Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist

by Patrick Moore

  It is therefore of paramount importance that the mechanization of agriculture, employing all the advances in technology, chemistry and genetics, be encouraged throughout the developing world. In combination with improved education and literacy, electrification, refrigeration, health care, and clean water, the adoption of modern farming techniques will lead to a better life for billions of people who are now trapped in poverty. At the same time, it will result in reduced birth rates in the same way this has already occurred in the developed countries.

  I can thank Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue and an elder of mine in the environmental movement, for helping to inform me on this subject. His latest book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, elaborates on these and other issues.[6]

  As mentioned previously, there is great hope in the initiatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with support from Warren Buffet and others. Their approach is to increase the professionalism of international aid efforts and to use the best science in health, agriculture, sanitation, and technology in general.

  There is not a lot more that needs to be said on the subject of population; putting these principles into action is the real challenge. It is clear that a sensible environmentalist would support the mechanization of agriculture and development of the necessary energy, technological, and biological resources to support it. There is no need to politicize the issue of population growth and there is no need for draconian measures such as China’s punitive one-child policy. It is abundantly clear that population will sort itself out if we can only help developing nations to lift themselves out of poverty.

  [1]. John-Henry Westen and Kathleen Gilbert, “Pope Against Population Control,” Catholic Online, December 13, 2008, http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=31054

  [2]. Paul Watson, “The Beginning of the End for Life As We Know It on Planet Earth? There Is a Biocentric Solution,” Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, May 7 2007, http://www.sea-shepherd.com/news-and-media/editorial-070504-1.html

  [3]. “One-Child Policy,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

  [4]. “Amnesty International Shocked, Dismayed by U.S. Secretary Clinton’s Comments That Human Rights Will Not Top Her China Agenda,” Amnesty International USA, February 20, 2009, http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20090220001&lang=e

  [5]. Leiwen Jiang, “Smaller Population Size in the New UN Population Projection Depends on Expanded Access to Family Planning” Population Action, March 16, 2009, http://www.populationaction.org/blog/2009/03/the-smaller-population-size-in.html

  [6]. Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto (New York: Viking, 2009).

  Chapter 20 -

  Climate of Fear

  The global media tells us plainly and bluntly that the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe we are headed for a climate catastrophe that will devastate human civilization and the environment. We have no choice but to act immediately to save ourselves from this apocalypse. The greatest threat is the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels and cutting forests. Fossil fuel use must be cut by 80 percent or more, and we must stop cutting trees. How should we react to this warning?

  The subject of climate change, also referred to as global warming, is perhaps the most complex scientific issue we have ever attempted to resolve. Hundreds, possibly thousands of factors influence the earth’s climate, many in ways we do not fully understand. So, first, let us recognize that the science of climate is not settled. In fact, we are only beginning to understand how the earth’s climate works.

  It is not correct to use the terms global warming and climate change as if they were interchangeable. Global warming is a very specific term meaning exactly what it says, that the average temperature of the earth is increasing over time. Climate change is a much more general term that includes many factors. For one thing the climate is always changing, whereas it is not always getting warmer. The old maxim “the only constant is change” fits perfectly here. And as the belief in human-caused global warming has come into doubt the term climate change has been adopted as a substitute, even though it means something completely different.

  It is one thing to claim increases in CO2 cause global warming and quite another to claim increases in CO2 cause:

  • Higher temperatures

  • Lower temperatures

  • More snow and blizzards

  • Drought, fire, and floods

  • Rising sea levels

  • Disappearing glaciers

  • Loss of sea ice at the poles

  • Species extinction

  • More and stronger storms

  • More storm damage

  • More volcanic eruptions

  • Dying forests

  • Death of coral reefs and shellfish

  • Shutting down the Gulf Stream

  • Fatal heat waves

  • More heat-related illness and disease

  • Crop failure and food shortages

  • Millions of climate change refugees

  • Increased cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental illness, and respiratory disease[1]

  • And, a devastating effect on the quality of French wines[2]

  The science of climatology is only a few decades old. It is not a single science but rather an interdisciplinary cluster of sciences. These include meteorology (the study of weather), atmospheric chemistry, astrophysics and cosmic rays, geology and other earth sciences, oceanography, carbon cycling through all living species, soil science, geology, climate history through the millennia, ice ages and greenhouse ages, study of the sun, knowledge of earth wobbles, magnetic fields and orbital variations, etc. All of these disciplines are interrelated in complex, dynamic patterns that cannot be reduced to a simple equation. That is why climatologists have built very complicated computer models in the hope of predicting future climatic conditions.

