Ehemaliger Präsident von Greenpeace zerfetzt den Klimawandel auf wissenschaftliche Weise

GreenpeaceMit freundlicher Genehmigung von Wikipedia
Bitte teilen Sie diese Geschichte!
image_pdfimage_print
TN Note: The following is a lecture delivered by Patrick Moore, formerly President of Greenpeace Int’l, to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London. He is a vocal critic of faulty science that supports climate-change caused by humans. Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is credible and authoritative.

Sollen wir Kohlendioxid feiern?

Meine Herren und Damen, meine Damen und Herren.

Vielen Dank für die Gelegenheit, meine Ansichten zum Klimawandel darzulegen. Wie ich bereits mehrfach öffentlich dargelegt habe, gibt es durch die Beobachtung in der Praxis keinen endgültigen wissenschaftlichen Beweis dafür, dass Kohlendioxid für die leichte Erwärmung des globalen Klimas verantwortlich ist, die in den letzten 300 Jahren seit dem Höhepunkt des Klimas aufgetreten ist die kleine Eiszeit. Wenn es einen solchen Beweis durch Testen und Replizieren gegeben hätte, wäre er für alle sichtbar aufgeschrieben worden.

The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that ?the science is settled? and ?the debate is over?.

Es besteht jedoch zweifelsohne die Gewissheit, dass CO2 der Baustein für alles Leben auf der Erde ist und dass dies ohne seine Anwesenheit in der globalen Atmosphäre in ausreichender Konzentration ein toter Planet wäre. Doch heute wird unseren Kindern und unserer Öffentlichkeit beigebracht, dass CO2 ein giftiger Schadstoff ist, der Leben zerstört und die Zivilisation in die Knie zwingt. Heute Abend hoffe ich, diese gefährliche, von Menschen verursachte Propaganda auf den Kopf zu stellen. Heute Abend werde ich zeigen, dass der Ausstoß von CO2 durch den Menschen bereits Leben auf unserem Planeten vor einem sehr frühen Ende gerettet hat. Wenn wir nicht einen Teil des Kohlenstoffs zurück in die Atmosphäre abgeben, von wo aus er ursprünglich stammt, würde das meiste oder vielleicht alles Leben auf der Erde in weniger als zwei Millionen Jahren ab heute sterben.

Aber zuerst ein bisschen Hintergrund.

I was born and raised in the tiny floating village of Winter Harbour on the northwest tip of Vancouver Island, in the rainforest by the Pacific. There was no road to my village so for eight years myself and a few other children were taken by boat each day to a one-room schoolhouse in the nearby fishing village. I didn?t realize how lucky I was playing on the tide flats by the salmon-spawning streams in the rainforest, until I was sent off to boarding school in Vancouver where I excelled in science. I did my undergraduate studies at the University of British Columbia, gravitating to the life sciences ? biology, biochemistry, genetics, and forestry ? the environment and the industry my family has been in for more than 100 years. Then, before the word was known to the general public, I discovered the science of ecology, the science of how all living things are inter-related, and how we are related to them. At the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the threat of all-out nuclear war and the newly emerging consciousness of the environment I was transformed into a radical environmental activist. While doing my PhD in ecology in 1971 I joined a group of activists who had begun to meet in the basement of the Unitarian Church, to plan a protest voyage against US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska.

Wir haben bewiesen, dass eine etwas abgenutzte Gruppe von Aktivisten ein altes Fischerboot über den Nordpazifik segeln und dabei helfen kann, den Lauf der Geschichte zu verändern. Wir haben eine Anlaufstelle für die Medien geschaffen, um über die öffentliche Opposition gegen die Tests zu berichten.

Als diese H-Bombe im November 1971 explodierte, war es die letzte Wasserstoffbombe, die die USA jemals gezündet haben. Obwohl vier weitere Tests in der Serie geplant waren, sagte Präsident Nixon sie aufgrund der öffentlichen Opposition ab, die wir mitgestaltet hatten. Das war die Geburt von Greenpeace.

Flushed with victory, on our way home from Alaska we were made brothers of the Namgis Nation in their Big House at Alert Bay near my northern Vancouver Island home. For Greenpeace this began the tradition of the Warriors of the Rainbow, after a Cree Indian legend that predicted the coming together of all races and creeds to save the Earth from destruction. We named our ship the Rainbow Warrior and I spent the next fifteen years in the top committee of Greenpeace, on the front lines of the environmental movement as we evolved from that church basement into the world?s largest environmental activist organization.

Next we took on French atmospheric nuclear testing in the South Pacific. They proved a bit more difficult than the US nuclear tests. It took years to eventually drive these tests underground at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. In 1985, under direct orders from President Mitterrand, French commandos bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour, killing our photographer. Those protests continued until long after I left Greenpeace. It wasn?t until the mid-1990s that nuclear testing finally ended in the South Pacific, and it most other parts of the world as well.

Going back to 1975, Greenpeace set out to save the whales from extinction at the hands of huge factory whaling fleets.  We confronted the Soviet factory whaling fleet in the North Pacific, putting ourselves in front of their harpoons in our little rubber boats to protect the fleeing whales. This was broadcast on television news around the world, bringing the Save the Whales movement into everyone?s living rooms for the first time. After four years of voyages, in 1979 factory whaling was finally banned in the North Pacific, and by 1981 in all the world?s oceans.

In 1978 I sat on a baby seal off the East Coast of Canada to protect it from the hunter?s club. I was arrested and hauled off to jail, the seal was clubbed and skinned, but a photo of me being arrested while sitting on the baby seal appeared in more than 3000 newspapers around the world the next morning. We won the hearts and minds of millions of people who saw the baby seal slaughter as outdated, cruel, and unnecessary.

Why then did I leave Greenpeace after 15 years in the leadership? When Greenpeace began we had a strong humanitarian orientation, to save civilization from destruction by all-out nuclear war. Over the years the ?peace? in Greenpeace was gradually lost and my organization, along with much of the environmental movement, drifted into a belief that humans are the enemies of the earth. I believe in a humanitarian environmentalism because we are part of nature, not separate from it. The first principle of ecology is that we are all part of the same ecosystem, as Barbara Ward put it, ?One human family on spaceship Earth?, and to preach otherwise teaches that the world would be better off without us. As we shall see later in the presentation there is very good reason to see humans as essential to the survival of life on this planet.

In the mid 1980s I found myself the only director of Greenpeace International with a formal education in science. My fellow directors proposed a campaign to ?ban chlorine worldwide?, naming it ?The Devil?s Element?. I pointed out that chlorine is one of the elements in the Periodic Table, one of the building blocks of the Universe and the 11th most common element in the Earth?s crust. I argued the fact that chlorine is the most important element for public health and medicine. Adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health and the majority of our synthetic medicines are based on chlorine chemistry. This fell on deaf ears, and for me this was the final straw. I had to leave.

Als ich Greenpeace verließ, schwor ich mir, eine Umweltpolitik zu entwickeln, die sich auf Wissenschaft und Logik stützt und nicht auf Sensationslust, Fehlinformation, Anti-Humanismus und Angst. In einem klassischen Beispiel wurde bei einem kürzlich von Greenpeace auf den Philippinen eingeleiteten Protest der Zusammenhang zwischen Goldenem Reis und dem Tod mit Totenköpfen ausgenutzt. Tatsächlich kann Goldener Reis dazu beitragen, jedes Jahr 2 Millionen Kinder vor dem Tod aufgrund eines Vitamin-A-Mangels zu retten.

The Keeling curve of CO2 concentration in the Earth?s atmosphere since 1959 is the supposed smoking gun of catastrophic climate change. We presume CO2 was at 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, before human activity could have caused a significant impact. I accept that most of the rise from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions with the possibility that some of it is due to outgassing from warming of the oceans.

