# Patrick Moore and climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 26, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638 "2015-11-26T15:27:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![blood63](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@blood63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blood63)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/1 "2015-11-26T15:27:39Z")
From this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc) Patrick Moore claims that there is a weak link between CO2 and temperature as shown by graphs like this [https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/image002-3.gif](https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/image002-3.gif) We are perhaps more familiar with graphs that show a very strong correlation such as [http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif](http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif) What gives?? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/2 "2015-11-26T15:49:44Z")
There should be wiki definition of climate change. An annual vacation event where leaders from all over the world fly the biggest airplane their country can afford to a single location to discuss the weather. Us foolish mortals in the private sector use Skype at work because the company jet is usually unavailable. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/3 "2015-11-26T17:04:53Z")
Can’t we at least talk about factual truth for two or three posts before the senseless political insinuations? Your two graphs cover very different timescales. The first one covers hundreds of millions of years, while the second is only hundreds of thousands. There are many things other than carbon dioxide that change over hundreds of millions of years, such as the inherent brightness of the Sun, the axial tilt of the Earth, the shapes of the continents, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic dynamo, and the gross percentages of other gases in the atmosphere. None of those has changed appreciably in the past two hundred years, nor will they change appreciably in the next hundred. Carbon dioxide, however, has changed and will change appreciably over those timescales, so if we want to know what will happen, we should look at times in the past when carbon dioxide has changed but those other things haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![blood63](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@blood63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blood63)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/4 "2015-11-26T17:16:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Can’t we at least talk about factual truth for two or three posts before the senseless political insinuations? > > Your two graphs cover very different timescales. The first one covers hundreds of millions of years, while the second is only hundreds of thousands. There are many things other than carbon dioxide that change over hundreds of millions of years, such as the inherent brightness of the Sun, the axial tilt of the Earth, the shapes of the continents, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic dynamo, and the gross percentages of other gases in the atmosphere. None of those has changed appreciably in the past two hundred years, nor will they change appreciably in the next hundred. Carbon dioxide, however, has changed and will change appreciably over those timescales, so if we want to know what will happen, we should look at times in the past when carbon dioxide has changed but those other things haven’t. Yes, good point. I assume the data showing the correlation comes from ice core data. Is it possible that ice core data shows a false correlation between the two? Also, is it now solidly established that CO2 drives temperature changes and not the other way around? ---
**Author:** ![Foggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foggy/32/1082_2.png) [@Foggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foggy)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/5 "2015-11-26T17:27:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > …to discuss the weather. No, they are/will be discussing the CLIMATE, there is a difference. > [@](#): > > Us foolish mortals in the private sector use Skype at work because the company jet is usually unavailable. Then why is business travel up? People travel to meetings because more goes on than just the main event. There are side conversations and a chance to meet others in person. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/6 "2015-11-26T17:30:18Z")
> [@blood63](#): > > Yes, good point. > I assume the data showing the correlation comes from ice core data. Is it possible that ice core data shows a false correlation between the two? > Also, is it now solidly established that CO2 drives temperature changes and not the other way around? It was established for a long time that it is both. Deniers like Patrick Moore like to ignore one item and press only for the other one. > **[CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)** > > \When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming... > [@](#): > > CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. > **[Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag](https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html)** > > A popular myth amongst climate 'skeptics' is that historically atmospheric CO2 levels have risen after temperature increases began, and therefore it's actually temperature increases that cause CO2 increases, and not vice-versa as basic climate... So it is a red herring, and then one can see how deceptive are people like Patrick Moore. > **[Patrick Moore](https://www.desmog.com/patrick-moore/)** > > Patrick Moore Credentials \*Note: Patrick Moore has listed himself with a “Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia” in his profile at EcoSense and at the Heartland Institute, among others. However,... > [@](#): > > Patrick Moore is a Canadian environmentalist, often referred to incorrectly as a founder of Greenpeace, who believes that humans are not to blame for global warming. > > He was a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and worked with Greenpeace International between 1981 and 1986, but was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore broke away from Greenpeace after he concluded that “…the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” [2] Greenpeace