  A “climate change community” has evolved over the past 30 years consisting of widely divergent groups with sharply differing opinions. The most prominent and formally structured group is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the scientists, scholars, activists, and politicians who associate themselves with this organization. The IPCC was created in 1988 as a partnership between the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, put simply, weather forecasters and environmentalists. Members of this group generally believe humans are causing global warming, that we are changing the climate, and this will generally be negative for civilization and the environment. They claim to represent an “overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.”[3]

  The IPCC is rather insular, believing its members are the only true climate scientists and that those who disagree with them are either some other kind of scientists, or not really scientists at all. Thus there is a self-defined overwhelming, even unanimous, consensus because they don’t recognize the legitimacy of those who disagree with them. In 2007 the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, which stated, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas concentrations.”[4]

  At the other end of this spectrum there is a considerable contingent of scientists and scholars, largely schooled in the earth and astronomical sciences, who believe climate is largely influenced by natural forces and cycles. They were not organized into an official body until 2007 when the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in Vienna. Led by atmospheric scientist Dr. Fred Singer, the NIPCC published “Climate Change Reconsidered,” a comprehensive scientific critique of the IPCC’s findings, in 2009.[5] This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and concluded, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic hea
ting of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”[6] Clearly there is no overwhelming consensus among scientists on the subject of climate.[7]

  The various camps have invented some names for each other and for themselves. Pretty much everyone involved thinks they are “climate sci-entists.” But people who are convinced we are the main cause of climate change have been dubbed “true believers” and “warmists,” highlighting what are seen to be religious and ideological orientations, respectively. People who are undecided, critical, or questioning are called “skeptics.” The skeptics are happy with this description as it indicates they have an open mind and as scientists they believe they have a duty to challenge unproven hypotheses. The true believers use the word skeptic as a slur, as in “unbelievers,” as if it is unacceptable to question their beliefs. Then there are the “climate deniers,” or “denialists,” terms invented by the true believers, and characterized by skeptics as associating them with Holocaust deniers. Much of this is just name-calling, but it is useful in the sense that it defines the battleground.

  Over the years the media have largely ignored the scientists and organizations that remain skeptical of human-caused global warming and climate change. The public has been inundated with alarmist headlines about catastrophic climate change and many governments have bought into the belief there is a global emergency that must be addressed quickly and decisively. As with fear of chemicals, fear of climate change results in a convergence of interests among activists seeking funding, scientists applying for grants, the media selling advertising, businesses promoting themselves as green, and politicians looking for votes. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a very powerful alignment that is mutually reinforcing.

  In 2007 the IPCC and one of its main champions, Al Gore, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for alerting the world to the dire threat of human-caused climate change. One would imagine the public would strongly support this alarmist position, having been exposed to such one-sided media coverage and the news of prestigious awards. Amazingly this is not the case, even in countries such as the United States and England, where the official government positions are sharply accepting of catastrophic human-caused warming.

  A Pew Foundation poll conducted in October 2009 found only 36 percent of the general public in the United States believes humans are the cause of global warming, whereas 33 percent does not believe the earth is warming and 16 percent believe the earth is warming but that it is due to natural causes. Public opinion was sharply divided along partisan lines: 50 percent of Democrats believe global warming is caused by humans, while 33 percent of independents, and only 18 percent of Republicans agree with this. The trend since 2007 is decidedly downwards with about 10 percent fewer people believing in human-caused global warming in all categories.

  Another Pew Foundation poll taken in May 2010 asked Americans to rank priorities for Congress. It found only 32 percent think it is very important for Congress to address climate change in the coming months, including 47 percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents, and 17 percent of Republicans.[8]

  The partisan spread mirrors the poll on belief in human-caused climate change almost perfectly. This is a strong indication that the reason a majority is not concerned about climate change legislation is because it doesn’t believe in human-caused climate change in the first place.

  A poll taken by Ipsos Mori in June 2008 found 60 percent of Britons believed, “many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change.”[9] Clearly a majority of the British public does not believe there is a scientific certainty on the subject.

