A co-founder of Greenpeace tells the truth on CO2

Dr. Patrick Moore, who was one of the original founders of Greenpeace who left the organization in disgust of their current political zealotry, and Greenpeace is now trying to have him erased from history for daring to do that. He has now produced this interesting video in conjunction with with Prager University that is sure to put some people into conniption fits.

Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate. 

272 thoughts on “A co-founder of Greenpeace tells the truth on CO2

  1. You’ve got a duplication in the above post: Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
    [thanks, fixed -mod]

    • Nice to see he is still around, in spite of the attempts to “disappear” him.
      (Making inconvenient people disappear is standard practice. Thomas Paine was “disappeared” from the popularised, Disneyfied, versions of United States history for quite a while, even though he practically invented the country. I don’t know whether this was because of his opposition to Christianity, the socialist flavour of his writings on social justice, or the critical open letter to GeorgeWashington.
      But they never airbrushed him out of the group photos of the founding fathers.)

  2. A brilliant presentation – succinct and clear. Too bad he will never get air play on the mainstream media which seemingly backs the CAGW hoax.

  3. Good one, Dr. Patrick. We need more of these. Maybe one to show that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is not ~25% as a lot of people believe. Video is simple and concise, with good graphics.
    Now to get it into the MSM – lol (lots of luck) with that. I will share on my Facebook.

    • It’s worse than believing in 25% CO2 today: If one asks High School beginner classes in science courses to guess which gas is with nearly 80 % most abundant in the air, the majority of students will say CO2 instead of Nitrogen. If they hear the truth (only about 0,04% CO2) many of them look quite astonished. This reveals rather shockingly the intensive and successful CAGW brain washing of those kids in kindergarten and primary school today.

      • If they hear the truth (only about 0,04% CO2) many of them look quite astonished.

        But, as Patrick Moore explains in the video, without that 0.04% the earth would be a dead planet. It’s about time we stopped this nonsense about CO2 only being a small proportion of the atmosphere so it can’t have any effect. It can and does. It’s clear from spectra viewed from space that CO2 is highly relevant with respect to absorption of LWIR.

      • Mr. Finn,
        Who said it cannot have any effect?
        Some say that whatever effect it has is minimal, some say warming is not a bad thing, and there seems to be a lively debate regarding whether the atmosphere cools or warms the surface, whether CO2 backradiation can possibly warm the ocean, and other such details.
        But no one says that CO2 does not absorb and emit certain bands of infrared.
        How about we stop the nonsense that unless we return the Earth to the conditions that prevailed during the little ice age, the oceans will boil, and we are all going to die of heat…right before we drown.
        Or how about we get everyone to cut out the BS malarkey about how if the frozen wastelands at the to and bottom of the world get any warmer, humans cannot survive on what will be a cinder of a planet? How about that?
        Or how about we just cut out all the alarmist warmista jackassery altogether, and call it a day?
        I am good with that option, too.
        How about we spend the $29 billion per year that is spent studying a settled science on studying real problems, or solving real emergencies? Instead of making up a fake boogeyman, blaming every conceivable problem on the Earth on that boogeyman, and accusing anyone who hates lies of not caring about the planet?

      • @John Finn
        To made my point of view clear:
        1) I stated here on wuwt quite often: CO2 is the GAS OF LIFE ! Thus I claim it’s very important indeed, but I think there is rather to little than to much in the atmosphere now, given that only 20 ka before our century plant life nearly perished with only 180 ppm.
        2) I think, CO2 has some warming effect due to its LWIR absorption properties but believe that its climate sensitivity is only somewhere between 0.5 – 1.5 degrees because the feedbacks are likely more negative than positive. (BTW: With strong positive feedbacks, we wouldn’t be here today… 😉
        3) I’m rather sure, that the mild warming which we can expect from rising CO2 by fossil fuel burning will be a benefit for Earth and Life. The real danger for mankind would be the return of a little ice age, or even worse, a full blown ice age.
        But when many school kids believe today that CO2 is the most abundant gas in atmosphere, we see that the endless “CO2 is a dangerous pollutant which will destroy the planet soon – scare mongering” – has crossed the border of usual stupidity long ago…

      • John Finn
        No-one said the 0.04% CO2 has no effect. It does. The “effect” is called life.

