And in other news, water is still wet...

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.” 

“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.” 

It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”
Now I realise that Greenpeace long ago stopped being an advocate of real science and sensible public policy, but it's worth paying attention when one of the founders of the movement basically repudiates his own (former) organisation's most strongly touted messages.

The short-term temperature trends, according to people who actually study this stuff, aren't exactly favourable, as it turns out. The graph to the right shows a time series of climate data from the late 1970s onwards. As you can see, from the late 1970s to the early 2000s, there was a decent upward warming trend. And then that trend peaked, and for the last 10-15 years, we've been seeing mild to moderate cooling.

In other words, all that "malarkey" about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its effects may not have been so far-fetched after all. We humans are about as relevant to global warming as a chipmunk's fart is to an elephant's lunch.

Dr. Moore is indeed correct to argue that humans thrive in warmer climates. We as a species thrive in warmer climates; it is no coincidence that the Mediaeval Warm Period coincided with very real and very considerable economic growth throughout Europe:

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire. 
Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements.
Given these known facts, and given the bloody horrible winter we just went through (it still ain't quite over), I'd say a bit of warming is exactly what we need. On the other hand, watching the world's foremost fervent warmists being hoisted by their own petard in the Antarctic summer is priceless comedy, so maybe another mild Ice Age wouldn't be that bad- if you're of a thoroughly sadistic inclination...


Popular Posts