
The Case Against Climate Change, by Former Greenpeace President - artagnon
http://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/
======
gonvaled
He makes a good case that humans are responsible for a lot of the increase of
CO2, which is exactly what mainstream science is also claiming.

He goes on to say that this is a good thing, since high levels of CO2 are
necessary for plants to develop. He also claims that we are in a long-term
downward spiral, and that the fact that humankind is intervening is a lucky
coincidence to avert mass starvation in the medium term (geologically
speaking).

I like this, but I have a couple of questions:

\- what is the mainstream science critique to this theory?

\- how come that, even though CO2 cycles have happened in the past, we are now
in a final CO2 crisis? The Earth has done great without massive intervention
from humankind, why is this needed now? We even have fungi now to break down
lignin!

\- how can he foresee the effects of an externality (release of CO2 by non-
natural means) massively affecting the environment?

Basically his argument is that the Earth is, right now, in need of
terraforming, and that we have arrived at the right moment to do it. Isn't
this too much of a coincidence? Sounds too good to be true.

------
zzalpha
Not really sure why this is news now. According to Wikipedia, Moore has been
spouting off on global warming (among other things) for quite some time now,
and not without plenty of controversy and criticism.

As for the lead-in: just because he was president of Greenpeace decades ago,
doesn't automatically make anything he says about modern climate science
credible (unless, of course, he's saying what you want to hear...)

~~~
artagnon
These are good talking points when you want to debate climate change; it is
necessary to gather scientific evidence to back each of these points. Everyone
knows that 97% of scientists believe in climate change, 84% in an
anthropogenic version; that's not news, but I didn't know what to research
earlier.

------
Oletros
> Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is
> credible and authoritative.

Eeehh, no.

And the rest of his lecture is the same things debunked time ago

~~~
artagnon
Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have
been debunked. Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be
trapped in an echo chamber.

~~~
gonvaled
> Even without looking it up, I can say with certainty that his arguments have
> been debunked

Probably. I would love to read the critique.

> Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an
> echo chamber.

Sorry, but I do not buy that argument. Scientists are, like the rest of us,
subject to peer, media and economic pressure. They can make mistakes too. I
hope they don't, but I can not religiously accept that science is infallible.

Authority arguments apply to science too.

~~~
Oletros
Yes, scientists make mistakes but it is very strange that almost all
scientists can be mistaken for decades like the author of this lecture is
implying.

If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this
alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it
without hesitation

~~~
gonvaled
> ... it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for
> decades ...

This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often.
If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it.

> If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this
> alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace
> it without hesitation

We are talking very long term effects here, so it is nearly impossible to know
in detail how a chaotic system like Earth will evolve.

He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to
verify:

1) that without human intervention long-term CO2 levels tend to zero

2) that current increases in temperature do not follow increases in CO2,
rather the opposite

3) that increases in temperature (and CO2) do not mean mass extinctions,
rather the opposite.

What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?

~~~
Oletros
> This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often.
> If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it.

And is this what is happening with climate science?

> He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to
> verify:

> What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?

Why should exists a counter argument? He is the one making this claims, he
should publish papers supporting his claims.

And until now, there is none.