contends that “what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.” [5] > > In 1991, Patrick Moore established a consultancy business called Greenspirit Enterprises “focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change.” [3] > > According to a statement by Greenpeace, “Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.” [4] > [@](#): > > September 3, 2015 > Patrick Moore, listing himself as a director of the CO2 Coalition in his signature, wrote an article in the Opinion Pages of Wall Street Journal titled “Obama’s Half-Baked Alaska” where he suggests that there is no need to be worried about glacial ice receding because it has happened in the past. [30] > > ``` > “All of this happened long before human emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, could have had any impact,” Moore writes. “There is no reason to believe that those factors have suddenly disappeared and now humans are the all-powerful shapers of global climate destiny. Yet this entirely unproven hypothesis of catastrophe is compelling to those who would control our beliefs.” > [30] > > ``` > > He continues, stating that “carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth, that plants could use a lot more of it, and that the real threat is a cooling of the climate, not the slight warming that has occurred over the past 300 years.” [30] > > According to SkepticalScience, the argument that arctic icemelt is a natural cycle is a climate myth, just as is the idea that CO2 is “plant food.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/7 "2015-11-26T17:42:42Z")
> [@Foggy](#): > > Then why is business travel up? People travel to meetings because more goes on than just the main event. There are side conversations and a chance to meet others in person. Yep, IIRC there were reports of big technology companies that found that indeed there is a lot that is lost when there is no direct interaction; climate change deniers are also denying what it is lost if one just relies on remote communication or just e-mail in an issue that does require tons of diplomacy and to gain the trust of others. > **[I Banned All Internal E-Mails at My Company for a Week](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/10/25/i-banned-all-internal-e-mails-at-my-company-for-a-week/)** > > This article is by Shayne Hughes, chief executive of Learning as Leadership. “All internal e-mail is forbidden for the next week,” I announced to my staff. I wish I could say I stated it boldly, chest puffed out and chin held high. Instead, I... > [@](#): > > In most companies today, internal email is half to three quarters of all traffic. Reading, processing, managing, organizing, and responding to it absorbs vast amounts of time. We clog one another’s e-mail systems and to-do lists with a mishmash of crucial topics and trivial information and then waste hours of every day slogging through a hundred useless e-mails to ensure we don’t look irresponsible by missing the two or three important ones. > > Worse, e-mail is rarely the best medium for addressing the issues and opportunities at hand. It brings us quick questions that don’t have quick answers; long, informative rambles with no clear action steps; conversation chains with too many people cc’d and many of them offering oversimplified opinions. And that’s on a good day. > > Buried beneath our collective e-mail dysfunction are the important conversations our organizations and relationships need to move forward. E-mail is the worst forum for tackling these. Time and again I see leaders being harsher by e-mail than they ever would be in a direct conversation. E-mail has become a false way of addressing conflict, and the costs in terms of time and trust are dramatic. ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/8 "2015-11-26T18:30:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There should be wiki definition of climate change. An annual vacation event where leaders from all over the world fly the biggest airplane their country can afford to a single location to discuss the weather. > > Us foolish mortals in the private sector use Skype at work because the company jet is usually unavailable. The worst part is the HUGE carbon foot print these meetings have. From site preparation and clean up to all the jumbo jets flying in, tons and tons of carbon emissions are released into the environment. And for what? Some joint declaration that no country is going to follow up on. You are just not going to be able to tell China and Russia what to do or not do. Neither India nor Brazil can afford what they really need to do. And without these four countries going along with any of the restrictions needed to clean up the planet, it doesn’t matter what all the other countries in the world do. The meetings will always be a waste of time (and carbon). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/9 "2015-11-26T18:34:27Z")
BTW that graph in the OP and the simplified one shown by Patric Moore betrays where it came from, as many times it has happened with many deniers a good graph and data has been misused countless times. As Science writer Peter Hadfield reported back in 2013: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OJ6Z04VJDco/hqdefault.jpg "27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&t=341) > [@](#): > > If the basic physics is correct then we should see a good correlation between temperatures and co2 over the past 500 million years; well, here is the data for temperatures, and here is the data of the co2 levels. Put them together and you get a very clear… > > Oh Dear. \* > > **Actually, no one expected to see a correlation between the two because of course we are missing the most important factor of them all, the Sun.