NASA tells us that ?Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth?s Temperature? in child-like denial of the many other factors involved in climate change. This is reminiscent of NASA?s contention that there might be life on Mars. Decades after it was demonstrated that there was no life on Mars, NASA continues to use it as a hook to raise public funding for more expeditions to the Red Planet. The promulgation of fear of Climate Change now serves the same purpose. As Bob Dylan prophetically pointed out, ?Money doesn?t talk, it swears?, even in one of the most admired science organizations in the world.

On the political front the leaders of the G7 plan to ?end extreme poverty and hunger? by phasing out 85% of the world?s energy supply including 98% of the energy used to transport people and goods, including food. The Emperors of the world appear clothed in the photo taken at the close of the meeting but it was obviously Photo-shopped. They should be required to stand naked for making such a foolish statement.

The world?s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, is hopelessly conflicted by its makeup and it mandate. The Panel is composed solely of the World Meteorological Organization, weather forecasters, and the United Nations Environment Program, environmentalists. Both these organizations are focused primarily on short-term timescales, days to maybe a century or two. But the most significant conflict is with the Panel?s mandate from the United Nations. They are required only to focus on ?a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the atmosphere, and which is in addition to natural climate variability.??So if the IPCC found that climate change was not being affected by human alteration of the atmosphere or that it is not ?dangerous? there would be no need for them to exist. They are virtually mandated to find on the side of apocalypse.

Scientific certainty, political pandering, a hopelessly conflicted IPCC, and now the Pope, spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, in a bold move to reinforce the concept of original sin, says the Earth looks like ?an immense pile of filth? and we must go back to pre-industrial bliss, or is that squalor?

Und dann ist da noch der ungeheure Dreckhaufen, der uns mehr als dreimal täglich von dem Nexus der grünen Medien, einem brodelnden Kessel des drohenden Untergangs, zugeführt wird, als wären wir bereits zur Höllenverdammnis verurteilt, und es besteht nur eine geringe Chance auf Erlösung. Ich fürchte um das Ende der Aufklärung. Ich fürchte einen intellektuellen Gulag mit Greenpeace als Gefängniswärtern.

Let?s begin with our knowledge of the long-term history of the Earth?s temperature and of CO2 in the Earth?s atmosphere. Our best inference from various proxies back indicate that CO2 was higher for the first 4 billion years of Earth?s history than it has been since the Cambrian Period until today. I will focus on the past 540 million years since modern life forms evolved. It is glaringly obvious that temperature and CO2 are in an inverse correlation at least as often as they are in any semblance of correlation. Two clear examples of reverse correlation occurred 150 million years and 50 million years ago. At the end of the Jurassic temperature fell dramatically while CO2 spiked. During the Eocene Thermal Maximum, temperature was likely higher than any time in the past 550 million years while CO2 had been on a downward track for 100 million years. This evidence alone sufficient to warrant deep speculation of any claimed lock-step causal relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Die vor 400 Millionen Jahren beginnende Devon-Zeit markierte den Höhepunkt der Invasion des Lebens auf dem Land. Pflanzen entwickelten sich zu Lignin, aus dem in Kombination mit Zellulose Holz entstand, das es den Pflanzen erstmals ermöglichte, im Wettbewerb um Sonnenlicht groß zu werden. Während sich riesige Wälder über das Land ausbreiten, nimmt die lebende Biomasse um Größenordnungen zu und bindet Kohlenstoff als CO2 in die Atmosphäre, um Holz zu produzieren. Lignin ist sehr schwer zu zersetzen und keine Zersetzungsspezies besaß die Enzyme, um es zu verdauen. Bäume starben aufeinander, bis sie 100 Meter oder tiefer waren. Dies war die Herstellung der großen Kohlebetten auf der ganzen Welt, da dieser riesige Speicher von gebundenem Kohlenstoff 90 Millionen Jahre lang weiter aufgebaut wurde. Dann entwickelten sich glücklicherweise für die Zukunft des Lebens Weißfäulepilze, um die Enzyme zu produzieren, die Lignin verdauen können, was mit dem Ende der Ära der Kohleherstellung zusammenfiel.

There was no guarantee that fungi or any other decomposer species would develop the complex of enzymes required to digest lignin. If they had not, CO2, which had already been drawn down for the first time in Earth?s history to levels similar to todays, would have continued to decline as trees continued to grow and die. That is until CO2 approached the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die. Not just woody plants but all plants. This would bring about the extinction of most, if not all, terrestrial species, as animals, insects, and other invertebrates starved for lack of food. And that would be that. The human species would never have existed. This was only the first time that there was a distinct possibility that life would come close to extinguishing itself, due to a shortage of CO2, which is essential for life on Earth.

A well-documented record of global temperature over the past 65 million years shows that we have been in a major cooling period since the Eocene Thermal Maximum 50 million years ago. The Earth was an average 16C warmer then, with most of the increased warmth at the higher latitudes. The entire planet, including the Arctic and Antarctica were ice-free and the land there was covered in forest. The ancestors of every species on Earth today survived through what may have been the warmest time in the history of life. It makes one wonder about dire predictions that even a 2C rise in temperature from pre-industrial times would cause mass extinctions and the destruction of civilization. Glaciers began to form in Antarctica 30 million years ago and in the northern hemisphere 3 million years ago. Today, even in this interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age, we are experiencing one of the coldest climates in the Earth?s history.

Coming closer to the present we have learned from Antarctic ice cores that for the past 800,000 years there have been regular periods of major glaciation followed by interglacial periods in 100,000 year-cycles. These cycles coincide with the Milankovitch cycles that are tied to the eccentricity of the Earth?s orbit and its axial tilt. It is highly plausible that these cycles are related to solar intensity and the seasonal distribution of solar heat on the Earth?s surface. There is a strong correlation between temperature and the level of atmospheric CO2 during these successive glaciations, indicating a possible cause-effect relationship between the two. CO2 lags temperature by an average of 800 years during the most recent 400,000-year period, indicating that temperature is the cause, as the cause never comes after the effect.

Ein Blick auf die letzten 50.000 Jahre von Temperatur und CO2 zeigt, dass Änderungen des CO2 auf Änderungen der Temperatur folgen. Dies ist zu erwarten, da die Milankovitch-Zyklen mit größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu einer Temperaturänderung führen als zu einer CO2-Änderung. Und eine Änderung der Temperatur führt mit weitaus größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu einer Änderung des CO2 aufgrund der Ausgasung von CO2 aus den Ozeanen in wärmeren Zeiten und einer Eingasung (Absorption) von CO2 in kälteren Zeiten. Trotz der unlogischen Natur dieser Behauptung bestehen Klimaalarmisten darauf, dass CO2 die Temperaturänderung verursacht.

It is sobering to consider the magnitude of climate change during the past 20,000 years, since the peak of the last major glaciation. At that time there were 3.3 kilometres of ice on top of what is today the city of Montreal, a city of more than 3 million people. 95% of Canada was covered in a sheet of ice. Even as far south as Chicago there was nearly a kilometre of ice. If the Milankovitch cycle continues to prevail, and there is little reason aside from our CO2 emissions to think otherwise, this will happen gradually again during the next 80,000 years. Will our CO2 emissions stave off another glaciation as James Lovelock has suggested? There doesn?t seem to be much hope of that so far, as despite 1/3 of all our CO2 emissions being released during the past 18 years the UK Met Office contends there has been no statistically significant warming during this century.

Auf dem Höhepunkt der letzten Vereisung war der Meeresspiegel um 120 Meter niedriger als heute. Vor 7.000 Jahren waren alle Gletscher in geringer Höhe und mittlerer Breite geschmolzen. Es besteht seitdem kein Konsens über die Veränderung des Meeresspiegels, obwohl viele Wissenschaftler zu dem Schluss gekommen sind, dass der Meeresspiegel während des holozänen thermischen Optimums vor 9.000 bis 5.000 Jahren, als die Sahara grün war, höher war als heute. Möglicherweise war der Meeresspiegel im Mittelalter auch höher als heute.

