That ol’ 97 percent … again!

For some reason Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore just can’t seem to distance himself from his former group despite condemning them as evil. However, this actually maybe a good thing. It is always helpful to have dissidents who used to belong to Leftist utopian movements or some sort of effort to politicize a particular point of view. In this case science.

Just recently, Dr. Moore (who is an Ecologist by trade) was interviewed by The Australian stating that is not convinced the planet is warming and if it is Earth’s warming poses no threat to the human race. He says that Earth’s temperatures have remained constant (i.e. flatlined) for the past eighteen years. People would experience real problems, however, if the planet started to get colder he says.

Naturally, and according to The Australian, Greenpeace responded stating:

A Greenpeace Australia Pacific spokeswoman said Dr Moore’s views were “inconsistent with the 97 per cent of climate scientists who, according to NASA, agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”.

However, the group obviously doesn’t care or know of that the 97 percent claim has been handily debunked since it was found out the statement was made up. A Forbes article dated May of last year points out that alarmists were caught doctoring their statement by participants at the blog Popular Technology. The report (in part) states:

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

Will such facts deter groups like Greenpeace from continuing to further such an erroneous claim? Probably not. Can’t say they aren’t persistent.