** > > [Tim Ball makes the sun argument that was dismissed even by skeptics like Professor Muller]\*\* > > Tim Ball thinks he is talking about researchers here but it’s the climate science critics, the politicians the bloggers and the amateurs who showcased this graph that completely ignores the role of the Sun and it’s the climate researchers who factory then. Over the last five hundred million years solar output has been getting gradually stronger, of course on its own it doesn’t show any better correlation with global temperatures than carbon dioxide does on its own. But if the co2 temperature link is correct > then when we factory in both co2 and solar irradiance which is the long-term drivers a climate then we should get a very good correlation with global temperatures and we do. - The graph does show indeed no strong correlation, \*\*this is the same graph \*\*the OP linked to and the same data that Patric Moore misleadingly uses] \*\* (Hah! The auto transcript tool from YouTube called Tim Ball “10 balls” 🙂 , at least I agree that deniers like him and Patric Moore need to have lots of them to spew their FUD) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/10 "2015-11-26T18:42:06Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > The worst part is the HUGE carbon foot print these meetings have. From site preparation and clean up to all the jumbo jets flying in, tons and tons of carbon emissions are released into the environment. > > And for what? Some joint declaration that no country is going to follow up on. > > You are just not going to be able to tell China and Russia what to do or not do. Neither India nor Brazil can afford what they really need to do. And without these four countries going along with any of the restrictions needed to clean up the planet, it doesn’t matter what all the other countries in the world do. > > The meetings will always be a waste of time (and carbon). As usual sweeping statements like this one ignores what China and other nations have pledged even before the Paris meeting. As I pointed before too, if one does think that China, India and Brazil will not do a thing you are expecting then that their governments will fall then, because as it was told many times before, ignoring this issue will not make it go away and it will be the nations that do not change or prepare the ones that will suffer most. Face to face meetings are still very important to set the seeds for change. > **[Can Copenhagen Become the World's First Carbon Neutral City?](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/can-copenhagen-become-the_b_2523272)** > > "We believe that carbon neutrality not only benefits the climate, the Copenhageners will gain a lot in terms of increased growth and life quality as well. Cleaner air, less noise and a greener city will give Copenhageners better daily lives and... > [@](#): > > During the same week of the Beijing smog, Lord Mayor Frank Jensen of Copenhagen spoke at a green solutions presentation at the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Key talking points covered the gamut from smarter cities and sustainable design, to energy efficiency and a bold plan for the city of 1.2 million people to become the world’s first carbon neutral city by 2025. > [@](#): > > We discussed initiatives in Copenhagen and New York regarding Climate adaptation: preparing for climate change and how to attract and create private sector jobs in New York and Copenhagen including green growth jobs. Copenhagen is chairing a network within the C40, investigating how cities can work with business to attract investment and create jobs in meeting our environmental targets. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/11 "2015-11-26T18:50:31Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > The worst part is the HUGE carbon foot print these meetings have. The OP wasn’t asking for an opinion about climate conferences, so it’s not clear why you feel the need to intrude with comments that are not only irrelevant, but also [factually incorrect](http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/the-carbon-footprint-of-cop21-frequently-asked-questions/). Furthermore, it wouldn’t matter even if they didn’t offset the carbon, because the UNFCCC conferences have vital long-term global objectives. And you don’t negotiate international treaties with Skype. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/12 "2015-11-26T19:24:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Your two graphs cover very different timescales. The first one covers hundreds of millions of years, while the second is only hundreds of thousands. There are many things other than carbon dioxide that change over hundreds of millions of years, such as the inherent brightness of the Sun, the axial tilt of the Earth, the shapes of the continents, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic dynamo, and the gross percentages of other gases in the atmosphere. None of those has changed appreciably in the past two hundred years, nor will they change appreciably in the next hundred. Carbon dioxide, however, has changed and will change appreciably over those timescales, so if we want to know what will happen, we should look at times in the past when carbon dioxide has changed but those other things haven’t. Well said, and this needs to be well understood. I just want to add two other points. It’s one thing to draw some lines on a chart, but quite something else to actually have accurate data. That long-term chart going back hundreds of millions of years would look vastly different if margins of uncertainty were drawn around the putative CO2 and temperature levels – they would be so huge that the chart is almost meaningless, aside from all the factors that **Chronos** correctly cited. Bernier’s CO2 reconstruction is based on geochemical proxies that not only have huge margins of error in the quantities, but also in timeframes, and their temporal resolution is a minimum of 10 million years. And aside from all of that, the graphs appear to have been seriously doctored to try to make a false denialist point. Scotese’s actual temperature reconstruction [looks quite different](http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm), and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bernier’s has been rescaled or otherwise altered as well. OTOH, the temperature and CO2 reconstructions we have going back as far as 600,000 and even 800,000 years are based on relatively accurate data from a stable climate regime that occurred in the latter part of the Quaternary in which glaciation cycles have closely followed slow-but-steady CO2 cycles probably triggered by tiny orbital variations. Not only is this the valid chart from which to draw extrapolations of modern climate change, it also illustrates the magnitude of the change. Look at where 400 ppm would be on that chart. If you drew a line up to the 400 ppm level in reference to the timeframe on the X axis, you’d end up with a vertical line that goes straight up and towers above the chart as high as the whole chart itself. That’s the impact we’ve had on CO2 in mostly just the last hundred years, and the climate