Hunderte von Inseln in der Nähe des Äquators in Papua, Indonesien, wurden vom Meer in einer Weise unterhöhlt, die die Hypothese bestätigt, dass sich der Meeresspiegel in den letzten Tausenden von Jahren nur geringfügig verändert hat. Es dauert lange, bis so viel Erosion durch sanfte Wellen in einem tropischen Meer auftritt.

Wenn wir auf die Beziehung zwischen Temperatur und CO2 in der Neuzeit zurückkommen, können wir sehen, dass die Temperatur in Mittelengland seit 1700 stetig langsam angestiegen ist, während die menschlichen CO2-Emissionen bis 1850 nicht relevant waren und dann nach 1950 einen exponentiellen Anstieg begannen kein Hinweis auf einen direkten Kausalzusammenhang zwischen beiden. Nachdem die Themse während der Kleinen Eiszeit regelmäßig zugefroren war, erstarrte sie 1814 zum letzten Mal, als die Erde in die sogenannte Moderne Warmzeit überging.

The IPCC states it is ?extremely likely? that human emissions have been the dominant cause of global warming ?since the mid-20th century?, that is since 1950. They claim that ?extremely? means 95% certain, even though the number 95 was simply plucked from the air like an act of magic. And ?likely? is not a scientific word but rather indicative of a judgment, another word for an opinion.

There was a 30-year period of warming from 1910-1940, then a cooling from 1940 to 1970, just as CO2 emissions began to rise exponentially, and then a 30-year warming from 1970-2000 that was very similar in duration and temperature rise to the rise from 1910-1940. One may then ask ?what caused the increase in temperature from 1910-1940 if it was not human emissions? And if it was natural factors how do we know that the same natural factors were not responsible for the rise between 1970-2000.? You don?t need to go back millions of years to find the logical fallacy in the IPCC?s certainty that we are the villains in the piece.

Wasser ist bei weitem das wichtigste Treibhausgas und das einzige Molekül, das in der Atmosphäre in allen drei Zuständen vorhanden ist: Gas, Flüssigkeit und Feststoff. Wasserdampf ist als Gas ein Treibhausgas, als Flüssigkeit und Feststoff jedoch nicht. Als flüssiges Wasser bilden sich Wolken, die tagsüber Sonnenstrahlung in den Weltraum zurücksenden und nachts Wärme speichern. Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, dass Computermodelle den Nettoeffekt von atmosphärischem Wasser in einer Atmosphäre mit höherem CO2-Ausstoß vorhersagen können. Dennoch postulieren die Warmisten, dass ein höheres CO2 zu einer positiven Rückkopplung von Wasser führt und somit die Wirkung von CO2 allein um das 2-3-fache erhöht. Andere Wissenschaftler glauben, dass Wasser eine neutrale oder negative Rückkopplung auf CO2 hat. Die Beobachtungsergebnisse aus den Anfangsjahren dieses Jahrhunderts bestätigen tendenziell die letztgenannte Hypothese.

Wie vielen Politikern, Medienvertretern oder der Öffentlichkeit ist diese Erklärung des IPCC zum Klimawandel im Jahr 2007 bekannt?

?wir sollten erkennen, dass wir es mit einem gekoppelten nichtlinearen chaotischen System zu tun haben und daher die langfristige Vorhersage zukünftiger Klimazustände nicht möglich ist.?

Es gibt eine Grafik, die zeigt, dass die Klimamodelle die Erwärmungsrate, die die IPCC-Aussage bestätigt, stark übertrieben haben. Die einzigen Trends, die die Computermodelle genau vorhersagen können, sind die, die bereits aufgetreten sind.

Coming to the core of my presentation, CO2 is the currency of life and the most important building block for all life on Earth. All life is carbon-based, including our own. Surely the carbon cycle and its central role in the creation of life should be taught to our children rather than the demonization of CO2, that ?carbon? is a ?pollutant? that threatens the continuation of life. We know for a fact that CO2 is essential for life and that it must be at a certain level in the atmosphere for the survival of plants, which are the primary food for all the other species alive today. Should we not encourage our citizens, students, teachers, politicians, scientists, and other leaders to celebrate CO2 as the giver of life that it is?

It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today. Even at the today?s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter. CO2 is the giver of life and we should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.

We are witnessing the ?Greening of the Earth? as higher levels of CO2, due to human emissions from the use of fossil fuels, promote increased growth of plants around the world. This has been confirmed by scientists with CSIRO in Australia, in Germany, and in North America. Only half of the CO2 we are emitting from the use of fossil fuels is showing up in the atmosphere. The balance is going somewhere else and the best science says most of it is going into an increase in global plant biomass. And what could be wrong with that, as forests and agricultural crops become more productive?

All the CO2 in the atmosphere has been created by outgassing from the Earth?s core during massive volcanic eruptions. This was much more prevalent in the early history of the Earth when the core was hotter than it is today. During the past 150 million years there has not been enough addition of CO2 to the atmosphere to offset the gradual losses due to burial in sediments.

Let?s look at where all the carbon is in the world, and how it is moving around.
Today, at just over 400 ppm, there are 850 billion tons of carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere. By comparison, when modern life-forms evolved over 500 million years ago there was nearly 15,000 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, 17 times today?s level. Plants and soils combined contain more than 2,000 billion tons of carbon, more that twice as much as the entire global atmosphere. The oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of carbon, as dissolved CO2, 45 times as much as in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, which are made from plants that pulled CO2 from the atmosphere account for 5,000 ? 10,000 billion tons of carbon, 6 ? 12 times as much carbon as is in the atmosphere.

But the truly stunning number is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and turned into carbonaceous rocks. 100,000,000 billion tons, that?s one quadrillion tons of carbon, have been turned into stone by marine species that learned to make armour-plating for themselves by combining calcium and carbon into calcium carbonate. Limestone, chalk, and marble are all of life origin and amount to 99.9% of all the carbon ever present in the global atmosphere. The white cliffs of Dover are made of the calcium carbonate skeletons of coccolithophores, tiny marine phytoplankton.

Der überwiegende Teil des Kohlendioxids, das aus der Atmosphäre stammt, wurde gebunden und dauerhaft in kohlenstoffhaltigen Gesteinen gespeichert, wo es von Pflanzen nicht als Nahrung verwendet werden kann.

Beginning 540 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period many marine species of invertebrates evolved the ability to control calcification and to build armour plating to protect their soft bodies. Shellfish such as clams and snails, corals, coccolithofores (phytoplankton) and foraminifera (zooplankton) began to combine carbon dioxide with calcium and thus to remove carbon from the life cycle as the shells sank into sediments; 100,000,000 billion tons of carbonaceous sediment. It is ironic that life itself, by devising a protective suit of armour, determined its own eventual demise by continuously removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This is carbon sequestration and storage writ large. These are the carbonaceous sediments that form the shale deposits from which we are fracking gas and oil today. And I add my support to those who say, ?OK UK, get fracking?.

In den letzten 150 Millionen Jahren wurde CO2 kontinuierlich aus der Atmosphäre abgesaugt. Dazu gehören viele Komponenten. Entscheidend ist jedoch der Nettoeffekt: 150 Millionen Jahre lang werden durchschnittlich 37.000 Tonnen Kohlenstoff pro Jahr aus der Atmosphäre entfernt. Die Menge an CO2 in der Atmosphäre wurde in diesem Zeitraum um ca. 90% reduziert. Dies bedeutet, dass die vulkanischen CO2-Emissionen durch den Verlust von Kohlenstoff an Calciumcarbonat-Sedimenten auf einer millionenschweren Basis aufgewogen wurden.