  4. I still am wondering why the NASA OCO-2 team and associated researchers haven’t released any more global data pictures.
    The only full presentation publicly released so far was the initial one last December:
    Are they seeing things that refute/weakens the Climate Change dogma of a manmade GHGs? Which if they existed of course must not be allowed to see the light of day, especially heading into Paris COP15. This complete lack of trust in NASA’s and NOAA’s integrity on climate change issues is their own doing. The damage to their reputation will be severe when the extent of their temp data manipulations is fully exposed. Does it now extend to CO2 data?

      • It now appears (as I predicted last year) that the purpose of OCO-2 was to pave the way for OCO-3, 4, 5, an on-going forever program, it is really all about JPL/NASA future funding. OCO-2 does in fact have the capability, if all the pure raw data were made available, to seriously damage the anthropogenic apocalypse hypothesis…

      • vonborks,
        While OCO-2 data collection needs to continue for decades so that we may better understand the carbon cycle on Earth over longer periods, is disagree with your OCO-2 premise that this a just a “self-licking ice cream cone”. The Climate modelers are an example of models for modeller’s sake with no scientific value (political value for sure though), i.e they are “self-licking ice cream cones”.
        As an erratta to my top-level comment, it should read “COP21” not 15.

    • I still am wondering why the NASA OCO-2 team and associated researchers haven’t released any more global data pictures.
      The only full presentation publicly released so far was the initial one last December:

      Good question. The map shows most of the CO2 emissions to be in the Southern Hemisphere where there are far fewer people, cars, and less fossil fuel burning, apart from a blob over NE China, than in the Northern Hemisphere, yet most of the warming seems to be in the Northern Hemisphere—0.7dC(NH) vs 0.38dC(SH).
      Maybe CO2, mankind, vehicles and fossil fuel consumption are not The Cause…
      Or, the data—ah, satellite— is obviously wrong.

      • Probably due to termites. They produce an awful lot of CO2. Electronic termite detectors actually measure CO2.

      • Could it be due to the time of year of the data collection, i.e. fall in the Northern Hemi. and spring in the Southern Hemi. ??? Just a thought that may be wrong.

      • What kind of computer hack wrote this document? Hopefully not another English major.
        “The following set of tools can be used to open and examine this HDF-5 product on Linux systems”
        Really what “Linux” system? Forget versions, can it be processed on the over 800 Linux distros know to have existed?
        What a joke that our tax money goes to pay for this nonsense.

      • There is no vertical scale presented for the graphs in the examples presented in the Bloomberg article display.
        The thing that CAGW proponents fail to explain is the slope of the GISS land ocean temperature graph from circa 1910 to 1940 and the leveling off from 1940 to 1970 and the almost duplicate increase (1910-1940) from 1970 to 2000. As I understand the data, CO2 did not increase very much before about the 1950’s. So, what caused the run up from 1910 to 1940, if it wasn’t natural causes. The models mentioned do not predict the GISS temperature graph. What gives?
        The other problem with the presented data is that it doesn’t take into account the urban heat island effects on the temperature record, or the effects that cosmic rays vs. sun’s magnetic field has on the cloud formation/cooling of the earth, which may prove to be a very big natural cause. The ocean temperature oscillations/phases are not mentioned except for a brief reference to El Ninos, with no plot dedicated to them or their effect.
        So, if I understand your position, I think you and GISS may need to go back to the drawing board, until you understand and can explain ALL the natural factors, which factor into the complex system known as the Earth’s climate.
        If the model results do not predict reality, they are wrong. It is just that simple.

  5. Thank you. Less than 5 minutes to explain why CO2 is life-giving… without it we are all dead. Simples.
    When will the so-called climate scientists just shut up and do some honest science?

  6. Should we use word “organic” to mean carbon in our talks. Organic chemistry is carbon based chemistry though basic C and CO2 are considered inorganic. Hydrocarbons are surely organic. So oil is an organic fuel.
    Methane and other carbohydrates are found from other planets in our solar systems though fossils are not. So, let’s talk about organic fuels instead of fossil fuels. Carbon pollution is then organic pollution if someone wants to use that meme.

    • I want to use that meme and I will. It should be pretty handy to confuse Progs who are proud of “going organic”.

      • Mick, I got a chuckle out of your comment, but you don’t need a synthetic molecule to make the point. Botulism, conotoxins, cholera, and typhoid fever are all “natural” and “organic”.

