Former President of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change to Shreds

greenpeaceCourtesy of Wikipedia
Please Share This Story!
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.

Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?

My Lords and Ladies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you for the opportunity to set out my views on climate change. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see.

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”.

But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees. Tonight I hope to turn this dangerous human-caused propaganda on its head. Tonight I will demonstrate that human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than two million years from today.

But first a bit of background.

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.

We proved that a somewhat rag-tag looking group of activists could sail an old fishing boat across the north Pacific ocean and help change the course of history. We created a focal point for the media to report on public opposition to the tests.

[the_ad id=”11018″]

When that H-bomb exploded in November 1971, it was the last hydrogen bomb the United States ever detonated. Even though there were four more tests planned in the series, President Nixon canceled them due to the public opposition we had helped to create. That was the birth of 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.

When I left Greenpeace I vowed to develop an environmental policy that was based on science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, anti-humanism and fear. In a classic example, a recent protest led by Greenpeace in the Philippines used the skull and crossbones to associate Golden Rice with death, when in fact Golden Rice has the potential to help save 2 million children from death due to vitamin A deficiency every year.

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?

And then there is the actual immense pile of filth fed to us more than three times daily by the green-media nexus, a seething cauldron of imminent doom, like we are already condemned to Damnation in Hell and there is little chance of Redemption. I fear for the end of the Enlightenment. I fear an intellectual Gulag with Greenpeace as my prison guards.

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.

The Devonian Period beginning 400 million years ago marked the culmination of the invasion of life onto the land. Plants evolved to produce lignin, which in combination with cellulose, created wood which in turn for the first time allowed plants to grow tall, in competition with each other for sunlight. As vast forests spread across the land living biomass increased by orders of magnitude, pulling down carbon as CO2 from the atmosphere to make wood. Lignin is very difficult to break down and no decomposer species possessed the enzymes to digest it. Trees died atop one another until they were 100 metres or more in depth. This was the making of the great coal beds around the world as this huge store of sequestered carbon continued to build for 90 million years. Then, fortunately for the future of life, white rot fungi evolved to produce the enzymes that can digest lignin and coincident with that the coal-making era came to an end.

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.

Looking at the past 50,000 years of temperature and CO2 we can see that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. This is as one could expect, as the Milankovitch cycles are far more likely to cause a change in temperature than a change in CO2. And a change in the temperature is far more likely to cause a change in CO2 due to outgassing of CO2 from the oceans during warmer times and an ingassing (absorption) of CO2 during colder periods. Yet climate alarmists persist in insisting that CO2 is causing the change in temperature, despite the illogical nature of that assertion.

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.

At the height of the last glaciation the sea level was about 120 metres lower than it is today. By 7,000 years ago all the low-altitude, mid-latitude glaciers had melted. There is no consensus about the variation in sea level since then although many scientists have concluded that the sea level was higher than today during the Holocene Thermal optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago when the Sahara was green. The sea level may also have been higher than today during the Medieval Warm Period.

Hundred of islands near the Equator in Papua, Indonesia, have been undercut by the sea in a manner that gives credence to the hypothesis that there has been little net change in sea level in the past thousands of years. It takes a long time for so much erosion to occur from gentle wave action in a tropical sea.

Coming back to the relationship between temperature and CO2 in the modern era we can see that temperature has risen at a steady slow rate in Central England since 1700 while human CO2 emissions were not relevant until 1850 and then began an exponential rise after 1950. This is not indicative of a direct causal relationship between the two. After freezing over regularly during the Little Ice Age the River Thames froze for the last time in 1814, as the Earth moved into what might be called the Modern Warm Period.

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.

Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and is the only molecule that is present in the atmosphere in all three states, gas, liquid, and solid. As a gas, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but as a liquid and solid it is not. As a liquid water forms clouds, which send solar radiation back into space during the day and hold heat in at night. There is no possibility that computer models can predict the net effect of atmospheric water in a higher CO2 atmosphere. Yet warmists postulate that higher CO2 will result in positive feedback from water, thus magnifying the effect of CO2 alone by 2-3 times. Other scientists believe that water may have a neutral or negative feedback on CO2. The observational evidence from the early years of this century tends to reinforce the latter hypothesis.