Wenn sich dieser Trend fortsetzt, sinkt CO2 zwangsläufig auf ein Niveau, das das Überleben von Pflanzen bedroht, für deren Überleben mindestens 150 ppm erforderlich sind. Wenn Pflanzen sterben, sterben auch alle Tiere, Insekten und anderen wirbellosen Tiere, deren Überleben von Pflanzen abhängt.

Wie lange wird es dauern, bis das meiste oder das gesamte Leben auf der Erde vom Aussterben bedroht ist, weil es kein CO2 in der Atmosphäre gibt?

Während dieser Eiszeit im Pleistozän erreicht das CO2 in der Regel ein Minimum, wenn die aufeinanderfolgenden Vereisungen ihren Höhepunkt erreichen. Während der letzten Vereisung, die vor 18.000 Jahren ihren Höhepunkt erreichte, erreichte der CO2-Boden 180 ppm, höchstwahrscheinlich das niedrigste CO2-Niveau in der Geschichte der Erde. Dies sind nur 30 ppm über dem Niveau, in dem Pflanzen zu sterben beginnen. Paläontologische Untersuchungen haben gezeigt, dass bereits bei 180 ppm eine starke Einschränkung des Wachstums auftrat, als die Pflanzen zu hungern begannen. Mit Beginn der wärmeren Zwischeneiszeit stieg das CO2 auf 280 ppm. Aber selbst heute, da die menschlichen Emissionen dazu führen, dass CO2 400 ppm erreicht, sind die Wachstumsraten von Pflanzen immer noch begrenzt. Diese wären viel höher, wenn CO2 zwischen 1000 und 2000 ppm liegen würde.

Here is the shocking news. If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today, a blink in nature?s eye, 0.05% of the 3.5 billion-year history of life.

No other species could have accomplished the task of putting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out and locked in the Earth?s crust by plants and animals over the millennia. This is why I honour James Lovelock in my lecture this evening. Jim was for many years of the belief that humans are the one-and-only rogue species on Gaia, destined to cause catastrophic global warming. I enjoy the Gaia hypothesis but I am not religious about it and for me this was too much like original sin. It was as if humans were the only evil species on the Earth.

But James Lovelock has seen the light and realized that humans may be part of Gaia?s plan, and he has good reason to do so. And I honour him because it takes courage to change your mind after investing so much of your reputation on the opposite opinion. Rather than seeing humans as the enemies of Gaia, Lovelock now sees that we may be working with Gaia to ?stave of another ice age?, or major glaciation. This is much more plausible than the climate doom-and gloom scenario because our release of CO2 back into the atmosphere has definitely reversed the steady downward slide of this essential food for life, and hopefully may reduce the chance that the climate will slide into another period of major glaciation. We can be certain that higher levels of CO2 will result in increased plant growth and biomass. We really don?t know whether or not higher levels of CO2 will prevent or reduce the eventual slide into another major glaciation. Personally I am not hopeful for this because the long-term history just doesn?t support a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature.

It does boggle the mind in the face of our knowledge that the level of CO2 has been steadily falling that human CO2 emissions are not universally acclaimed as a miracle of salvation. From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2?s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming. And even if there were some additional warming that would surely be preferable to the extermination of all or most species on the planet.

You heard it here. ?Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2?. To use the analogy of the Atomic Clock, if the Earth were 24 hours old we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards the End Times. If that isn?t good news I don?t know what is. You don?t get to stave off Armageddon every day.

I issue a challenge to anyone to provide a compelling argument that counters my analysis of the historical record and the prediction of CO2 starvation based on the 150 million year trend. Ad hominem arguments about ?deniers? need not apply. I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both. Does anyone deny that below 150 ppm CO2 that plants will die? Does anyone deny that the Earth has been in a 50 million-year cooling period and that this Pleistocene Ice Age is one of the coldest periods in the history of the planet?

Wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass die Emissionen des Menschen die Atmosphäre bisher um 200 Milliarden Tonnen CO2 belastet haben, haben wir bereits weitere 5 Millionen Jahre für das Leben auf der Erde gekauft, auch wenn wir heute keine fossilen Brennstoffe mehr verwenden. Aber wir werden nicht aufhören, fossile Brennstoffe für unsere Zivilisation zu nutzen, damit wir den Hunger der Pflanzen aufgrund von CO2-Mangel um mindestens 65 Millionen Jahre verhindern können. Selbst wenn die fossilen Brennstoffe knapp geworden sind, haben wir die Billiarden Tonnen Kohlenstoff in kohlenstoffhaltigen Gesteinen, die wir für die Herstellung von Zement in Kalk und CO2 umwandeln können. Und wir wissen bereits, wie man das mit Sonnenenergie oder Kernenergie macht. Dies allein wird, unabhängig vom Verbrauch fossiler Brennstoffe, den CO2-Verlust durch das Einlagern von Kalziumkarbonat in marinen Sedimenten mehr als ausgleichen. Ohne Zweifel hat es die menschliche Spezies ermöglicht, das Überleben des Lebens auf der Erde um mehr als 100 Millionen Jahre zu verlängern. Wir sind nicht der Feind der Natur, sondern ihr Heil.

Als Nachsatz möchte ich ein paar Anmerkungen zur anderen Seite der angeblich gefährlichen Medaille des Klimawandels machen, unserer Energiepolitik, insbesondere zu den vielfach bösartigen fossilen Brennstoffen. Kohle, Öl und Erdgas.

Depending how it?s tallied, fossil fuels account for between 85-88% of global energy consumption and more than 95% of energy for the transport of people and goods, including our food.

Anfang dieses Jahres einigten sich die Staats- und Regierungschefs der G7-Staaten darauf, dass die Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe bis 2100 eingestellt werden sollte - gelinde gesagt eine höchst bizarre Entwicklung. Natürlich glaubt kein intelligenter Mensch wirklich, dass dies geschehen wird, aber es ist ein Beweis für die Macht der Eliten, die sich um den katastrophalen, vom Menschen verursachten Klimawandel bemüht haben, an dem so viele mutmaßliche Weltführer teilnehmen müssen. Wie können wir sie davon überzeugen, CO2 zu feiern, anstatt es zu verunglimpfen?

Über fossile Brennstoffe wird viel Unangenehmes gesagt, obwohl sie in hohem Maße für unsere Langlebigkeit, unseren Wohlstand und unseren komfortablen Lebensstil verantwortlich sind.

Kohlenwasserstoffe, die Energiekomponenten fossiler Brennstoffe, sind wie in der organischen Chemie zu 100% organisch. Sie wurden durch Sonnenenergie in alten Meeren und Wäldern erzeugt. Wenn sie zur Energiegewinnung verbrannt werden, sind die Hauptprodukte Wasser und CO2, die beiden lebensnotwendigsten Lebensmittel. Und fossile Brennstoffe sind mit Abstand die größte Speicherbatterie für direkte Sonnenenergie auf der Erde. Nichts kommt näher als der Kernbrennstoff, der auch in dem Sinne solar ist, als er in sterbenden Sternen erzeugt wurde.

Today, Greenpeace protests Russian and American oil rigs with 3000 HP diesel-powered ships and uses 200 HP outboard motors to board the rigs and hang anti-oil plastic banners made with fossil fuels. Then they issue a media release telling us we must ?end our addiction to oil?. I wouldn?t mind so much if Greenpeace rode bicycles to their sailing ships and rowed their little boats into the rigs to hang organic cotton banners. We didn?t have an H-bomb on board the boat that sailed on the first Greenpeace campaign against nuclear testing.