impacts are just beginning to catch up. > [@blood63](#): > > Yes, good point. > I assume the data showing the correlation comes from ice core data. Is it possible that ice core data shows a false correlation between the two? No, because ice core data is corroborated by many other temperature proxies, like tree ring chronologies and marine sediment deposits. > [@blood63](#): > > Also, is it now solidly established that CO2 drives temperature changes and not the other way around? As **Gigo** already said, technically it’s both, but in any given set of conditions it’s always atmospheric carbon that drives the climate. The ice age transitions that may be triggered by orbital Milankovitch cycles are ultimately driven by CO2 changes, because the orbital effects themselves are far too small to affect the climate to any degree other than affecting the carbon cycle. There are still unknowns about the glacial cycles, but there is absolutely no dispute about the specific and well-quantified climate forcing of CO2 (and methane, and other GHGs). So regardless of what may or may not come first in any given circumstances, CO2 acts as a heat blanket just as surely as the glass of a greenhouse, although the physics of how it works is completely different. The real uncertainties about CO2-driven temperature rise are not with respect to the CO2 itself, but with estimating the magnitude of the amplifying feedbacks. ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/13 "2015-11-26T19:36:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As usual sweeping statements like this one ignores what China and other nations have pledged even before the Paris meeting. As I pointed before too, if one does think that China, India and Brazil will not do a thing you are expecting then that their governments will fall then, because as it was told many times before, ignoring this issue will not make it go away and it will be the nations that do not change or prepare the ones that will suffer most. > > Face to face meetings are still very important to set the seeds for change. > > [Can Copenhagen Become the World's First Carbon Neutral City? | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-grundvig/can-copenhagen-become-the_b_2523272.html) “China and other nations have\* pledged\*…”. These conferences always have plenty of “pledges”, but how much is actually done to clean things up in their countries? " if one does think that China, India and Brazil will not do a thing you are expecting then that their governments will fall" The Chinese government will fall? The Communist Party will be thrown out by the people if they don’t follow the pledges they made at a climate conference? And the leaders of India and Brazil will not be reelected because they went back on a climate conference pledge? " a bold plan for the city of 1.2 million people to become the world’s first carbon neutral city _by 2025_." Statements like these always have a date far enough in the future that no one will remember them when they do not come to fruition. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/14 "2015-11-26T19:42:47Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > “China and other nations have\* pledged\*…”. These conferences always have plenty of “pledges”, but how much is actually done to clean things up in their countries? > > " if one does think that China, India and Brazil will not do a thing you are expecting then that their governments will fall" The Chinese government will fall? The Communist Party will be thrown out by the people if they don’t follow the pledges they made at a climate conference? And the leaders of India and Brazil will not be reelected because they went back on a climate conference pledge? As Richard Feynman said, “you can’t fool mother Nature.” I’m just saying that if they follow your cynicism the countries will find that they should had listened to their scientists and follow what they pledged or else they will indeed see worse results in the near and far future for their nations. (Higher ocean rise and worse droughts does mean mass migration of people, and most people will know by then what institutions to blame for the inaction). And anyhow, this being General Questions and being that we have to stick to the issue at hand what do you think about the sorry effort here made by Patric Moore? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/15 "2015-11-27T05:32:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There should be wiki definition of climate change. An annual vacation event where leaders from all over the world fly the biggest airplane their country can afford to a single location to discuss the weather. > > Us foolish mortals in the private sector use Skype at work because the company jet is usually unavailable. This is a page pulled right out of Conspiracy Theorist manual. When one can’t argue the facts, pick some other nonsensical argument that has nothing to do with the original post and re-frame the debate. On the very first response! Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/16 "2015-11-27T06:02:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Can’t we at least talk about factual truth for two or three posts before the senseless political insinuations? If the politicians don’t believe their own bullshit and act on it then no, we can’t. If you don’t have accurate readings to work with as input and the models don’t take in all the variables then the results are worthless. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/17 "2015-11-27T06:12:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If the politicians don’t believe their own bullshit and act on it then no, we can’t. > > If you don’t have accurate readings to work with as input and the models don’t take in all the variables then the results are worthless. No, no scientist would consider the results of models to be useless right away, models are not reality but they are a valid tool to check against reality and they are validated constantly. > **[Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/)** > > How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools. > [@](#): > > Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you’ll likely hear some variation of the following: “That’s all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want.” Often, they’ll suggest the models don’t even have a solid foundation of data to work with—garbage in, garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into