  7. Couple of nitpicks on the video.
    – Plankton was mentioned as a CO2 consumer, but a krill was shown in grphic cartoon. Krill are on the next step up in the ocean food chain from plankton.
    – The Cambrian Explosion was not the birth of multicellular organisms. The Cambrian explosion was a rapid diversification and radial expansion of many different types of body type organization patterns in complex life form development.

    • Sorry, graphics folks not plankton morphology experts. Technically the Cambrian was birth of tissue differentiation. Multicellular life before that was just chains of identical cells. Cambrian was fundamental to modern life species.

  8. The important thing that no one mentions, specially those who sell cars, is that from the burning of fossil fuels, out of exhaust tubes, comes out a whole lot more than just CO2.
    In fact, CO2 should be the least of our worries compared with the other emissions, like oils and heavy metals.
    Don’t like CO2? Good, do us all a favor and kill yourself, just by living you are, at least (if sedentary), exhaling 1 Kg daily.

    • La Pirula Roja

      Don’t like CO2? Good, do us all a favor and kill yourself, just by living you are, at least (if sedentary), exhaling 1 Kg daily.

      Hmmmmn. Have you sterilized yourself, your family, your parents and all of your brothers and sisters yet? Are YOU living in a mud hut in central Africa with no power, lights, heat, air conditioning, and no internet access for your rock tools and wood-and-dung fire?
      (Oh. Wait. You DO have internet access. Must be one of those powered by a lodestone twirled inside a copper bowl you mined with a pickax made with a stone-tip and wood-handled shafts tied by a hand-dried leather strap you harvested by killing an innocent animal.

    • Remember however, that modern cars exhaust significantly less nasties than older cars did. You can’t even kill yourself by running the tail pipe emissions in through your window anymore. Not enough CO…
      Cars aren’t the villains they used to be in the 70s…

      • “Not enough CO”
        I wouldn’t count on it unless there’s been a dramatic, reliable improvement in fuel combustion technology in the past 20 years. Maybe there has been such an improvement, but I still wouldn’t trust having an idling car in my closed garage.
        Hemoglobin gathers CO at ~200 x the rate it takes up O2 – they compete for the same site on the hemoglobin molecule – so you don’t need a very high ambient concentration of CO for it to be toxic – 0.1% CO gives you a usually lethal result, because it effectively reduces your Oxygen supply to 50% of normal, when pO2 in your blood would be ~27 vs normal of >90 [the relationship of pO2 to what hemoglobin can carry is not linear, so at pO2=27 hemoglobin still is 50% saturated with O2 but that’s usually not enough – I did see on guy with that level who lived!]

        • I understand how carbon monoxide toxicity works. I didn’t say it’s healthy or advisable to hook up your snorkel to the tailpipe. But your caveat is true: emissions profiles are very different now. It’s not a sure thing anymore, and suicidal people are turning to other means of CO procurement. Faulty old gas heaters are an accidental source. Grilling in a garage when it rains (yes, really)… the usual…

      • “You can’t even kill yourself by running the tail pipe emissions in through your window anymore”
        Hmmm, don’t let the eco nutters in on this gem, they will repeal all tailpipe emissions laws just to get the suicide count up to meet their agenda 21 targets.

      • You can’t even kill yourself by running the tail pipe emissions in through your window anymore.

        I knew someone who offed themselves a couple of years ago and the car was almost new.

      • Nutty Professor, who reads this list, surveyed poor township shack populations for CO exposure from burning coke indoors in buckets. He found homes with CO levels of 1600 ppm (0.16%) and people living like that.
        It shows that the body can learn to tolerate much more CO than is sometimes expected. I can’t recommend it, but this is the reality.
        In a garage with a running car the CO2 will kill you very quickly s well. We exhale CO at a rate of about 1.6% of our rate of CO2 exhalation. In a crowded room or overturned Posidon the CO2 level goes up 60 times faster than the CO.

      • Yeah, I highly recommend that no one test this idea that modern cars will not kill a person if the exhaust is vented into a closed space.

        • Ok, I guess I have to spell things out completely or risk rampant malicious point-missing. It is not healthy or smart to vent your tailpipe into your closed up car. The displacement of oxygen alone, in an ideally sealed space, would eventually be deadly.
          Car emissions, thanks to catalytic converters and endless other improvements, are far cleaner than they were in the time in which car-haters seem stuck. And the once-reliable method of suicide is no longer reliable, because the level of CO in emissions has dropped dramatically.
          Hating cars doesn’t save the planet. Driving cars doesn’t destroy the planet.

      • It’s the carbon monoxide that kills you when you suck the tail pipe no? still just as effective as ever.