Some of the world?s oil comes from my native country in the Canadian oil sands of northern Alberta. I had never worked with fossil fuel interests until I became incensed with the lies being spread about my country?s oil production in the capitals of our allies around the world. I visited the oil sands operations to find out for myself what was happening there.

It is true it?s not a pretty sight when the land is stripped bare to get at the sand so the oil can be removed from it. Canada is actually cleaning up the biggest natural oil spill in history, and making a profit from it. The oil was brought to the surface when the Rocky Mountains were thrust up by the colliding Pacific Plate. When the sand is returned back to the land 99% of the so-called ?toxic oil? has been removed from it.

Anti-oil activists say the oil-sands operations are destroying the boreal forest of Canada. Canada?s boreal forest accounts for 10% of all the world?s forests and the oil-sands area is like a pimple on an elephant by comparison. By law, every square inch of land disturbed by oil-sands extraction must be returned to native boreal forest. When will cities like London, Brussels, and New York that have laid waste to the natural environment be returned to their native ecosystems?

Die Kunst und Wissenschaft der ökologischen Wiederherstellung oder der Wiedergewinnung, wie sie im Bergbau genannt wird, ist eine gut etablierte Praxis. Das Land wird umgestaltet, der ursprüngliche Boden wird zurückgesetzt und einheimische Pflanzen- und Baumarten werden etabliert. Durch die Entstehung von Depressionen, in denen das Land flach war, kann die Artenvielfalt gesteigert werden, indem Teiche und Seen angelegt werden, in denen sich Feuchtgebiete, Insekten und Wasservögel in der zurückgewonnenen Landschaft ansiedeln können.

Die Tailings-Teiche, in denen der gereinigte Sand für einige Jahre zurückgegeben wird, sehen hässlich aus, werden aber schließlich in Grasland zurückgewonnen. Die Fort McKay First Nation hat den Auftrag, eine Bisonherde auf einem zurückgewonnenen Abraum zu verwalten. Jeder Abraum wird nach Abschluss der Arbeiten auf ähnliche Weise zurückgefordert.

Als Ökologe und Umweltschützer seit mehr als 45 Jahren ist das gut genug für mich. Das Land wird in geologischer Zeit für einen Augenblick gestört und anschließend mit sauberem Sand in ein nachhaltiges boreales Waldökosystem zurückgeführt. Und als Bonus bekommen wir den Treibstoff, um unsere Grasfresser, Motorroller, Motorräder, Autos, Lastwagen, Busse, Züge und Flugzeuge anzutreiben.

Zusammenfassend ist Kohlendioxid aus der Verbrennung fossiler Brennstoffe das Zeug zum Leben, der Stab des Lebens, die Währung des Lebens, in der Tat das Rückgrat des Lebens auf der Erde.

Es ist mir eine Ehre, ausgewählt worden zu sein, um Ihren jährlichen Vortrag zu halten.

Danke, dass Sie mir heute Abend zugehört haben.

Ich hoffe, Sie haben CO2 aus einer neuen Perspektive gesehen und werden mit mir zusammen CO2 feiern!

Read the full speech here…

Treten Sie unserer Mailingliste bei!


Benutzerbild
40 Kommentar Themen
41 Themen Antworten
4 Anhänger
 
Kommentar, auf das am meisten reagiert wurde
Beliebtestes Kommentar Thema
64 Kommentatoren
DorotaAnthony DowlingTimStuartPeter Baldwin Letzte Kommentartoren
  Abonnieren  
neueste älteste meiste Bewertungen
Benachrichtige mich bei
Robert Brooks
Gast
Robert Brooks

Es ist großartig, einige Fakten zu sehen, die gegen die selbstgebrauten Computermodelle sprechen, von denen angenommen wird, dass sie Wissenschaft sind.

Alexandre
Gast
Alexandre

Irrelevant. If Jesus himself, with his father, AND the Virgin Mary, accompanied by the Buddha, Yahweh and Mohamed, came back to Earth and declared to the planet, with voices like thunder on the distant horizon, that climate change is a fraud, that Al Gore is an idiot and the U.N. is the worst thing that ever happened, it wouldn’t change anything. And this speech still gives the impression that people can change things. If people had any power whatsoever to do anything, we would be in heaven by now. The last 15 years shows all too clearly how much (political)… Weiterlesen »

Augen weit geöffnet
Gast

>>>AND, even if some change were to come, it would be a come back of the old demonic military dictatorship, something which I?m hearing a little too much lately. Yes, it makes you wonder if there is an element of ‘reverse psychology’ in all of this. You can be sure that if there is a return to a military dictatorship, that it will be an environmentalist dictator: like Hitler, a benevolent vegetarian environmentalist. I live in Australia, and your summation of Brazilians is pretty much spot on for my own population of Proles. My only disagreement with you is about… Weiterlesen »

Ray Songtree
Gast
Ray Songtree

Alexandre, it is not a done deal. Urban life is a done deal, for sure, but not life on Earth. We aren’t fighting for the dominant culture, we are fighting for life, and we all will have to adjust as we withdraw from the unsustainable.

Davy Stephenson
Gast
Davy Stephenson

Dann lasst uns nachhaltig sein, nachhaltig sein und unsere Energie sparen. Wir müssen damit beginnen, den Trend des Entqualifizierens umzukehren und unsere eigenen Hände für immer anstelle des Krieges gebrauchen, den die Kugeln, Bomben und Bankcrews in der City of London erhalten sehr reich auf und wir werden sehr tot und sehr arm bei ihrer Drecksarbeit.

Roni Sylvester
Gast

Thank you Dr. Patrick Moore! Your clarification on climate change is greatly appreciated. Next steps? a) DEMAND Anthropogenic Global Warming believers publically debate scientists whose findings differ. One example: Demand Al Gore publically debate Dr. Richard Lindzen. b) DEMAND your elected official not make one regulation, cap and trade tax or policy based on climate change. Why? The science is NOT settled! The second someone tells you “The science is settled,” know they’re either grossly misinformed or lying. c) STOP contributing to groups like the Nature Conservancy, HSUS, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation, PETA and Earth Justice. Some already… Weiterlesen »

Allan Smith
Gast
Allan Smith

Ich dachte, dass diese Tatsachen für jeden mäßig Gebildeten ziemlich offensichtlich gewesen wären.

Lee
Gast
Lee

“…drifted into a belief that humans are the enemies of the earth.” That says it all.

Vajrapani
Gast
Vajrapani

The author is a scientist. I am not one. I cannot and therefore don’t refute what the author is saying. However, as a personal experience, in India for example, the green cover is reduced, there is more pollution from construction and automobiles. The latter are a source of foul air, that makes even walking on the road a painful experience. I do not know what science can explain this. May be the author should have focused equally on other pollutants like heavy metals in the exhaust of automobiles. I feel better when walking, than after a drive, albeit I can… Weiterlesen »

Davy Stephenson
Gast
Davy Stephenson

And their industrial revolution won’t be any different to ours of late, only bigger, the more we demand their cheaper goods.

Poetentiate
Gast
Poetentiate

Das Argument ist, dass CO2 kein Schadstoff ist, nicht dass es keine Schadstoffe gibt, wie zum Beispiel die Folgen von Atomtests und andere Bestandteile von Auspuffanlagen.

