Moore argues we need more carbon, not less. And he is very convincing.
Israpundit is entirely dependent on readers support. Please help me continue educating people with the truth about what is going on in Israel and around the world.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@ Felix Quigley:
Well Felix, thank you for your gentle and considerate treatment of me. However, from reading everything carefully above, and without any meaningful scientific expertise, my logical and very knowledge-assimilative mind inclines me towards the “NOs” rather than otherwise.
Yes indeed, Adam has done marathon work on the subject. But it’s far to large for him to have been anyway comprehensive. His apparent self-contradictions show the capacity to allow such things to pass unobserved. Vivarto, to me, seems far more scientifically based, and seems to come with a specific scientific background, rather than Adam’s layman endeavour.
Just a difference of viewpoint between us, and as always, amicable in the extreme..
Thanks to Adam I hope our esteemed editor is treading a little more carefully tonight.
Not sure what Adam has written but I am sure that fish farming in the ocean as Moore was involved in is a very very dangerous practice. What happens when there are storms, and escapes, and the tame fish meet the wild. An example really of no more than greed.
@ Edgar G.:
Despite your many years of great experience and experiences, which I value in you, welcome at the same time to the real world, the world of reality, the world of the heating of our earth from which there can be no escape. It is caused by capitalism so do not thereby be surprised that these big nobs and their pathetic little hangers on, losers all, lie their pants off. What a great job Adam has done. I am in awe.
@ Vivarto:
Your above comment about Moore and the logging and nuclear power industries, with relation to CO2 and AGW theories etc, seems to me exactly in line with my perception that Adam was being contradictory in his denunciation of Moore’s negative position, citing it was because Moore owns a salmon fishery, and his father is a lumber baron.
After I made my comment, I then decided to read all posts from the beginning, and must say that I am amazed at the wealth of verified information and examples, which have been pouring out on this one subject. And incidentally, personal details of great scientists, which I had never come across, even though I read diligently about all of them in the past..
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Just looking at all this stuff for the first time really. Adam….if Moore was against the Global Warming mantra, and was wrong, then his salmon fishery would be, according to what you just posted above,…wiped out,. This would be to his detriment. For his own benefit, therefore, he should be making an about-face,,,to condemn the Anti-Global warming apologists…….
Just my observation.
Ted Belman Said:
Here is another good one by the #1 expert in the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch
Adam Dalgliesh Said:
Not so. That link works and document can be downloaded without a password.
See also page 5 of this document, which lists RoundUp as having “acute inhalation toxicity” and “acute skin exposure toxicity.” And this is from an internal Monsanto document,not a hostile environmental source. Dr. Patrick Moore did not tell the truth to an interviewer about RoundUp. His refusal to drink the stuff when challenged, and his decision to end the interview right there, reveal that he was consciously lying.
Conveniently, Vivarto has provided us with a link to an internal Monsanto document that cannot be copied without a password. Since Vivarto has the password, we know who he works for. But if you open the document, you willfind that it describes it as toxic when swallowed or if it gets in your eyes. Also hazardous if it gets on your skin, especially after prolonged use. Also notes that it meets OSHA standards for being a hazardous product. See pages 2 and 3 of the document.
Vivarto is wise to end his participation in this discussion. His nose is growing and his pants are on fire.
PS
The information on toxicity of Roundup can be found on page 11 under the heading of “Toxicology” on the above linked information sheet.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
No, Adam, I don’t want you to believe me.
I want you to do honest research. In this day and age, it is very easy to find sources.
For example you can easily look up Frederick Seitz, and verify everything I said about him.
You can also find the petition online, and count the names of the signers, and you’ll see that there is 31k+ rather than 18k+
Other things you don’t need look up, nor do you need to believe me or anyone.
Instead you could exercise the basic logical thinking to see the truth of the proposition that a “Paid spokesman for nuclear power industry and for logging industry” should support the CO2 and AWG scare rather than oppose it.
Alternately if you see an error in my argument, then point it out to me, and I’ll be grateful.
Your emphasis on “credibility” is really an admission of intellectual laziness.
We don’t accept Einstein’s “Special Relativity Theory” because Einstein has “credibility.”
We accept it because we follow his logical argument in his thought experiment of a train moving at a near speed-of-light velocity through a station. Two lightnings hitting the opposite ends of the train. Then by following his argument we realize that indeed if the observer in the train sees the lightnings as simultaneous, then the observer on the station sees them as not simultaneous.
Likewise if the “stationary” observer sees the two lightnings as simultaneous, the observer on the train, does not. From this is derived the relativity of time. From such imaginary experiments with the use of simple logic and not much more than high school math, the entire Special Theory of Relativity is derived.
So as you see, for someone willing to do a little critical thinking, credibility is not required.