        • No, Michael, it isn’t. In my profession, I occasionally respond to car-exhaust suicides. Late model car? Dead. Newer car? Choking and coughing, snotty, blood-shot eyes, but alive. Not always, of course. But before, it was never. Do you see the distinction?

    • “just by living you are, at least (if sedentary), exhaling 1 Kg daily”
      I tried calculating that figure for the average CO2 exhalation of an average person on earth per day – making many wild “sounds about right” guesses about what an average person was and what they were doing – and got exactly 1 Kg! I’ve read that the Gov’t quotes 900 gm./day, but have never found how it or anyone else calculated it. Maybe it was measured?
      I also calculated that a heavily exercising person could produce about 1 pound = 454 gm. of CO2/hr.

      • I read somewhere that body fat is turned into oxygen and CO2 by an excersising body, it was some huge amount of exhaled CO2 per Kg of body fat, at the moment obese people are sequestering a lot of CO2, greenies will be targeting joggers and gyms next with a polution tax, hey perhaps we can get a rebate if we are overweight, bring on those big mac’s i have to do my part in saving the world.

      • “Bubba Cow July 28, 2015 at 3:41 pm”
        Thanks, it looks interesting and gives CO2 a good name vs CO2-Climate Science!

    • My climate skepticism was prodded into existence back in the mid 90s by just this point. CO2 fertilization is so obviously definitely a benefit, yet there was no mention of that fact by the official organs of our public culture.
      The real turning point for me, was that after many years of waiting for some acknowledgement of the benefits of CO2 as a plant fertilizer, I finally did see such a story. What was the context? Poison Ivy! Because of increased CO2 Poison Ivy is going to grow faster! Bad, bad, we should therefore all be climate alarmists.
      At that point you’ve got to see. The main stream media and government sponsored science have little interest in being objective. They begin their thinking with alarmist conclusions, and the data is folded, spindled and mutilated to fit the narrative.

      • I saw that too! Summer of ’07 in a Toronto paper. I asked my girl why not ALL plant life, she scratched her head…

  9. When CO2 increases in the atmosphere the earth heats up. Even this dude doesn’t dispute that. He says CO2 is put into greenhouses to warm them and boost growth (during cool climates I might add). This is why it is called the greenhouse gas effect. The CO2 being released from the accurately named fossil fuels have been stored over billions of years from a time when oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere were too low to support human life. Oxygen concentration is currently decreasing in the atmosphere as the result of green house gas emission. CO2 is important to plant growth, but not to human growth. He has very carefully avoided all points that contradict his misguided speech. Climate change is very real. There is just no motivation for a climate change conspiracy. It’s a stupid idea.

    • Adam

      Oxygen concentration is currently decreasing in the atmosphere as the result of green house gas emission.

      Care to calculate that lie – that exaggeration – you are promoting?

      • No Problem:
        O2 – 21% of atmosphere
        CO2 – 20 ppm anthropogenic contribution, depleted O2 1:1 mole to mole
        21% – 20ppm = 21.0 – 0.00002 = 20.99998% O2
        OMG – We are all going to suffocate! It’s Worse Than We Thought (TM)

      • CO2 would not displace just O2, but also N2, Ar and trace gases. In fact, since O2 and Ar are more massive than N2, nitrogen should be the molecule most shoved around by the beefy CO2 intruder. Not to mention wimpy H2O.
        Meanwhile, the greener world, thanks to more abundant CO2, should be producing more oxygen.

    • CO2 is essential to human physiology – managing both respiration and acid/base balance – without which there would be no human growth

    • Adam Show your proof that Oxygen is decreasing. That statement makes no sense. As more Carbon dioxide is entered into the atmosphere plant life increases producing more oxygen (this is why the dinosaurs were so big). As was stated in the video we are living in a low carbon dioxide timeframe (and lower oxygen) than for much of earths history of life on earth. Typically Carbon Dioxide will drop during ice ages when much of the plant and animal life dies reducing the oxygen/carbon dioxide volume as the oceans stop outgasing and carry more gases in solution, due to the colder temperatures.