Jacques
Gast
Jacques

Vajrapani, I have visited your country many times. The “foul air” you speak of is from toxic pollutants in the air, it is not from carbon dioxide. There is no conflict between your experience and what the author is saying. Toxic pollutants are what we need to be going after. Carbon dioxide (which is odorless and invisible) is not one of them. As the article explains, CO2 is essential to all life on Earth. This is why burning natural gas in vehicles is so much better than gasoline or diesel. I believe it was in Delhi where the scooter-taxis are… Weiterlesen »

Samuel
Gast
Samuel

He’s not saying the climate isn’t changing. He’s saying that he isn’t convinced that it’s caused by CO2, let alone human actions. As far as cars, I think that it probably is best to move away from petroleum power. Battery tech and electric motor tech has just gotten too good to ignore the fact that in many ways a electric car is a superior vehicle. That’s not the same as banning all petroleum-powered vehicles, but cities filled with electric cars – which only need to travel short distances on city streets – would be far cleaner. Using less cars would… Weiterlesen »

Graham Howlett
Gast
Graham Howlett

Kumpel, sehr gute Resonanz. Ausgeglichen und realistisch.

Steven
Gast
Steven

Is Carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? If it is then made made global warming is a fact. The only argument is the degree. How many $ for this man’s soul. Do I hear any bids.

Patrick Wood

Carbon Dioxide is an essential chemical in the cycle of life: Plants need it to grow via photosynthesis and in return, they emit Oxygen that we breath. The more C02, the more plant growth and hence, less hunger and more O2 for a healthy atmosphere. It’s just that simple.

JohnyB
Gast
JohnyB

Dies ist völlig richtig, CO2 wird ausgeglichen.
Aber Moment mal, wegen der Abholzung kann es sein, dass es nicht so ist.

So wie ich den Artikel verstehe
CO2 won’t terminate life on earth, life will go on, it’s just those little agglomerations of light that we see at night out of ISS that will be flooded if the temperature rises
Don’t worry, we will survive as a species, we will have only to move. A bit ?

Dorota
Gast
Dorota

Aufgrund der verstärkten Pflanzungsbemühungen in China und Indien ist derzeit mehr Grün auf dem Planeten als in den letzten 20 Jahren.

Matthew
Gast
Matthew

So you somehow think that before man appeared on this planet, carbon dioxide didn’t exist??? Is that what you’re saying?? It’s scary to think there are people out there who are as woefully uneducated as you. Yet it does seem to be that the religious faithful of the Church of Global Warming are highly uneducated in many areas, not just science.

Davy Stephenson
Gast
Davy Stephenson

Probieren Sie mehr als 600 Teile pro Million in gewerblichen Gewächshäusern aus, und noch stirbt niemand.
Dann probieren Sie die alten Biotopversuche aus und überprüfen Sie die Zahlen, insbesondere, wo der Beton das Pflanzengas gespeichert hat.

Steven
Gast
Steven

How do you figure that? There are plenty of ‘greenhouse gasses”, and simply the presence of CO2 and a rise in temperature are not proof that one causes the other. That is what the police would call “circumstantial evidence”. Perhaps the world is just getting warmer naturally – these cycles of warm and cold are established fact – and it just happens that right now we are in a warming cycle. The fact that a lot of CO2 has been released, and the belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, are not proof that the CO2 *caused* the temperature change.… Weiterlesen »

Louis Hunt
Gast
Louis Hunt

“100,000,000 billion tons, that?s one quadrillion tons of carbon, have been turned into stone by marine species…” Something doesn’t quite add up. Either the first value should be “1,000,000 billion tons,” or the second value should be “100 quadrillion tons.” Either way it dwarfs the amount currently in our atmosphere. This is an excellent piece. I knew that carbon dioxide was not a “pollutant” because life as we know it would not be possible without it. But I didn’t know that atmospheric CO2 has been declining over millions of years and that, without human intervention, life on earth was on… Weiterlesen »

Mark Pugner
Gast

Leugnen, leugnen, leugnen, glauben, glauben, gläubig sind KEINE wissenschaftlichen Begriffe.

Matt
Gast
Matt

Großartiger Artikel, abgesehen von seiner Werbung für GM-Pflanzen und Fracking.

Dave
Gast
Dave

He didn’t mention gm crops…

Mark Gomez
Gast
Mark Gomez

“golden rice “

Darran Blyth
Gast
Darran Blyth

Es ist immer noch ein Problem, herauszufinden, wie man mithilfe von Technologie hungernde Menschen ernähren kann. Pro GVO

Patrick Wood

Generell gibt es große Probleme mit GVO. viele unbeabsichtigte Folgen, die NICHT gut für Tier oder Mensch sind.

Andrew Thompson
Gast
Andrew Thompson

Can you name one “unintended consequence”. Given that almost everything we eat has been genetically modified i’m confused by what those consequences might be.

David Sears
Gast
David Sears

The problem is you can eat and still starve from malnutrition. If GMO’s produced more nutritious food then what naturally occurs then great. However, our processes of mass producing and modifying natural resources adds chemicals and pollutants into our bodies which cause diseases, illness, and malnutrition. There is a good story about deer coming out of the mountain during a particularly severe winter. Well-intentioned people threw out cattle feed for the deer. The starving deer gladly ate the haystock but then were found dying of starvation because they couldn’t digest it. We can eat all we want but if we… Weiterlesen »

Andrew Thompson
Gast
Andrew Thompson

As soon as you use the word “chemical” in a derogatory way you lose the argument. Everything you eat is made up of chemicals. You would need to be far more specific to get away with that.

Samuel
Gast
Samuel

There is zero evidence or reason to believe that modifying a gene has any negative effect on a food’s “nutrition”. Making corn grow better in cold climates does not somehow magically make it stop producing and being made of nutrients. It is very easy to test the nutritional content of food. If there was such a thing as a particular GMO crop that had reduced nutrional value because of some side effect of the gene they altered, that is NOT reason to claim that genetic-engineering, in general, somehow magically makes all crops that are engineered loose their nutritional value. That’s… Weiterlesen »

Jim Mullen
Gast
Jim Mullen

I enjoyed reading this piece and found it well laid out. Apparently CO2 is not a problem. As a society I feel it’s urgent to start focusing real resources on stricter controls on the burning of oil, gas, coal (i.e. mandate clean scrubbers), and controls on industrial and residential waste polluting water and creating landfill. Leaders need to become better informed, today, instead of opting for the easy way to appear “concerned for their fellow man”. Stop supporting rhetoric. I hope our country and others soon stop funding the corrupt UN. The UN has drifted too far away from its… Weiterlesen »

Wahrheitssucher
Gast

Scientists have never been united on the issue of human-inspired CO2 emissions, – in spite of the acknowledgment of the value of CO2. If science is objective discovery, where is the honesty in our educated community on this issue? If there is not honesty, – how can we trust? Why are many of our world leaders hell-bent on supporting lopsided information and the ill-advised response which will impact billions of people? Thank you for publishing this – may we see more —

Kevin Smith
Gast
Kevin Smith

Power. Ignoring science and facts for funding, regulation and ultimately power over governments, corporations and the end game…power over people. Global warming is completely about power and money, plain and simple.

Dr. Nicholas Ashley
Gast
Dr. Nicholas Ashley

Ah, eine klare Stimme der Vernunft und eine ruhige auch. Ich frage mich wirklich, wie wissenschaftlich die Klimatologen ausgebildet sind. Ich nehme eine kleine Ausnahme in Bezug auf Lignin und die Karbonperiode. Der Luftsauerstoffgehalt lag bei 32%. Es gibt zweifellos Hinweise auf große und katastrophale Waldbrände aufgrund von Blitzeinschlägen in Verbindung mit dem hohen Sauerstoffgehalt. Somit waren Weißfäulepilze nicht die Retter des Lebens auf der Erde an sich. Chemie und Physik war. Klimatologen sollten auch Physik studieren, insbesondere die Mathematik der Schwarzkörperstrahlung. Es sollte obligatorisch sein.

