A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate committee there is “no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”
Patrick Moore, who in 1971 helped form the famed environmental activist group, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
that “if there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states: ‘It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,’” Moore said.
“'Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines ‘extremely likely’ as a ‘95-100 percent probability.’
"But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been ‘invented’ as a construct within the IPCC report to express ‘expert judgment,’ as determined by the IPCC contributors.”
Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 after 15 years because he said the group “took a sharp turn to the political left and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective.”
He told the Senate committee that political bias has tainted climate-change “science.”
“The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the
increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940 to 'human influence.'
"They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase ‘since the mid-20th century.’ Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by ‘human influence,’ when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?”
Moore also criticized the overreliance on computer models in defining the pattern of any climate change.
“These judgments are based almost entirely on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate," he said.
"As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it's sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods,” Moore said.
He closed his testimony with a statement that one would be hard-pressed to challenge.
“I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today,” Moore told the committee.
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.