    • CO2 is not put into greenhouses to warm them. It’s put in there to boost plant growth. Plants grow best at a CO2 level of around 3000 to 4000 PPM. They grow faster and are much more drought-resistant. Plants were essentially starving at the pre-industrial level of < 300 PPM. And, plant growth ceases entirely at about 150 PPM.
      CO2 levels during the Carboniferous era were many times higher than they are now, but the temperature was roughly the same as now. Over the eons all that CO2 got sequestered in coal seams, shale oil deposits, corals, chalk, limestone and marble from the huge explosion of life that resulted from the abundance of CO2. Yet we never had a climate tipping point that made us end up like Venus.
      As he states, we are already seeing the positive effects of just a little more CO2 in the atmosphere in a greener earth. If you are worried about oxygen depletion, ask yourself where that oxygen came from in the first place. Hint: it wasn't animals or volcanoes.

      • Lee: Don’t you see that Adam is one of those trolls is only concerned with the political meme of global warming and whenever he tries to show off all his “sciencey” knowledge falls way short. But by his understanding “the science is settled” and all you crazy people that don’t buy that must be some kind of retards that he is free to disdainfully dismiss with his grade school comprehension of issues in science. Sort of reminds me of the entry made trying to refute Dr. Spencer over at Skeptical Science wherein the commentator didn’t understand that human respiration involved the conversion of complex organic compounds in the presence of oxygen resulting in carbon dioxide. “Humans only exhale the carbon dioxide they inhale” is the exact quote as I remember.

        • Should we keep it a secret then plant cells respire, just like ours, all the time? They only photosynthesize in the presence of light. Of course they put out far more O2 than CO2, on balance…
          Trees cause global warming. RUN!

      • IMO the benefit of added CO2 for most if not all plants reaches diminishing returns around 1300 ppm. That’s the maximum level used in commercial greenhouses, but many lower, ie about 1000 ppm.
        But I’d welcome being shown wrong.

        • My bad. I should have more accurately stated ‘prior to the Carboniferous era’. I was trying to make the point that it was the huge explosion of plant and animal life during the Carboniferous era that was largely responsible for the dramatic reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels and the sequestering of all that carbon.

      • Um, mikeB, that picture you posted shows CO2 starting the carboniferas era at over 2000 ppm and not starting it’s drop until nearly half way through it. That’s like 40 million years. ^¿^

      • I agree with Sturgis … about 1300 ppm of CO2 in greenhouses is kind of the standard upper limit, beyond which there are diminishing returns.

      • Schitzree, you got the lines mixed up. Look more carefully.
        According to the posted graph, which is an oldie but a goody, at the start of the carboniferous, CO2 was dropping fast and at about 1200 or so. It appears to have bottomed out somewhat higher than the level at the far right corresponding to the present era.
        Black is CO2, Bluish is temp.

      • “Schitzree, you got the lines mixed up”
        Whoops, yes I did. Thanks for the catch there, Menicholas. Hmm, in that case… well shoot, then where did all the carbon come from for the Carboniferous? It looks like we started the era with barely 1000 ppm and bottomed out only a quarter of the way through.

      • I think he might be confused by the fact that many greenhouses generate CO2 by burning natural gas, which produces heat as a bi-product. Under cool conditions that extra heat can be a plus; under hot conditions a minus. (As an aside, when CO2 augmentation is used, plants do better with higher temperatures.)

    • When did he say the Co2 is pumped in the greenhouses for the warmth? All I ever heard Patrick say is that co2 is increased inside greenhouse for better plant growth. Plants grow on c02 and prefer more that is currently in the atmosphere. As far as I know that is true and is not a new practice for greenhouse farmers.

    • “co2 is important to plant growth, but not to human growth” Adam wrote. That might be a new winner for alarmist qoutes on here. Ok. moving along then.

    • Adam,
      A more scientifically ignorant, easily refutable comment has never been made here on WUWT as yours here (at 10:08 am).
      As others here refute your O2 fallacy, the physics of your greenhouse mechanism for greenhouses doesn’t apply to GHG heating.
      Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is in reality a poorly choosen description of the physics of CO2-climate radiative energy forcing.

    • Adam July 28, 2015 at 10:08 am
      “CO2 is important to plant growth, but not to human growth”
      Where do you think food comes from? All the food we eat comes from CO2 via plant photosynthesis – which also produces O2 – or animals that eat plants.
      In addition, the concentration of CO2 in a normal human body is ~56.000 ppm. pCO2 averages about pCO2 = 40-44 vs atmospheric pressure =760, or CO2 ~5.6% = 56,000 ppm; and it’s kept their by immediate changes in “breathing”, as necessary, and changes in the concentration of HCO3- to maintain the right pH ~7.41-7.43 for all chemical processes necessary to keep us living and growing!
      Adam, you are thoroughly saturated with “Carbon” and if I was you, I’d recheck everything I think I know! CO2 is not a “toxin” or a “pollutant”.