Phil Johnson
Gast
Phil Johnson

First, a disclaimer. I am not a scientist, but I follow the current arguments for and against AGW. I cite this for a reason: “Shellfish such as clams and snails, corals, coccolithofores (phytoplankton) and foraminifera (zooplankton) began to combine carbon dioxide with calcium and thus to remove carbon from the life cycle as the shells sank into sediments; 100,000,000 billion tons of carbonaceous sediment. It is ironic that life itself, by devising a protective suit of armour, determined its own eventual demise by continuously removing CO2 from the atmosphere.” Wednesday past (12/3/15), “Discovery” put on “Racing Extinction”, part of which… Weiterlesen »

Lloyd
Gast
Lloyd

Shiva, the destroyer, is as much a part of the Life cycle as Vishnu, the creator. If CO2 destroys shell life like corals, and crabs, shrimp and oysters, perhaps that is mother nature’s way of keeping them from over populating and damaging the ecosystem more that way. I personally think that the laws of nature (such as the ocean absorbing CO2 and killing a part of some of its life forms) is part of the overall way homeostasis is preserved in nature. I see this as similar to the forest fires that are needed to keep down the buildup of… Weiterlesen »

Fred
Gast
Fred

Wie erklären Sie dann die Existenz von Süßwasserschalentieren, die zunächst in der sauren Biosphäre leben?

Samuel
Gast
Samuel

Yeah, so does oxygen. It’s toxic when breathed in high concentrations. It’s a highly corrosive gas, like flourine (they use that to etch glass). Everything that comes into contact with O2 is corroded; O2 rusts metal, turns it to iron-oxide. It browns fruit, crumbles stones. There is ample indication that it causes cell decay and death, and even human aging. It is deadly to all plant life; they exhale it as a toxic byproduct. AS long as they have enough CO2 to breath, they live. Put them into pure O2 and they rapidly die. O2 is flammable; fire is just… Weiterlesen »

Alexander Tierney
Gast
Alexander Tierney

Es in ein anderes Element verwandeln, was?

John Mackay
Gast
John Mackay

Hardly ‘Ripped to Shreds’ ? but pretty good argument for CO2.
Vereinbartes Leben wird überleben, aber wie steht es mit menschlichem Leben?
John

Dawes
Gast
Dawes

‘Ripped to Shreds’ – agree… if everything is so dire, why does history lie? (ps: history doesn’t lie)

Notice how all those ‘pro’ leaders have shares in wind and solar companies… #conflictofinterest

Frank
Gast
Frank

It’s hard (impossible?) to argue with the rationale he puts out in this argument, but the greater threat then surely is income inequality and the destruction of the earth’s finite resources for purely financial gain that only benefits the 1%. And that’s to say nothing of the poisoning of waterways, lands, forests, etc., through strip mining; gold, zinc or copper extraction; overfishing; monocultures; destruction of threatened species through hunting or destruction of habitat; destruction of rainforests and other forests; the spread of non-native species across various ecosystems (cane toads and rabbits in Australia; Eastern North American bullfrongs in western North… Weiterlesen »

Patrick Wood

If you are worried about the 1% raping the planet today, just wait for the real plundering to begin. These are the same people who are bringing us the global warming fear mongering in order to drive us into Sustainable Development, or “Green Economy”. Sustainable Development fully intends to take over the means of production and consumption, meaning they will tell you what you are allowed to make and also what you are allowed to consume. This, my friend, will result in all-out Scientific Dictatorship of the kind warned about by Huxley (Brave New World) and Orwell (1984).

Marc
Gast
Marc

I was once an Al Gore enthusiast. Now I think he should be tried for crimes against humanity – not because of this article, but because he so blatantly lied to us all for his (and those of his corporate buddies’) own gain with his Inconvenient Truth movie. I should have known that anything a politician gets behind so vehemently is never in our best interest. He followed his part of the script to a tee and got most of the Democrats to back him hook, line and sinker without people ever checking his facts. It is unfortunate that a… Weiterlesen »

Don MacAlpine
Gast

In November 1995, I was well on my way to making a decision to leave the comfortable salary as a ‘professional forester scientist’. I was working inside government offices in Ontario, Canada. Seeing Patrick Moore appear on a stage at an international conference on ‘the Boreal Forests’ cemented my desire to leave the lying government offices. I had to write about the deliberate lying that comes from all sides. At that conference, Mr. Moore spoke on behalf of the Forest Industry in much of the same manner he does here. There were Greenpeace and other ‘environmentalist’ representatives yelling in the… Weiterlesen »

Patrick Wood

I leave your comment here for all to see and ponder, but I will ask you: Do you have a crystal ball that you can prove there is a “pending disaster” that will devastate the masses of human populations? No, you do not and no, you cannot. Why should we trust computer models that are being fed corrupted data to determine our future? We should not. With all of the data scandals already revealed, so-called Climate Science is nothing more than pseudo-science. A shaman or witchdoctor could forecast the future just as well.

Mary Anne Z. O'Sullivan
Gast
Mary Anne Z. O'Sullivan

Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG) of the Earth’s weather MUST stop or nothing else matters. No one in government, military or in any position of influence will even acknowledge this ongoing activity (since 1990’s or earlier) nor do they consider its detrimental influence (publicly) when reporting the progress of global climate change. All that is considered openly or spoken of is the same old officially approved line that states ad nauseam, “Climate change is due to carbon emissions from fossil fuels and other ordinary human activities.” The phony pretense of scientists such as David Keith and others who continually claim ?geo-engineering… Weiterlesen »

Dale Greer
Gast
Dale Greer

Finally he starts getting into “science”:

“I accept that most of the rise from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions with the possibility that some of it is due to outgassing from warming of the oceans.”

This is where I stopped reading, because we know where the CO2 comes from. We’re currently burning nearly cubic miles of oil equivalent each year, which is enough to increase CO2 levels by about 4-5 ppm. Actually atmospheric CO2 doesn’t rise by as much CO2 as we produce, probably because some of it is absorbed in the oceans.

Duncan
Gast
Duncan

Klingt nach jemandem mit einer Axt zum Mahlen.

Patrick Wood

Nein, hier ist eine Axt zum Schleifen: Obama und die Global Green Army verpflichten sich, kohlenstoffbasierte Energie zu zerstören. Peabody Energy, das größte Kohleunternehmen in Amerika, hat gerade Insolvenz angemeldet. In der Zwischenzeit versprachen dieselben Leute, dass alternative Energien das enorme Energiedefizit ausgleichen würden. Jetzt stellen wir fest, dass die Solar- und Windenergieunternehmen zusammenbrechen, weil sie unmöglich Profit machen können. Also, wo bleibt uns das? Geschraubt. In der Zwischenzeit wurden die wunderschönen Wüstengebiete, in denen sich diese gigantischen Solaranlagen befinden, umweltschonend und dauerhaft vergewaltigt. Wer wird diese herausreißen… Weiterlesen »

Bennett
Gast
Bennett

Gut gemacht, Mr. Moore. Vielen Dank, dass Sie die Wahrheit über den AGW-Betrug in einer Weise gesagt haben, die die BEKANNTE Wissenschaft sowie die BS-Propaganda, die in unseren düsteren öffentlichen Schulen und Institutionen des höheren Edukashun unterrichtet wird, deutlich macht.

Verbreiten Sie das Wort, die globale Erwärmung ist eine sehr gute Sache.

jorgeb
Gast
jorgeb

Truth? It’s opinion. Just as climate change scientists cannot predict the future, neither can Dr Moore. Attempting to prove one group wrong does not automatically prove him right. Both can still be wrong. The worrying things are the trends and the impacts on peoples’ health.

Tim
Gast
Tim

It’s all an hypothesis no matter which is your area of conclusion. But Dr. Moore provides the other side of a currently very lopsided assumption brought on by the constant media based propaganda which refuses to present Dr. Moores well versed conclusions.