  A more recent British poll in February 2010, again taken by Ipsos Mori, showed that only 17 percent of Britons put climate change in their top three most important issues facing them and their families.[10]

  In one of the most surprising surveys taken, 121 U.S. television weather presenters, all members of the American Meteorological Society, were asked their opinions on climate change in April 2010. Ninety-four percent of those surveyed were accredited meteorologists. When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statement, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Twenty-five percent were neutral and only 24 percent said they agreed or strongly agreed.[11]

  Why is there such a high degree of skepticism among professionals and the public when the mainstream media is so biased toward the IPCC view? It would appear they are reading about skeptical opinions on the Internet, blogs in particular, and talking to one another about the subject in an open-minded manner. Obviously most weather presenters are acutely interested in and aware of the fine points of the debate. The fact they disagree with the IPCC “consensus” by two-to-one speaks volumes about where these weather professionals find credibility on the subject of global warming.

  Climate science is a classic case of the necessity to distinguish between historical and present facts on the one hand, and predictions of the future on the other. There are a number of things we can say with relative certainty:

  • During the past 500 million years, since modern life forms emerged, the earth’s climate has been warmer than it is today most of the time. During these “Greenhouse Ages” the earth’s temperature averaged around 22 to 25 degrees Celsius (72 to 77 Fahrenheit).[12] All the land was either tropical or subtropical and the world was generally wetter. The sea level was much higher than today and life flourished on land and in the oceans. These warm periods were punctuated by three Ice Ages during which large ice sheets formed at the poles and in mountainous areas, effectively eliminating most plants and animals in those regions.

  • The two Ice Ages that preceded the current one occurred between 460 and 430 million years ago and between 360 and 260 million year ago. From 260 million years ago until quite recently, a Greenhouse Age existed for about 250 million years. Ice started to accumulate in Antarctica beginning 20 million years ago and eventually the current Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene, began in earnest about 2.5 million years ago.[13] The Pleistocene, which we are still in today and during which our species evolved to its current state, accounts for only 0.07 percent of the history of life on earth.

  • During the coldest periods of the Pleistocene Ice Age the average temperature of the earth was around 12 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit) and there were large ice sheets on both poles. Before the recent retreat of the glaciers, beginning 18,000 years ago, the ice extended below the U.S./Canada border, over all of Scandinavia, much of northern Europe, and well into northern Russia. The sea was about 122 meters (400 feet) lower than it is today, having risen steadily since then and continuing to do so today.[14] In recent times the sea has risen about 20 centimeters (8 inches) per century. The cause of sea level rise is a combination of melting glaciers (ice on land) and rising ocean temperature, as water expands when it gets warmer.

  • The earth’s climate underwent a general warming trend beginning with the end of the last major glaciation, about 18,000 years ago. This has not been an even warming, as there have been many fluctuations along the way. For example, during the Holocene Thermal Maximum between 9000 and 4000 years ago it was warmer than it is today by as much as 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit).[15] During this time the present-day Sahara Desert was covered with lakes and vegetation, clearly indicating there was much more rainfall there than today.[16] We know for a fact this was not caused by humans. Many scientists believe it was caused by variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun.

  • This historical record highlights the importance of analyzing the starting point and end point of temperature measurements when explaining trends, both up and down. It is warmer today than it was 18,000 years ago. But it is cooler today than it was 5,000 years ago during the Holocene Thermal Optimum. So it could be said we have been in a cooling trend for the past 5000 years even though it is warmer now than it was when the glaciation ended. I will try not to “trick” the
reader by cherry-picking timelines that support a particular bias.

  • Today the average temperature of the earth is about 14.5 degrees Celsius (58 degrees Fahrenheit), decidedly closer to the Ice Age level than the Greenhouse Age level and only 2.5 degrees above the temperature at the height of the last major glaciation. The fact is we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age and it is possible another major glaciation may occur sometime in the next 10,000 years, but that is a prediction, not a fact.

  • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas in that it tends to heat the atmosphere and thus raise the temperature of the earth. But water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, contributing at least two thirds of the “greenhouse effect.” CO2 and other minor gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, make up the other third of the greenhouse effect.[17] It is not possible to prove the exact ratios among the various greenhouse gases as they interact in complex ways. In particular, the balance between water vapor and clouds (made up of condensed water vapor) is impossible to predict accurately.[18]

  • We know global levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen steadily from 315 parts per million (ppm) to nearly 390 ppm since scientists began taking regular measurements at Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii in 1958.[19] This is a very short time compared to the 3.5 billion years of life on earth. Many scientists assume that human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are the main cause of this increase. Some scientists question this assumption. It is a fact that CO2 levels were much higher than they are today during previous eras. This will be discussed in detail later.