    • CO2 is not put in greenhouses to heat them up. The heat produced by the process of making CO2 is what heats up a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect exibited in a greenhouse has nothing to do with CO2, it is the building that produces the greenhouse effect (hence the name). As for the non-sence about decreasing O2, you need to give your head a shake. The quantities are not even comparable.

    • No motivation? So, why do the warmists employ repeatedly massaged, recalculated and re worked land based thermometer data to obscure objectve temperature data from satellites? Why do they crow about 0.1 degree “records” when the margin of error is much larger than that. It seems the climate science is very influenced by the need to support the world wide political movement for reductions in CO2 emissions. And that movement is itself an outgrowth of the modern secular religious belief that modern civilization has “failed”, that the developed countries are “guilty”, that we need to return to a mythical simpler age. And then you have to consider how funding for climate science is controlled and how few gatekeepers in the form of reviewers of research papers would be required to produce a confirmation bias throughout the cliamate science field.

    • CO2 is important to plant growth, but not to human growth.

      It’s called a life cycle, no CO2 for plants and no Oxygen or food for humans. Can’t believe I am explaining this.

    • ” He says CO2 is put into greenhouses to warm them and boost growth…”
      He doesn’t say anything about “warming”, and you don’t buttress your argument by mischaracterizing his.

    • Adam, please try to grasp reality about growers using CO2. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with raising temperature. You will find no energy savings by boosting CO2 levels, only faster growth with less water. In fact, the generator is not a big source of heat so it increases utility costs slightly but that’s very recoupable with the increased harvest.

    • “CO2 is important to plant growth, but not to human growth.”
      You see the level of idiocy it takes to believe in CAWG?
      And you want to argue with this “mentally challenged” crowd?
      To debate with ignorant fanatics?
      Being respectful to parasites that rob you blind?
      Good luck.

      • Just don’t call them ‘retards’ – that wouldn’t be politically correct. I like to call them Climate Scientologists. Sounds kind of ‘sciency’ and religious all at the same time.

      • “Alexander Feht July 28, 2015 at 2:13 pm”
        Hey, these “mentally challenged” people are the best they got! And they give arguments and “facts” that need to be answered – since they’re seen by potentially everyone in the world – no matter how wrong they are. And they provide us with free target practice!

      • Calling them Climate Scientologists may be a little too subtle, though, on the humor scale. It’s not quite as in-your-face as calling someone a Denier. Although once they get the implication, and realize you intentionally used that word rather than the word Scientist, oh man, do they get offended! 🙂

    • Adam, you and your comrades will still be prattling on about global warming when you’re up to your eyeballs in snow…….Go and study some proper science!

    • “He says CO2 is put into greenhouses to warm them and boost growth (during cool climates I might add). This is why it is called the greenhouse gas effect.”
      Wrong, wrong, and wronger still.
      You may have posted the comment with the least amount of actual truth in it in the history of the internet.
      * I started a point by point rebuttal, but your ridiculous post does not merit one. It is obvious you are nearly completely scientifically illiterate. Harsh, but true. Everyone who may not know better needs to understand that any kernel of a true statement in your post is purely accidental.*

      • Yes he did Bubba.
        I replied before scrolling down through all the other replies, but see now that he never bothered to reply to any of his critics.
        Too bad, really. I appreciate the insight, in a perverse way, into the sometimes inscrutable “intellect” of the warmista mind.

    • hahahaha omg did he really say they pump CO2 in to warm up the greenhouse. Godsdamnit man LISTEN… Dr Patrick did NOT say anything about CO2 warming the greenhouse. GAHHHHH is there anything so dumb as those that hear but do not listen????