Anita
Gast
Anita

* Husten * HEARTLAND

Voklst
Gast
Voklst

Kein Wort, kein Blick
Auf FUKUSHIMA strömt immer noch massive Strahlung in unsere Ozeane, den Planeten, die Ozonschicht, die Oberflächenluft und in die Mischung aus CO2 und der Verbrennung fossiler Brennstoffe. Kein Wort.
Kein Blick.
Bitte in den Suchbereich von YT eingeben
‘Fukushima and Radiation leakage’
Überprüfen Sie die Daten.

Stuart
Gast

Welches ist für diesen Artikel irrelevant

Robert
Gast
Robert

Eine großartige Rede hat meine Augen für die falschen Behauptungen der Regierung geöffnet, mit denen ich lange gerechnet habe. Aber könnten Sie eine Studie darüber durchführen, wie gut oder schlecht Chemtrails für die Umwelt sind, könnten sie eine Ursache für die globale Erwärmung sein, ganz zu schweigen von der Vergiftung des Planeten und allem, was darauf liegt? danke Robert

Patrick Wood

Ausgehend von den besten Untersuchungen wurden Chemtrails entwickelt, um die Atmosphäre zu KÜHLEN, indem Sonnenlicht zurück in den Weltraum reflektiert wird. Ja, sie verursachen ernsthafte Umweltprobleme. Anscheinend glauben die Technokraten, dass der Kompromiss den erhofften Nutzen wert ist.

krustysurfer
Gast
krustysurfer

SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT ! and this guys works for the Fossil Fuels Industry now. i have read enough i cant stomach anymore. things are dying and his bunch are partly responsible for helping it along. the SRM geoengineering is Weather Weaponry which most countries vowed to never use. we are now seeing the effects as life is desiccated and short circuited….. may their weapons fall out of the skies may the Sun have a different say in the matter, a few Carrington events to make things right. Aloha

krustysurfer
Gast
krustysurfer

“Some of the world?s oil comes from my native country in the Canadian oil sands of northern Alberta. I had never worked with fossil fuel interests until I became incensed with the lies being spread about my country?s oil production in the capitals of our allies around the world. I visited the oil sands operations to find out for myself what was happening there. It is true it?s not a pretty sight when the land is stripped bare to get at the sand so the oil can be removed from it” YOU SIR ARE ON THE OIL INDUSTRY TEAT so… Weiterlesen »

rauben
Gast
rauben

Ehemaliger Direktor von Greenpeace Kanada, offenbar nicht International. Ihr Artikel ist auf diesem und einigen anderen Fronten irreführend.

How on Earth can you justify writing “Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is credible and authoritative.” when your movement of climate change deniers does everything it can to discredit climate science and its researchers?

Andrew Roberts
Gast
Andrew Roberts

Was für ein langer Artikel, vor allem über sich.
Stimmen Sie zu, dass Greenpeace von falsch informierten Radikalen entführt wurde.
Nicht einverstanden mit seiner unwissenschaftlichen Hypothese, dass der Klimawandel nicht bewiesen ist und ausschließlich auf CO2 zurückzuführen ist.

Der Klimawandel wird anhand der langfristigen durchschnittlichen Temperaturänderung nachgewiesen.

Es ist erwiesen, dass die langfristige durchschnittliche Temperaturänderung in unseren Wasserstraßen und Ozeanen viele Faktoren mit sich bringt, darunter Kunststoffe, Nanopartikel und viele andere Schadstoffe.
Die Deafforestation ist ein weiterer facettenreicher Beitrag.
Auch Methan aus der Landwirtschaft und vom Menschen, dann Wachstum in den Bereichen Verkehr, Energieverbrauch und Schwerindustrie, Klimagase und viele andere Schadstoffe, die auf diesem Planeten schneller als je zuvor zunehmen.

David
Gast
David

Den ersten gesunden Menschenverstand habe ich über die Auswirkungen von CO2 auf das Weltklima gelesen

Andrew
Gast

There is no definitive scientific proof through real-world observation that arsine would be and is a toxic atmosphere. The toxicity of Arsine has only been tested in the laboratory and there have been no real world observations of what happens to the environment when exposed to an Arsenic atmosphere, therefore it would be guesswork and alarmist to suggest that laboratory results would translate to a real world scenario, or would it? I wonder if the phrase/qualification of “real-world observation” is a political manipulative effort to discredit valid real-world science?

David Sutton
Gast
David Sutton

I would love to hear Dr. Brian Cox?s view of this speech….

Linda
Gast
Linda

Moore ist kein Wissenschaftler oder eine Legende in der Ökobewegung. Er verließ Greenpeace in den 1970er Jahren

AL
Gast
AL

thank you for SCIENCE!!! not opinion, here say or supposition… sleeping well knowing the shit storm is mostly in the mind…

Ashley Frisch
Gast
Ashley Frisch

Patrick Moore is not a climate scientists and his association with Greenpeace ended over 30 years ago. He’s now a businessman, apparently with an agenda. The fact remains that >99% of climate scientists (i.e. those who collect, analyse and publish climate data) agree that the Earth’s climate is changing due to human activities. Patrick Moore is one individual with an opinion. Please google “Scientists Warning To Humanity 2018” for an article supported by 15,000 scientists in 180 countries. For comparison, if 15,000 medical doctors warned you to get a mole removed, would you listen to them, or would you listen… Weiterlesen »

Patrick Wood

== The fact remains that >99% of climate scientists (i.e. those who collect, analyse and publish climate data) agree that the Earth?s climate is changing due to human activities

Your statistic is absolutely false. You obviously hate Patrick Moore, but don’t use sweeping false statements like this to make your point.

Thomas Mildenberger
Gast
Thomas Mildenberger

I am no climate-expert, but the arguments of Patrick Moore sound convinving. Funny though, that I couldn’t find any substantiated reply to his arguments in the internet. Could someone hint to a detailed reply to his arguments, the most convining for me being that CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa?

Patrick Wood

Suchen Sie zunächst nach Dr. Tim Ball und Dr. Willie Soon

Thomas Mildenberger
Gast
Thomas Mildenberger

Thanks, Patrick, but I was looking for the opposite opinion: Who -scientifically proves the argumentation wrong? I mean, at the end, we have 1000 scientists who have another opinion but I don’t find a reply to those arguments…

Tim
Gast
Tim

Patrick Moore is a scientist. A PhD in Ecology and Bachelor’s in forestry. His hypothesis is presented with some very plausible backing and deserves scrutiny. I would be interested in the debate in regard to his presentation.

Anthony Dowling
Gast
Anthony Dowling

Fakt: Von allen Wissenschaftlern, die sich mit diesem Thema befassen, stimmten nur ein geringer Prozentsatz dem Klimawandel zu, und 99% dieser Gruppe stimmten zu, dass die Veränderung auf menschliches Handeln zurückzuführen ist. Dieser umgerechnete Prozentsatz beträgt 97 Wissenschaftler.

Meha
Gast
Meha

Wurde jemals ein Krieg um Solarenergie geführt?

Betrachter
Gast
Betrachter

@Dr. Patrick Moore – can you direct me to the link for citations and references in your speech? Thank you!

Samuel
Gast
Samuel

I don’t believe or disbelieve his claims about CO2 and global warming (I don’t consider myself educated enough to try and judge personally), but I like the way he thinks outside the box. I am also glad to see I am not the only person who has rejected this whole “man as a poisonous alien invasive species” myth that people repeat so much today. Man is nature. We cannot escape nature. All this talk as if there was “Nature”, good, kind, perfect, and “Man”, evil, bad, opposed to nature and trying to destroy her, is ridiculous. EVERYTHING is “nature”. We… Weiterlesen »

Peter Baldwin
Gast
Peter Baldwin

Latente Hitze: Die Hitze schmilzt das Eis.
Globales Dimmen: Die Temperatur würde innerhalb weniger Wochen und nicht Tage ohne Aerosole steigen.