10 votes

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific 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.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-s...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

BBBBut we have a consensus

LOL, see consensus in science doesn't mean crap. Something is or isn't. Consensus is some think it is and some think it isn't. Just an opinion, not fact, and therefore not science.

What's it going to take to make the myth

of global warming/global cooling go away or is there just too much money involved?

It will simmer for a bit

It will simmer for a bit until people forget about the last scandal and refuting evidence then they will hit it hard again after a few years. In colleges it is still full steam ahead. My girlfriend actually got singled out in class for disagreeing with it and we ended up getting in a huge debate with different professors, its like a cult.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

The 'Greenhouse Effect' is also a myth

Greenhouses 'trap' heat by preventing convection. Convection occurs when a gas warms, then expands, then gravity drags cooler more dense air beneath it. Warm air doesn't rise so much as cool air sinks.

Greenhouses are also static in volume. A slight increase in air pressure, from expanding air as it is warmed, also leads to warmer temps due to increased air pressure.

Oddly enough, when radiation is absorbed and increases the temperature for a region, it increases the rate of convection until equilibrium is reached.

The Greenhouse Effect is like describing Gravity as the Magnetic Effect. To the lay person there is little practical difference, but if some doom scenario could be tied to magnet production, then you can be sure politicians would create a Magnet Tax for no practical reason.

Haha - gravitational footprint?

pay up suckers.

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

I started doubting AGW about 10 years ago after reading

Gaia by James Lovelock. He talks about negative feedback loops and the equilibrium they create, then goes on to say they cause global warming anyway, which doesn't make much sense: http://www.dailypaul.com/296347/negative-feedbacks-what-they...

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

Technically you could think like that

A negative feedback loop means it goes cold, then warm, then cold, then warm, a positive feedback means you get hotter and hotter until the planet burns to death and there's no way to stop it short of outside intervention.

You could say a negative feedback loop causes global warming, so long as you said it also causes global cooling.