    • Its called the Greenhouse effect because of the glass letting the light in but at the same time retaining the temperature (SHEEEEEEESH!!) – nothing whatsoever to do with the CO2 which is added to speed up plant metabolism due to increased photosynthetic ability. The insulating effect in such a small area is completely negligible compared to the glass and has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason they add it

    • Plants “breathe” in carbon dioxide & “breathe” out oxygen: near zero carbon dioxide emissions would be a disaster, therefore, for both plants & non-plant life. Motivation: Money mostly

      • Wow! Astonishes me how the flora and fauna of this world survived for centuries, millennia, æons prior to Man’s fortuitous arrival with his industries and their life-preserving carbon-emissions! Man arrived in just the nick of time! Thank GOD!!
        Although I’m a little puzzled as to how the Earth managed PRIOR to industrialization….
        Maybe one of you Einsteins, you Newtons, you veritable Hawkings and Galileo’s can scratch your heads and come up with the answer to this fascinating enigma!
        In the meantime, to feed my plants and preserve the planet I shall run my car 24/7 in the driveway. Gasoline is expensive, but it’s the least I can do. God forbid we RUN OUT OF CO₂!!!
        Bless you! You do the God’s themselves’ work!

        • It’s too bad you came in dripping sarcasm, certain that everything you believe is correct. Had you asked your several implied questions seriously, and listened to the answers with a mind prepared for enlightenment, you might have actually learned something about how the world works.

  10. Like greenhouse operators, serious aquarium hobbiests also bubble CO2 into their tanks for the same reason.

    • Generally speaking, bubbling does not dissolve in the water. It turns the water over exposing it to air, allowing more oxygen (etc.) to dissolve into the water. (For that matter, an undergravel filter does this without any bubbles involved. I always added a layer of floss under the gravel as a medium for bacteria, When exposed, it was always quite white, thanks to the bacteria culture.)

  11. After posting Dr Patrick Moore’s video on my Facebook I saw this posted by one of my Facebook friends. Any thoughts on this “technology” – cost and claim to re-make fuel out of it??:

    • I have a number of trees that I’m sure are far more efficient at capture and storage, and many of them were purchased as seedlings for 12-15 cents a piece.

    • Uses the word “carbon” a lot, shows backlit water vapour and dense black unlikely something “spewing” from “smokestacks”.
      I suspect this is a New Age Perpetual Motion Machine as the electrical power needed to run the fans (look Ma, no wires!) and especially to compress CO2 to liquid form is major. Probably can extract money very handily though. See Jo:

      • Correct. It is a perpetual motion machine, and a very badly designed one at that. Impossibly inefficient with huge losses in every cycle.

    • Your first problem is the very low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. When you concentrate up from 400 ppm (0.0004%) to bulk 100%, you are fighting against the concentration gradient all the way. The entropy of the system is driving to process against you. You can do it but there is a big energy cost to pay for this.
      Second, you can use CO2 as an organic synthesis starting material, but it is probably the worst, most difficult feedstock that there is.
      In short, you can do most anything you want, IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY. And you do not mind dealing with really complex, difficult chemical pathways.
      All that, just to make plants CO2 stressed? Why bother?

      • I wonder why the unit ppm is used instead of ppb or how about ppt? Oh no we’ve got 400 MILLION parts per trillion of them, that can’t be good. Wait how about 0.04 parts per hundred. Whew.

      • CO2 is an awful feedstock because the carbon is completely oxidized.
        In order to be useful as a fuel, it needs to be reduced.
        This takes energy.
        It exists in low concentrations in the atmosphere.
        Plants absorb CO2 and use sunlight as a fuel, and chlorophyll as a catalyst to turn CO2 and water into glucose.
        Everything else is then synthesized by plants from that glucose.
        The fact that plants can use such a low concentration of this trace gas to do what they do is one of the enduring miracles of the terrestrial biosphere.

    • Efficienty? Yes. Cheaply? Not on your life. One of these for every 20 cars? There are over a billion cars and trucks, not to mentions ships and planes, pipeline compressors, backup Diesel generators. “Yes, thank you, I would like 60 million of these devices, could I have them delivered? Where? Everywhere, of course…”

    • Sheer lunacy. More air gets filtered through my colon than they will be able to filter with their carbon capturing machines. I am absolutely appalled at the current world of “magic” solutions and religious adherence to AGW.
      Where’s my witch-doctor? I feel a headache coming on…

    • With no commercial market for probably the world’s most expensive source of CO2, I can only assume they are waiting in expectation of a huge government contract.

    • CO2 as the product of combustion is at the bottom of the potential energy well. Lifting it up in potential energy by separation from oxygen requires vast quantities of energy. This credulous video makes no mention of energy requirements and conversion efficiency to take CO2 at a very low concentration in the atmosphere and convert it to an energy dense hydrocarbon fuel. There is some truth to the notion that the CO2 scrubbers could be located anywhere on earth and could theoretically be a good match for intermittent and unpredictable solar and wind generation. But where is the mention of the scale of solar or wind facilities required to run a meaningful CO2 extraction program. CO2 recovery and possible sequestration is a fundamentally an idiotic idea with a solitary goal to bring in research grants.

