CO2 -- I am not a scientist nor an expert on climate history or biology...

[Mr. Analog]

He makes money to support a political stance.

I'm sorry but I can't take him as a credible source

[Darren Dirt]

He is not saying "trust me" he is saying "these are historical facts (check them yourself)".

I don't trust politicians when they say something I can prove is a lie. Not because they have a bias, but because they lie as a result of that bias.


Even tossing Dr. Moore aside completely, the real "what grinds my gears" about this issue is touched on by this comment @ DailyCaller.com:

"
The urge to suppress any discussion at all of evidence that contradicts AGW is very troubling to me.

Any theory worth its salt does not need to be protected from others' free speech, right to question, or inquiries about bias, sources, or methods.

New information will be gained from forcing AGW proponents to be more careful and more precise, to build better models (the current crop is woefully inadequate, failing to consider water vapor, for example, and the impact of the oceans as a heat sink), and to be a lot more honest and less zealous in their pronouncements.

Case in point: the LA Times refusing to publish any letters from any readers who question AGW and its supposed "remedies."

Creationism is a pure act of faith; it is not for me to interfere with someone's beliefs. Do not ask people to accept AGW as an act of faith - clearly our climate has always changed - two of my kids are graduate level geology students (Vandy and LSU) - but real science can stand up to lots of scrutiny without crumbling or need for protection.
"


Easy enough to dismiss the messenger, what if the message itself is actually examined for its truth or falsehood (however politically incorrect or hostile to the common beliefs of the masses it is)...

Funny thing is, the opposite seems to happen: the masses say "[belief] was said by Trustworthy Person X, therefore I accept that belief" just as easily as saying "[alternative POV] was said by Potentially Untrustworthy Person X, therefore I won't even waste a moment examining that alternative POV". :sigh:



Like I said...

... If the claim is "increasing CO2 emissions directly causes (results in) a measurable increase in global temperature" then you would not expect to have a 10+ year period of time where there was an unquestionable increase in CO2 emissions resulting in NO increase in temperature (and possibly a slight decrease).

Basic science. You put out a cause-and-effect theory based on past experience knowledge observations etc, and you test that theory, and if you can cause a recurrence of the cause and you get the expected effect then it supports the theory (and requires further testing to confirm clarify etc.) BUT if you get the opposite of the expected effect then your theory is in need of major modification to say the least.

...do you at least agree that IF the historical facts match what is said ^ here ^ then the MSM-promoted theory of:
[CAUSE]=[manmade CO2 emissions] --> [EFFECT]=[global warming]
is in dire need of re-examination?

[Tom]

Ok, lets assume he isnt saying "trust me", where are his sources?

[Darren Dirt]

Ok, lets assume he isnt saying "trust me", where are his sources?

Good question.

My first instinct is to just check teh googols.

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=sources+for+Patrick+Moore+speech+to+the+Institution+of+Mechanical+Engineers+in+London+2015

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=sources+%22Patrick+Moore%22+speech+London+2015

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=citations+%22Patrick+Moore%22+speech+London+2015

Unfortunately this might be tough, because virtually every "hit" is just a mention of and/or a link to the speech itself. But it's pretty darn recent so that isn't surprising, after some time passes I am sure some pro-Moore folks will offer it up on a simple easy-to-digest page somewhere -- just not easily findable right now looks like. 



PS: when skimming some results from the above, there were a few mentions of other rational scientists saying similar things (presumably based on numbers from the same sources as Dr. Moore uses)...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

( could also have a look @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penn_%26_Teller:_Bull@%&#!_episodes#S01E13_Environmental_Hysteria , which I myself have not yet seen )


In the meantime, there's other things just as important to cite -- evidence that the "manmade global warming" theory is a cover/excuse for increased control of citizens, worldwide:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-29/france-arrests-24-climate-activists-using-new-state-emergency-laws-clashes-break-out

...not to mention plenty of old folks saying stuff like this:

ReggieA ? 2 years ago

When I was in High School, the "settled Science" was Global Cooling. The solution was to be more taxes, more regulations, and we'd have to settle for a "humbler" standard of living.

Now, the "settled Science" is Global Warming. The solution is to be more taxes, more regulations, and we'll have to settle for a "humbler" standard of living.

Or perhaps we'll call it "Climate Change", and cover all possibilities.

The solution is ALWAYS more taxes, more regulations, and you'll have to settle for a "humbler" standard of living.

Seems to me, that the point isn't controlling the climate. It's more taxes, more regulations, and lowering our standard of living. Not Theirs, you understand; just us peons.

( or pointing out the levels of CO2 going down to the suggested levels = all plant life being gone in a generation, at the very least due to human heating requirements instead of freezing to death... a great dying off, is that what They actually want? )




One article comment mentioned the alleged "the 97% consensus" of the MSM theory ( the attribution of global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases ).
And here was an eye-opening response:

"
...an infantile statistical fabrication of this Australian climate Houdini, John Cook. Only 34% of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all.

Since 33% appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and -- voil? -- 97%.
Rather than some obscure Australian Cook-ing figures, here is a more credible review of papers and publications:

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
"
(CLIMATE SCIENCE SURVEY, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 10Apr2015)

^ there is definitely not anything close to 90%+ of responses from scientists holding an unquestioning, fully convinced, black-and-white mainstream opinion, e.g. Question 18b re. the order of CO2 increasing vs. temperature -- the majority agreed with the statement "During the ice age cycles, CO2 followed temperature". Also eye-opening is the questions talking about the last 15-20 years -- what was predicted in advance (overall warming, hotspots over coal-burning China etc.) vs. what was actually observed (none of that).