How many politicians or members of the media or the public are aware of this statement about climate change from the IPCC in 2007?

we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

There is a graph showing that the climate models have grossly exaggerated the rate of warming that confirms the IPCC statement. The only trends the computer models seem able to predict accurately are ones that have already occurred.

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.

The vast majority of the carbon dioxide that originated in the atmosphere has been sequestered and stored quite permanently in carbonaceous rocks where it cannot be used as food by plants.

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”.

The past 150 million years has seen a steady drawing down of CO2 from the atmosphere. There are many components to this but what matters is the net effect, a removal on average of 37,000 tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year for 150 million years. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced by about 90% during this period. This means that volcanic emissions of CO2 have been outweighed by the loss of carbon to calcium carbonate sediments on a multi-million year basis.

If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive. If plants die all the animals, insects, and other invertebrates that depend on plants for their survival will also die.

How long will it be at the present level of CO2 depletion until most or all of life on Earth is threatened with extinction by lack of CO2 in the atmosphere?

During this Pleistocene Ice Age, CO2 tends to reach a minimum level when the successive glaciations reach their peak. During the last glaciation, which peaked 18,000 years ago, CO2 bottomed out at 180 ppm, extremely likely the lowest level CO2 has been in the history of the Earth. This is only 30 ppm above the level that plants begin to die. Paleontological research has demonstrated that even at 180 ppm there was a severe restriction of growth as plants began to starve. With the onset of the warmer interglacial period CO2 rebounded to 280 ppm.  But even today, with human emissions causing CO2 to reach 400 ppm plants are still restricted in their growth rate, which would be much higher if CO2 were at 1000-2000 ppm.

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?

If we assume human emissions have to date added some 200 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, even if we ceased using fossil fuels today we have already bought another 5 million years for life on earth. But we will not stop using fossil fuels to power our civilization so it is likely that we can forestall plant starvation for lack of CO2 by at least 65 million years. Even when the fossil fuels have become scarce we have the quadrillion tons of carbon in carbonaceous rocks, which we can transform into lime and CO2 for the manufacture of cement. And we already know how to do that with solar energy or nuclear energy. This alone, regardless of fossil fuel consumption, will more than offset the loss of CO2 due to calcium carbonate burial in marine sediments. Without a doubt the human species has made it possible to prolong the survival of life on Earth for more than 100 million years. We are not the enemy of nature but its salvation.

As a postscript I would like to make a few comments about the other side of the alleged dangerous climate change coin, our energy policy, in particular the much maligned fossil fuels; coal, oil, and natural gas.

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.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

A lot of nasty things are said about fossil fuels even though they are largely responsible for our longevity, our prosperity, and our comfortable lifestyles.

Hydrocarbons, the energy components of fossil fuels, are 100% organic, as in organic chemistry. They were produced by solar energy in ancient seas and forests. When they are burned for energy the main products are water and CO2, the two most essential foods for life. And fossil fuels are by far the largest storage battery of direct solar energy on Earth. Nothing else comes close except nuclear fuel, which is also solar in the sense that it was produced in dying stars.

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?

The art and science of ecological restoration, or reclamation as it is called in the mining industry, is a well-established practice. The land is re-contoured, the original soil is put back, and native species of plants and trees are established. It is possible, by creating depressions where the land was flat, to increase biodiversity by making ponds and lakes where wetland plants, insects, and waterfowl can become established in the reclaimed landscape.

The tailings ponds where the cleaned sand is returned look ugly for a few years but are eventually reclaimed into grasslands. The Fort McKay First Nation is under contract to manage a herd of bison on a reclaimed tailings pond. Every tailings pond will be reclaimed in a similar manner when operations have been completed.

As an ecologist and environmentalist for more than 45 years this is good enough for me. The land is disturbed for a blink of an eye in geological time and is then returned to a sustainable boreal forest ecosystem with cleaner sand. And as a bonus we get the fuel to power our weed-eaters, scooters, motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, trains, and aircraft.

To conclude, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the stuff of life, the staff of life, the currency of life, indeed the backbone of life on Earth.

I am honoured to have been chosen to deliver your annual lecture.

Thank you for listening to me this evening.

I hope you have seen CO2 from a new perspective and will join with me to Celebrate CO2!