  12. Excellent presentation, my only nit-picking point was that I thought that there was a period in Earth’s history when CO2 levels were 19-20x higher than today.
    Our Patrick Moore (sadly deceased) thought AGW was nonsense as well; so much for the consensus!

    • I think you got the wrong Patrick Moore there. The deceased Patrick Moore was an English amateur astronomer. The very much living Patrick Moore is an Ecologist. The mistake thanks to Google ranking.

      • Aussiebear. By our Patrick Moore i did mean the UK TV presenter and astronomer as opposed to the American Patrick Moore from Greenpeace. The former agreed with the latter wrt to AGW and publicly stated it was nonsense.
        I am sure that if the warmists can get film stars and psychologists to endorse AGW we have more than a precedent to use ecologists and amateur astronomers to counter AGW.

  13. Though CO2 is good for plants, there is a major problem with his argument. If CO2 levels increase further, many of our coastal cities will be flooded as sea level rise and the increase in temperature of the atmosphere will lead to larger more damaging storms. Is that the world we want?

    • Luke..we have no control. It doesn’t matter what we want, we’ll have to deal with what we get.

      • We do have control if we choose to take it. It is pretty simple, we have to drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

      • Luke, this preposterous argument was just dealt with a couple of days ago.
        In 1988-89 Hansen predicted that in 20 years the West Side Highway in New York would be underwater. That would have required a rise in sea level of 10 feet.
        More recently Hansen moved the goalposts and said the Highway would be underwater in 40 years. We are now 25 years into his prediction and sea-level has risen 2.6 INCHES. Still about 10ft to go in the next 15 years.
        BTW, 2.6 inches in 25 years is essentially the same rate of decadal rise as was seen since data recording began is the late 19th century.
        Luke, you have heard the alarmist predictions about sea level rise and have taken them for gospel, but the predictions have been falsified. They are wrong. In error. In real science, that means it is time to seriously review your theory, not just keep repeating the same dis-proven ideas ever more loudly.

    • Luke, Cannot tell if you are serious. Hansen’s newest stuff has been adequately debunked on a previous thread here, and over at CE. Plus a very specific two pronged response to reviewer Archer’s inane comment at the paper’s host site.

    • Even your much vaunted IPCC says there is no statistical trend of increasing ‘storms’,,,,All measured storms from tornadoes to hurricanes show no increasing trends…in fact it can be argued they are decreasing. More lies from the Lukester. I suggest you go to your basement and lock all your doors so the weather-boogeyman doesn’t get you.

    • Luke,

      If CO2 levels increase further, many of our coastal cities will be flooded as sea level rise and the increase in temperature of the atmosphere will lead to larger more damaging storms.

      Can you please present the empirical evidence that demonstrates how CO2 directly causes flooding and “more damaging storms”? I mean there’s probably a simple graph that shows an acceleration of both the above items that marches in lock-step with CO2 increases. It would also be nice to see the breakdown of the natural:anthropogenic influences. Don’t forget to stay only within the CO2 parameters.

    • I’m pretty sure we have some inside trolls here on this video. I realy hope that’s not the case but nothing you can I guess.

    • Of course, if sea level rises, there will be coastal impacts, but you are making 2 assumptions that have not been proven to be true. One is that CO2 has something to do with causing higher global temperatures, the other is that a warmer climate automatically leads to more violent storms.
      The historical records do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but it’s a trailing one. Temperature thus drives CO2, not the other way around as the CAGW alarmists would have you believe. Warmer seas outgas C02 and there is a significant lag between the onset of warming and the beginning of the rise in CO2 levels – every time.
      The second premise, that warmer climates produce more storms has just not materialized. If anything, storm severity and frequency has actually lessened.
      If sea levels rise due to warming, but the warming is almost all naturally-caused. there’s not a lot we can do about it other than move to higher ground.
      In politics they always say ‘Follow the money’; in climate science, it should be ‘Follow the sun.’

    • Melting the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps would take thousands of years. They are big huge thermal masses and heat sinks, they are not going away anytime soon. Meanwhile, sea level rise continues along at 8 inches per century, just as it has for the last 6,000 years. (Sea level rise was much greater than that, earlier)
      It seems that there is much about CAGW that you have not been told. