-warming pollutant – CO2, he and Palmer spewed into our atmosphere on his three flights between Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.
31
Well hello there. Would you agree that we should “please keep this as formal as possible and communicate between ourselves in an adult fashion”?
But you’re evading the question.
17
WC, why don’t you ask for Big Al’s receipt’s.. might give you some clues.
You certainly don’t have any at the moment.
Let’s split the difference and say $65000 for 2 days, not including Palmer’s jet. (add say another $35000)
So if Patrick Moore is here for say 2 weeks, that is equal to $700,000 in Gore equivalence.
Patrick sounds like he will be doing it pretty tough compared to Gore.
Travel around Australia is not cheap, accommodation is not cheap, booking halls is not cheap.
But because you come not possibly be as ignorant I as think you are, you know all that..
… you are just trying to be a trolling prat, yet again.. ( your one aim in life, 😉 )
31
What question would that be William? Have you donated yet? If not…… 🙂
31
Of course I haven’t.
Have you got over being reminded of your own words yet? http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/founding-greenpeace-ive-been-arguing-at.html?showComment=1408438494351#c820271962128234318 Oh, its seems you’ve decided to flounce off in a huff.
26
Quite frankly, I find it totally disgusting that the taxpayer handed out even one cent for Al Gore’s visit !!
42
I know… and where do you get them from these days anyway?
00
So how many comments on your blog in last 2 months stoat? Next to nothing? No wonder you are trolling around everywhere.
42
Joanne – I’ve just had an idea.
What if we (you and your readers) mount a campaign to have Patrick Moore appear on Q&A?
Lets challenge Tony Jones and his editors to have Patrick on the show. They always seem very keen to have any visiting overseas folks who have something controversial to say.
Might I suggest they also invite someone else like yourself, David, Bob Carter or Lord forbid the great Lord Monckton himself :-).
Then they could choose any three others from the other side of the debate. Say Mathew English, Will Seffen, David Karoly or whom ever they like (I don’t think Tim F would get a guernsey ;-).
Talk about popcorn shares going through the roof!!!!
It would do wonders for the ABC ratings!?!
What do you think?
10
When Patrick Moore testified before the US Congress on Feb 25, 2014, he directly misled them about the science. He said, “then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today,” implying that is proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
It is not, and I had corrected Moore about this on Twitter just a few months earlier:
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/414889130284167168
So did Moore mislead Congress on purpose? Or did he not understand the science? In either case, he was clearly unqualified to testify there.
The science is that, since solar irradiance is increasing by about 1% every 110 Myrs back, it was about 4% less bright back then compared to today. The continents were in different places and of different sizes, so it’s not obvious the Earth’s albedo was the same as today (0.3).
If it was, there’d be 14 W/m2 less sunlight at the surface. That’s huge — all of manmade CO2’s radiative forcing today is only +1.9W/m2,
And we really don’t know what CO2 levels were back then. On Twitter Moore casually tossed around the cartoon to the right:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png
The problem is, there is very little proxy data from back then — proxy data points are about 10 million years apart — and these curves come from carbon cycle models, which are much more uncertain than, say, today’s climate models. And the Ordovician–Silurian ice age lasted only 0.5 Myrs.
In a journal article, Dana Royer puts the glaciation threshold back then at CO2=3000 ppm:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
Moore’s testimony was misleading, and it’s hard for me not to wonder whether Moore did it intentionally.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/dr-patrick-moore-just-misled-congress.html
01
See my response http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/help-bring-patrick-moore-former-greenpeace-founder-to-australia/#comment-1553575
Your attempt at a character attack is unfounded by the evidence you cite.
01
David Appell, I see you also believe Dr Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace, repeating their revisionist story:
“Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970.”
The fact is this NEW version was only written in March 2007. Until then Dr Moore was definitely considered by Greenpeace as a co-founder. You can see the original information on co-founders including Dr Moore, who was completing his PhD in Ecology at the time and was their designated science spokesperson, here: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/greenpeace-founders-web-archive/
Greenpeace can change their website but they can’t change the truth!
01
David Appell replied to my comment at #1 above but comments this late and unproductive can go at the end of the queue, and they are reproduced here. Commenters who hijack old threads at the top with inflammatory one liners earn a place in the moderation filter before publication. All his comments below came in while I was out for a few hours.
David Appell: Ad hominem? Not at all — I clearly laid out where Patrick Moore’s science is wrong. And it’s very wrong.
Logically, either he is scientifically incompetent, or he purposely misled Congress. Neither possibility speaks well for his character.
I trust someone in Australia will ask him about this during his visit — I know the importance you all place in getting the science right.
————–
Jo: Read my reply again. You missed how your evidence is vague, inconclusive and your slurs baseless. Logically you have nothing.
———
David Appell: After his Congressional testimony, I emailed Moore and asked him why he didn’t mention that the Sun was dimmer back then. You know what he wrote back (3/15/14)?
“If you had 5 minutes in the Senate I’m sure you would leave a few things out too.”
That’s right — his 5 minutes was enough to put forth a misleading statement, but not enough time to mention why it was bunk.
—————
Jo: Patrick Moore’s quote is reasonable. That he did not discuss every tiny related aspect is a fact of “five minutes”. You claimed he implied CO2 was not a GHG – yet you have no quotes to support that. Where is your honesty?
When you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it causes warming, do you also always mention that the warming started 300 years ago — long before CO2 rose? Do you also always mention that most warming predicted in the models comes not from CO2 directly but from unverified feedbacks? I didn’t think so. By your own standards does that make you dishonest, or incompetent? Or is it just silly to call someone either because they cannot cram an encyclopedia into 5 minutes?
——–
David Appell: “This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally averaged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.”
Re: “suggests”: Nothing in science is ever proven.
Nor is CO2 the only factor that determines climate, as I wrote — the Sun and the albedo are both crucial. -14 W/m2
—-
Jo: Obvious. Your point?
———————
David Appell: Is this the part where you start censoring replies because you can’t produce a countering scientific argument?
Contrarians sure are doing that very more quickly these days. I wonder why……
[Fly (moderator): No, this is the part where you have been caught planting contrary comments, in a way that appears to be accepted by omission. It is a very old, and established agit-prop technique. But it doesn’t work once you get caught. Had you been more honest, your opinions may have been heard. Now, you are just in moderation.]
Jo: Actually, I’ve been out all afternoon. You can ask for a refund if you like. 😉 I’ve only just got back. The hijacking behaviour on an old thread with an attempted character slur based on your imagined “implications” and a flawed study, and now repetitive commenting without waiting for a reply is rather troll-like. -Jo
——————————–
01
I hope he stays in moderation.
00
When he visits Australia, be sure to ask Patrick Moore about the years he spent warning about “catastrophic climate change”:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/09/when-patrick-moore-warned-about.html
00