Read the full speech here…

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Brooks

Great to see some facts opposing the home brewed computer models assumed to be science.


Bruh science is homebrew computer models


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)… Read more »


>>>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… Read more »

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

Then let us be sustainable, to be sustainable and conserve our energy we need to begin reversing the trend called de-skilling, and use our own hands for good instead of war, that the bullets, bombs and bank crews in the City of London get very rich upon and we get very dead and very poor doing their dirty work.

Jesus is the only person coming back very soon.


Roni Sylvester

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… Read more »


Patrick Moore is a shill for Monsanto. If you haven’t seen the clip of him saying Monsanto Roundup is safe to drink, you should check it out.

Allan Smith

I thought these facts would have been quite obvious to any moderately educated person.


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


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… Read more »

Davy Stephenson

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


The argument is that CO2 is not a pollutant, not that there are no pollutants, such as fallout from Nuclear testing, and other components of tailpipe exhaust.


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… Read more »


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… Read more »

Graham Howlett

Mate, really good response. Balanced and realistic.


In fact what is explained in the article is that CO2 can NOT be the cause of ‘global warming’ because CO2 and temperature increase have an INVERSE relationship ie the temperature increase COMES FIRST and only AFTER this do CO2 levels rise.
Why? The rising temperatures (a consequence of natural cyclical variations in sunspot levels of activity)allow an increase in CO2 levels AND THAT’S A GOOD THING!


You are absolutely right on all of your points. And, I am a retired physics instructor with an academic preparation in geophysics and physical oceanography. The climate change hoax is being used to achieve another agenda too lengthy to discuss here. Thank you for making the point that CO2 is a good thing. Without enough of it, the plankton in the ocean would die and so would our supply of atmospheric oxygen.


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.


This is entirely true, CO2 will get balanced.
But wait a minute, because of deforestation, it might not be.

As I understand the article
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 😉


There is actually more greenery on the planet now than in the past 20 years due to increased planting efforts in China and India.


Forest sequestration of carbon may seem like the largest sink of carbon, but in reality phytoplankton in the ocean, covering over two thirds of the worlds surface, are the largest carbon sink. Even assuming deforestation is having an impact, it is a minor part of the global biogeochemical carbon cycle. About 70% of the carbon dioxide used by plants is taken up by oceanic phytoplankton.


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

Try 600 plus parts per million in commercial greenhouses and still nobody dies as yet.
Then try the biotope experiments of old and check the figures, especially where the concrete was storing the plant gas.


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.… Read more »

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… Read more »

Mark Pugner

Deny, denier, denial, believe, belief, believer are NOT science terms.


Great article apart from his promotion of gm crops and fracking.


He didn’t mention gm crops…

mark gomez

“golden rice “

Darran blyth

Still trying to figure out how using technology to feed starving people is a problem. Pro GMO

Patrick Wood

There are huge problems with GMO in general; many unintended consequences that are NOT good for animal or human.

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

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… Read more »

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.


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… Read more »


The real threat of GMO is to biodiversity


How about if we actually allow nature to take it’s course as in the wild. If the west would discontinue being an overflow valve for those countries which overbreed and the world would shrink the population to a more sustainable level, ignoring the dire warnings of the economic doomsayers, the world could sustain the population at a livable and comfortable level of living.

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… Read more »


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

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.


If there is no man made climate change then there is no one world governing body to help us fight it by controlling every human beings life. That’s of course for those human beings who are snuffed out to fight climate change.

Dr Nicholas Ashley

Ah, a clear voice of reason, and a calm one too. I really do wonder just how scientifically educated the climatologists are? I do take one small exception regarding lignin and the Carboniferous period. Atmospheric oxygen was around 32%. There is evidence of huge and catastrophic forest fires no doubt due to lightening strikes coupled with the high oxygen content. Thus white rot fungi were not the saviours of life on Earth per se. Chemistry and physics was. Climatologists should also study physics, especially the mathematics of black body radiation. It should be mandatory.

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… Read more »


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… Read more »


Then how do you explain the existence of fresh water shellfish as they live in acidic biosphere to start with.