So if the above mentioned Roundup incident is reported correctly, then Moore indeed has made an ass of himself in this incident. This has no bearing on his claims about relationship between CO2 and climate.
I recall this controversy from some years ago, and the subject was really the use of genetically modified “Golden Rice”. The controversy was between opposition to the Golden Rice, and support for it.
Moore claimed that Golden Rice, which was developed by Monsanto, has alleviated hunger for tens of millions of people. The opponents claimed that it was an exploitation.
Also, even in this embarrassing incident Moore did not lie, as you say.
I just did some research into official information about Roundup as determined by EPA
https://www.fumigationzone.com/files/53/Roundup+Original+-+EPA
Here you can see that LD50 value for Roundup is indeed >5000 and EPA is designating it as
“Practically nontoxic”.
Hence your claim that
“This is by far the most damning piece of evidence that Patrick Moore is not an honest man or a credible source.” is in error.
Patrick only made an ass out of himself due to his hyperbolic way of expressing the fact that according to our current knowledge Roundup is indeed practically non-toxic.
He did not lie, or misinform about the facts.
Forgive me if I end my participation in this “discussion”.
As I really don’t enjoy it.
Vivarto made some changes to his earlier comment.
This is by far the most damning piece of evidence tha Patrick Moore is not an honest man or a credible source. Also from SourceWatch.
Also from SourceWatch.
@ Vivarto: The geniuses whom Vivarto mentions certainly had serious character flaws. But as far as I know, none of them ever did public relations work for private companies or businessmen. None were ever paid to oppose proposals that private businesses thought might cost them money.
@ Vivarto:All of my comments were fully documented with word-for-word quotations from my sources, which I fully documented with references or URL’s that would enable our readers to identify where I got these quotations from. In fact quotations from documentary sources constituted the bulk of all my comments.
Vivarto provides no documentation whatever for his claims. No quotations. No identication of his sources. He wants us to just take his word for all of his claims. Why should we?
Be sure to read Vivarto’s comment. It is entertaining and brilliant.
A friend and a fellow reader of Ted’s blog, asked me to comment on Adam Dalgliesh attacks on Patrik Moore. I really did not want to do it, because I found Adam Dalgliesh’s brainless propaganda highly off-putting.
Adam Dalgliesh’s (AD) contributions on the subject of Global Warming in response to Patrick Moore’s (PM) video consists almost exclusively of personal attacks on PM. Thus AD focuses on smearing the messenger rather than evaluating the information in the video.
A scientist’s personality has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of their claims: Einstein was a racist, he treated his children horribly, and was a womanizer, a very flawed character. This however is totally irrelevant when it comes to evaluation of his General Theory of Relativity, or any other of his scientific contributions.
Newton was a prude with sadistic tendencies. Schrödinger slept with dozens of his female students and even had children with two of them. Galileo had children with a woman who loved him, but he’d never marry her because she was not from the upper class. He sent his daughter to a nunnery where she lived in abject poverty, hungry and freezing in the winter, all along writing loving letters to her father who lived life of luxury at the palace in Florence. Worst of all, Heisenberg was a Nazi sympathizer, supporting Hitler’s war effort. Yet, these character flaws have nothing to do with the Newton’s Universal Gravity, the Galileo Transformation, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, or Schrödinger’s standing wave equation.
Among the AD’s countless ad hominem smears of PM, we read that Patrick more is taking money from Oil companies, and is a paid spokesman for nuclear and logging industry. This is supposed to explain his position on CO2.
However this accusation is meaningless, because nuclear power does not produce CO2, and therefore if Moore indeed was “a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry” as AD claims, then he should on the contrary promote the CO2 scare. I am afraid that AD can’t see this, so let me explain.
As “a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry” it would make much more sense for PM to claim that CO2 is endangering life on Earth and therefore we should switch to nuclear power. He’d be promoting the new safe designs for nuclear power, and arguing correctly that nuclear power is the only commercially viable alternative to fossil fuel. He’d support the Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Paris accords, rather than opposing them, because they all these accords aim at taxing fossil fuel and thus making nuclear power more competitive.
The same must be said about the claim that he is a “paid spokesman for the logging industry”:
Moore argues correctly that using more timber for construction would remove CO2 from the cycle. This is obviously true. Wood used in constructions can last several centuries and even millennia and is the most effective method for carbon sequestration available to us. Therefore it makes very little sense for the supposedly “paid spokesman of the timber industry” to minimize the dangers of atmospheric CO2.
Rather on the contrary, just like in case of nuclear power, it would make much more sense for Moore, to emphasize the danger of increased CO2 concentration, and thus promote the carbon sequestration into timber.
