Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Patrick Moore is Back, as Deceitful as Before

A reminder for Patrick Moore
Patrick Moore has an op-ed in The Province, a newapaper in Vancouver, B.C.

It is almost a verbatim transcript of his February Senate testimony. I wonder if the paper's editor knows that -- editors usually want original material, not a cut-and paste job.

One noticeable change is the addition of "In my opinion," in front of a leading sentence pasted from his Senate testimony: "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." And the words "scientific proof" are replaced by "conclusive proof."

In particular, Moore tells the same lie about the ice age 450 million years ago -- the Ordovician–Silurian ice age -- by not mentioning the sun was 4% dimmer back then. And that's after I wrote to him about exactly this point, and he wrote back
"If you had 5 minutes in the Senate I’m sure you would leave a few things out too."
which certainly looks like an admission the dimmer Sun was write.

I wonder what his excuse is now. Could it be, maybe, "I'm not paid to tell the truth about ice ages."

I've discussed more about Moore's testimony before, which contains this boneheaded statement about climate change and scientific proof:
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.
as if he thinks that every proof of every piece of science looks just like what you did in 10th geometry. In that case he should be paid less by his employer, and perhaps have his degree rescinded, since his field was ecology, where no scientific findings end with "Q.E.D." I wonder where he thinks the proof that smoking causes lung cancer is written down "for all to see." I wonder if he is convinced of the truth of Fermat's Last Theorem because he sat down. read, and verified all 109 pages of Andrew Wiles' proof.

What can you do about someone who's apparently willing to lie when he talks or writes? You can't even call them a climate denier; it's more like a climate cheater

PS: I'm hereby bringing the hashtag #climatecheater

PPS: For an excellent summary of the evidence behind AGW, read this Jeremy Shakun piece, "Teaching Climate Change through Six Questions"


Lars said...

David, is "deceiptful" intended to be some sort of pun?
I hope that I don't sound like I'm trying to be a smartass if you've made a spelling mistake - this sounds like a potentially useful neologism (although probably more applicable to doubtful expense accounts than climate science).

David Appell said...

Just bad spelling. Thanks for pointing it out.