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… Read more »

Alexander Tierney

Transforming it into a different element, huh ?

john mackay

Hardly ‘Ripped to Shreds’ 🙂 but pretty good argument for CO2.
Agreed life will survive, but how about human life?


‘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


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… Read more »

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).


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… Read more »

Don MacAlpine

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… Read more »

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

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… Read more »

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.


Sounds like someone with an axe to grind.

Patrick Wood

No, here is an axe to grind: Obama and the Global Green Army pledge to destroy carbon-based energy. Already, the largest coal company in America, Peabody Energy, just declared bankruptcy. In the meantime, the same people promised that alternative energy would make up the huge energy deficit. Now we find out that the solar and wind energy companies are collapsing because they cannot possibly make a profit. So, where does that leave us? Screwed. In the meantime, the beautiful desert areas that contain these gigantes solar plants have been environmentally and permanently raped. Who is going to tear out these… Read more »


Well done, Mr. Moore. Thank you for speaking the truth about the AGW scam in a way that clearly lays out the KNOWN science, as well as the BS propaganda being taught in our dismal public schools and institutions of higher edukashun.

Spread the word, global warming is a very good thing.


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.


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.




Not a word, Not a peep
On FUKUSHIMA still leaking massive radiation into our oceans, planet, ozone layer, surfacial air and in the mix of CO2 and burning of fossil fuels. Not a word.
Not a peep.
Plz put into the search area of YT
‘Fukushima and Radiation leakage’
Check the dates.


Which is irrelevant to this article


Great speech it has opened my eyes to the false government claims I have long expected. But could you do a study on how Chemtrails are good or bad for the environment, could they be a cause for global warming, not to mention poisoning the planet and everything on it. thanks Robert

Patrick Wood

From the best investigations, chemtrails are designed to COOL the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight back into space. Yes, they are creating serious environmental problems. Technocrats apparently believe the tradeoff is worth the hoped-for benefits.


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


“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… Read more »


Former director of Greenpeace Canada, not International, apparently. Your article is misleading on that and several other fronts.

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

What a long article, primarily about himself. Agree that Greenpeace has been hijacked by misinformed radicals. Disagree with his unscientific hypothesis that Climate Change is unproven and solely attributed to CO2. Climate Change is proven from long term average temperature change. Long term average temperature change has been proven to have many contributory agents, including plastic, nanoparticles and many other pollutants in our waterways and oceans. Deafforestation is another multi-faceted contributor. Also methane from agriculture and humans, then growth in transport, energy use & heavy industry, airconditioner gases and many other pollutants increasing at a faster rate than ever before… Read more »


The first piece of common sense I have read on the effects of CO2 on the worlds climate


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

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


Moore is not a scientist or a legend in the eco-movement. He left Greenpeace in the 1970s


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

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… Read more »

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

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

Search for Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Willie Soon for starters

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…


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

Fact: Out of all the scientists who have some involvement in this topic only a small % agreed with climate change and of this group 99% agreed the change is due to human activities. That percentage converted is 97 scientists.


It seems to me the answer is to reduce the world population by 3 or 4 billion!


Has a war ever been fought over solar power?


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


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… Read more »

Peter Baldwin

Latent heat: the heat is going into melting the ice.
Global dimming: the temp would go up within weeks of not days without aerosols.


At an elite dinner the elite environmentalists told economist Martin Armstrong that ‘climate change is not about the environment – its really about DE-populating humanity.’ (Armstrong revealed this to his readers and clients as he was appalled). Rockefeller’s CLUB OF ROME of which Al Gore is a member was set up to DE-populate the planet. In looking for ‘a global enemy to unite all the nations of the world’, the environmental boogey man was chosen, to “SAVE THE PLANET”. The purpose why Global Warming CO2 boogeyman is essential to promote regardless of facts, is that it is needed to JUSTIFY… Read more »

Guy Lakeman

Helpful lecture and thanks 🙂
It is also important to note that human problems are by design and copying the wrong leads
Trees capture carbon dioxide for food in forests of close trees
Humans capture carbon dioxide in cities of close buildings to suffocate themselves in some idiotic mass suicide on their urban heat islands that initiate nearby weather extremes on themselves
We in the rural areas and ocean areas of the southern hemisphere live with clean air an healthy growth


please see my Christmas lecture re climate etc on Linkedin