a climate model to judge what comes out? > > Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of politics. > > Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence before making up one’s mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of climate models, it’s climate scientists—and they are confident that, just as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools. Looking at what typical deniers are doing one could describe the graphs that Patric Moore did show on the video as a model, but it was made by ignoring other variables. Sadly, misleading models like that are the ones used by politicians that are acting on that bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/18 "2015-11-27T06:20:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, because ice core data is corroborated by many other temperature proxies, like tree ring chronologies and marine sediment deposits. How many degrees in a tree ring? At best it gives indication of rain. We have no clue what the accurate temperature was 100 years ago. The error rates in thermometers makes the readings useless. The locations of the thermometers makes the records useless. Unless the models take in all aspects of weather then the output is useless. Anyone who claims the models take in all variables of weather makes that statement in pure bravado. You can post graphs and charts until the cows come home that does not make them accurate. It just means the end result matches what people want it to say. It became political when politicians starting using derogatory terms such as deniers to destroy the mere mention that the output may be flawed. That was the death of any further scientific funding that might contradict it. The real denier is anyone who suggests they have a lock on climate modeling. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/19 "2015-11-27T06:37:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > How many degrees in a tree ring? At best it gives indication of rain. That is your opinion as it does not stop the science from being accepted. > **[Multi-Proxy Temperature Reconstruction from the West Qinling Mountains,...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057638)** > > A total of 290 tree-ring samples, collected from six sites in the West Qinling Mountains of China, were used to develop six new standard tree-ring chronologies. In addition, 73 proxy records were assembled in collaboration with Chinese and... BTW the temperature reconstructions made by Mann and many others after not only used three rings, and some also did not even use three rings. The deniers of human induced climate change are derided because they are nowadays at the level of creationists in ignoring the evidence and even the defenders of evolution had to include also the defense of teaching climate science because virtually the same ones that deny evolution are also denying climate science. [http://ncse.com/about/history](http://ncse.com/about/history) > [@](#): > > During the late 1970s and early 1980s, citizens of several states were appalled to learn that bills promoting “scientific creationism” were appearing in their state legislatures. Other Americans and Canadians were distressed that their local school boards were being pressured to allow, or even encourage, the teaching of “scientific creationism”. Groups of scientists, teachers, parents, clergy and interested citizens banded together to oppose “scientific creationism.” They had many reasons for doing so: They wanted to maintain the integrity of science education, so that their children would not be taught factual nonsense and a distorted view of how science works. They worried about separation of church and state, because “scientific creationism” is in reality a restatement of Biblical literalist religious doctrine. Parents and clergy who were not literalists were concerned that their own religious views would be undermined in public school classrooms. > [@](#): > > In 2012, in response to complaints from teachers that they were coming under fire for teaching global warming and other climate change concepts, NCSE decided to support the teaching of climate change in addition to evolution. Both evolution and climate change are well-accepted by scientists as being based on sound research, but the percentages of members of the public accepting these sciences is sharply lower. There are organizations dedicated to decreasing the acceptance and teaching of evolution and/or climate change: another parallel. NCSE has had decades of experience helping teachers cope with political and other pressures against the teaching of evolution; we believe this experience is transferable to the problems involving the teaching of climate change. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638/20 "2015-11-27T06:42:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You can post graphs and charts until the cows come home that does not make them accurate. It just means the end result matches what people want it to say. And this is way off the mark, it only shows gross ignorance about what models do. More from the Ars Technica article: > [@](#): > > One surprisingly common misconception about climate models is that they’re just exercises in curve-fitting. The global average temperature record is fed into the model, which matches that trend and spits out a simulation just like it. In this (mistaken) view, having a model that compares well with reality is a necessary outcome of the process. This doesn’t demonstrate that climate models can be trusted to usefully project future trends, but this line of thinking is mistaken for several reasons. > > There’s obviously more to a climate model than a graph of global average temperature. Some parameterizations—those stand-ins for processes that occur at scales finer than a grid cell—are tuned to match observations. After all, they are attempts to describe a process in terms of its large-scale results. But successful parameterizations aren’t used as a gauge of how well the model is reproducing reality. “Obviously, since these factors are tuned for, they don’t count as a model success. However, the model evaluations span a much wider and deeper set of observations, and when you do historical or paleoclimate simulations, none of the data you are interested in has been tuned for,” Schmidt told Ars. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patrick-moore-and-climate-change/738638.md?page=2)