I am afraid that all of this, while obvious to any critically thinking reader, is obscure to a religious mind believing in the anti-CO2 propaganda, anti-Trump smears and other politically correct lies propagated by the Left.
Another error in AD’s accusations is his claim, or insinuation, that the reason for More’s pro-CO2 position is that Oil Industry pays for his research. Let’s assume that indeed oil industry pays for his research. Would it not be much more reasonable to assume that Patrick Moore came to point of view first and only then sought the funds from all sources including the Oil Industry?
Otherwise, it would have been infinitely easier to get money from the bountiful sources supporting the anti-CO2 positions. It is very hard for scientists who refute the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) position to even survive. They are being discriminated against by universities and cannot receive government funding. The amount of money dedicated to supporting the AWG is of the order of 1000 times more than for the opposing position. It is dangerous to openly oppose the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Researchers are being silenced, disciplined, popular magazines refuse to publish their nresearch, they are ostracized, and i many cases fired, or denied promotion. A Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist, Willy Soon, required police protection after receiving threats against him and his children from “climate activists”… Many scientists choose to stay safe and not say anything, others only speak after they retire.
Among other uncritically repeated smears AD also includes the following:
“In May 2007, Moore cited the debunked “Oregon Petition” to dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change”
Well the so called Oregon Petition was signed not by 18k+ but by 31k+ scientists, thousands of whom indeed were specialists in atmospheric sciences, while additional thousands were experts in fields of physics, geophysics, astrophysics, chemistry, and other related sciences. The signers included the late professor Frederick Seitz, President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. For his outstanding contributions to science, Professor Seitz has received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and countless other awards. He held honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. Professor Frederick Seitz, was the last true scientist to lead the National Academy of Sciences. After his departure the academy started accepting members on basis of their political activism and the so called “diversity”.
The petition signers whom AD calls “pseudo scientists” include 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Among them were some of the most eminent scientists of our time. Yet AD, arrogantly refers to them “as so-called scientists”. Then he dismisses their qualifications, saying “many of which were fake and the vast majority of which were not climate experts”
A little research gives a different picture:
Among signers there were 3,805 scientists trained in atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences and scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth.
5,812 scientists trained in physics and aerospace sciences include in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4,822 scientists trained in chemistry including the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
2,965 scientists trained in biology and agriculture including the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
Then Adam Dalgliesh dismisses “anyone with a bachelor’s degree in various fields including math, computer science and statistics as “scientist” in quotation marks.
Indeed among the signers there were 935 scientists trained in computer science and mathematical methods; Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis. Among the 581 mathematicians, 242 computer scientists and 112 statisticians hundreds held Masters of Science and PhD degrees. Yet, even Bachelor Degree in Math is an extraordinary achievement, quite different from Bachelor’s degree in Lesbian Dance Theory, or Cultural Anthropology. Study of pure mathematics and theoretical physics attracts only people with highest IQ, only paralleled by the students of philosophy. Such people are more likely to think independently and critically.
When it comes to actual subject matter AD exposes his ignorance by confusing solar irradiance with solar wind.
While the first consists of electromagnetic waves, in particular visible light, the second consists of protons. The changes in electromagnetic irradiance is indeed rather small and is not believed to affect climate, on the other hand the solar wind consisting of electrically charged particles affects the magnetic field of Earth and shields Earth from cosmic rays that are emanating from the center of the galaxy. Strong correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation has been proven, and on the other hand cloud formation shows strong correlation with temperatures and thus with climate.
There are many other logical and factual fallacies in Adam’s comments, this is in itself is to a problem if there is an invitation to an open debate and exploration. However the personal attacks, labeling and put-downs of those with opposing views and particularly the completely unjustified smearing of Patrick Moore are inappropriate and have no place in scientific exploration. Rather such attacks belong in propaganda departments of Soviet Communist Party, the Goebelsian propaganda of German Nazi party, and the “Progressive” members of the Democratic Party, including the moron in chief AOC.
From the website media matters.com. Apparently, the climate “lies” originate with Moore, not the climate scientists whom he debunks.
From a Web site published jointly by the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Grantham Institute for climate change research.
Moore’s father owned a logging company in British Columbia and was for a time president of a logging company association. Moore’s personal roots in industries that feel threatened by the climate change theory, and by environmentalism in general, run very deep.
Moore is also the owner of a salmon fishery, and is president of the Salmon Fisheries Association of British Columbia. The salmon industry has been angered by the global warming prediction, because advocates of limitations of salmon catches have cited it as one of several reasons for such limits. The claim is that global warming will lead to a die-off of salmon. Thus Moore has a very personal financial motive for climate science denial.
.Wikipedia again.
From Wikipedia article on Moore.
These two videos should be enough to convince anyone who believes the C02 hoax to tread carefully.