Wednesday, July 15, 2009

CFRB’s John Moore gives another of his rants on climate change

The Lib-Left world of CFRB’s late afternoon talk radio host, John Moore contains no worst examples of human stupidity than those who dare question his “truth” about climate change. In Moore’s world, skeptics are called “deniers”—it is easier to label one’s opponents than it is to disprove their assertions.

I read the National Post regularly and look forward to its op-ed pages each morning. Generally there is a right-wing slant to the opinions expressed there, and I appreciate that the Post does try to balance things with pieces from the “left.” But Moore’s piece—Climate skeptic arguments don't hold ice—seems just one more pointless screed that proponents of the theory of Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have been feeding us for the past couple of decades.

Moore begins with a bit of nonsense about how deniers use anecdotal evidence to question AGW. Then he uses his own anecdotal evidence— crushing heat wave in India and this year’s drought on the prairie—to support his own argument for AGW.

Follow this logic if you can. First Moore offers that:

“The deniers are great at cherry-picking oddball weather but they have a harder time explaining why Manitoba has suffered the worst flooding in a century twice in the last decade. Or why the Netherlands has been forced to come up with a whole new civic architecture because two centuries of sea-level control no longer works.”

Then he engages in some cherry-picking of his own with:

“Earlier this year, I learned that the guys who build and maintain outdoor hockey rinks in southern Ontario were complaining that the number of days they could produce a useable surface had dwindled to so few that it was hardly worth putting up the boards and getting out the hose. Civic administrations had begun to consider purchasing permanent plastic rinks produced in the United States at a cost of about $180,000 each.”

A scientist John Moore is not, but he does not mind dismissing other’s views because he considers them to be unqualified. Take the case of Senior Operations Research Analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Alan Carlin. Carlin is an economist and physicist who submitted a 98-page paper questioning assumptions on climate change and pointing out that climatologists have been ignoring other more important sources of warming.

Moore writes:

“The skeptics have been in a particularly gleeful froth in recent weeks over reports of the suppressed EPA report. This would be juicy stuff ... if it were true.”

But the story is true. Carlin did write the report and it was suppressed—that’s a fact. Other scientists at the EPA and elsewhere might disagree with or dismiss what Carlin had to say, but the existence of the report and the fact its release was held up is not in question.

But Carlin, you see, is an economist so his views on AGW should be dismissed. And Al Gore and John Moore are what kind of scientists? And what are the academic credentials of AGW guru, David Suzuki? Why, Dr. Suzuki is a geneticist. Biology is his area of expertise.

In Moore’s wacky cherry-picking world: Carlin is a physicist so must not be believed, but Suzuki is a biologist and Gore is a failed politician so they should be believed—go figure.

John More is an entertainment reporter, film reviewer and radio “drive home” show host—hardly the background one looks to when seeking advice on scientific matters.

According to Moore:

“The deniers are obsessed with temperature because they can’t explain all the other anomalies. All right, let’s talk temperature. A popular skeptic assertion is that warming has stopped; they insist that 1998 was the warmest year, which is true because 1998 was an especially aberrant year.”

I see. It’s only us “deniers” who are “obsessed with temperature,” not the other guys. And, of course, since 1998 does not fit nicely into Moore’s theory, it is “an especially aberrant year.”

Wow! Can this guy cherry-pick.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.


  1. What he fails to mention is that - yes, we are very dry here (drought - maybe) but we are also having the coldest year I can remember. It froze in July - shrubs and trees didn't fully leaf out until the end of June, it has yet to be above 26 degrees for any more than one day and is usually in the teens.

    Global "warming" - I could sure use some.

  2. The best I've ever seen/heard of John Moore is his 15 mins of fame on Jeopardy.... when his cubicle was empty for the final round. He didn't make it... ended up in minus. Something like his rants.

  3. Weather and climate are two completely different things, about as related as a sale on potato chips at Mac's is to a discussion about the global economy.

    Given the level of stupidity in this debate, it should be mandatory for all commentators to read at least one book on the subject before writing about it.

  4. John Moore is the same Guy who denies that Married/heterosexual/parents are a better Model than same-gender parents that created a child from only one of them being the actual biological link to the baby.

    He twists the debate to mock those opposed to his version of reality by his usual onus for other to Prove A Negative , this he does by demanding that people produce "Evidence" that 2 Same-gender parents produce worse children that become worse Adults in Society.
    BUT....keep in mind that Moore mocks the same Tin-Foil hat conspiracy yahoos that insist the Hat prevents the Government from controlling their minds with radio signal entering their brain,after all....there is no "Evidence" to prove the Hat doesn't work, Right John????

    Lets face it , Moore has more faith in a HollyWood Mock-u-mentary
    than the actual data from a person more versed in Science then he is.
    And even after I posted the evidence from a University Astronomy text book for the Solar-Cycles and Weather pattern on Earth, Moore still insists the Sun has nothing to do with Global Warming and Global cooling.

    How the hell do you debate with someone that sits in the same camp as the Flat-Earth/Fossil-Fuel crowds.
    Oil has been found on the surface in Alberta and thousands of feet below the Ocean floor , well below the Dino-layer for the old Theory that it came from dead Dinosaurs.
    So it looks like some Dino's walk to Alberta and drank the Cool-aid all at once , or they all swam down to the Gulf Of Mexico and during a Synchronized Swimming event they all burrowed into the Ocean mud to die in mass and create Oil.

    Life's gone full circle in HollyWood...we saw an Actor become President by entering Politics,now we saw a failed-Vee-P become an Actor and get into making Movies.

    Funny how " Time wounds all HEELS"

  5. Fault Moore for his political underpinnings, but few from his side of the spectrum (or ours) are as willing to see through the usual partisan fog surrounding most contentious issues.

    As a commuter i hear his show every day on the way home. He was not shy about saying that the Martin Liberals had to go, he has not been shy about pointing out when the Harper Conservatives have broken promises, during the "fall update/political crisis" he was not shy about saying a coalition government was not wanted by the majority of voters, including him.

    As recently as the Poilievre "tar baby" thingy, Moore was commenting on how stupid it was to try and nail an MP for what was clearly a comment not intended to be racial in nature.

    I might also add that while his argument is poorly supported in the recent Post piece, the overwhelming majority of international scientific study DOES support his overall position on climate change.

    On more bit. Other than Mr. Campbell, i've seen few if any from our right side of the political spectrum as willing to break ranks with their brethren as often as Mr. Moore does.

  6. Dead Aim,

    Your point is well made. One of my best friends also took me to task in support of John Moore, pointing out Moore's willingness to criticize the Liberal Party and its leadership.

    Yes, "…the overwhelming majority of international scientific study DOES support his overall position on climate change." However, I do sense that that is changing as more qualified scientists question the assumptions made and conclusions reached.

  7. Mr. Campbell,

    I would say that the majority of the body of scientific work on climate change comes from very qualified scientists.

    But the point of your blog entry is very well made. Suzuki et al are operating more as political activists rather than qualified scientists.

    Still, i'd use the analogy that we can probably all relate to.

    There is still qualified opinion out there that insists on claiming that communism/hands on/state run economies 'remain'(as if it ever was!) a far superior system compared to the wide range of market based economies in place throughout western countries.

    With this latest global downturn largely the result of poor oversight of financail markets in market based economies, particularly in the creation and trading of securitized assets (a swear word these days!) the number of opponents of free market economies have become far more vocal.

    Still, their argument for a state run hands on economy still clearly sucks, especially when compared to actual global economic data of the last 100 years. Of course obvious real life experience hasn't stopped them from screaming at the overwhelming majority that all the data supporting the superiority of market economies remains inconclusive!

    As a conservative i have no trouble acknowledging that the planet's current lifestyle isn't sustainable, especially as former third wold countries transform into more western-style economies with vastly higher standards of living.

    But that's not to say that i think our behavior must or can change overnight. To abandon all free market principals in order to help ease climate change just doesn't fit with my DNA. It should be gradual and has to involve some pain, but certainly not the economic disembowling advocated by POLITICAL environmental activists.

    To continue to assert that the current body of scientific data on climate change is somehow inconclusive appears, at very least, about as intellectually genuine as marxist advocates are today.

  8. Dear Aim,

    Please call my "Russ."

    I do not believe or have asserted (at least not intentionally) that "…the current body of scientific data on climate change is somehow inconclusive…."

    Certainly climate is changing, as it has always and will always. I do, however, dispute the degree to which human activity is to blame.

    I actually welcome much of the current climate change concerns because we will become much more proactive with measures which will have a positive effect on pollution, something that concerns me far more than Anthropogenic global warming.

  9. Russ,

    LOL, please call me "TDA".

    When referring to the current body of scientific research on climate change, i'm referring to 'causes' rather than the question of 'is climate changing'.

    On the effect human activity has on climate change, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I don't think there's much room left to imply that our affect on climate change could be less than 'considerable' (maybe that's your opinion as well.) I question the severity time-tables and end result (the world will undergo an a global iceage in 20 years unless we all go vegan and live in the Annex in Toronto).

    Regardless, I hope more conservatives end up sharing your opinion of being proactive with measures that affect pollution, though i'm not sure you would necessarily include carbon footprint in your overall pollution basket.

    As conservatives, if we want to hand over a country to future generations that's relatively debt free, sovereign (not dependent on other countries for military protection) with a modern fuctioning economcy, you'd think our ideology would extend (within reason) to pollution/carbon footprint issues as well.

    As it stands now, too many of my conservative friends view 'greening' their lifestyle as some kind of betrayal of their conservative heritage. Again, to me greening meaning doing 100 things a little different instead completely transforming 5 items of my lifestyle.

    I'm never gonna stop eating red meat or driving, or living in a nice house in the burbs, but buying local tomatoes, an engergy efficient furnace/air conditioner, stuff with less packaging, using vinager to clean my kitchen and bathroom, and eating brown rice once a week ain't no thang........

  10. You may be surprised, TDA, to find out that I do include reducing our carbon footprint. It's the hyperbole and scare tactics that turn me off.

    In my world, no family would live in a house larger that, say, 2,500 sq. ft. Carbon fuels, trees and fresh water are in limited supply and should not be wasted. I consider such things as oil, forests and water to be precious gifts not to be squandered by a greedy few.

    Having said that, preventing global warming, per se is not one of my priorities. It also occurs to me that Canada could very well benefit to a great extent from a warmer climate--more arable land, easier access to our North, etc.

    Thanks for your comments, I've enjoyed reading them. Now I'm going to move on.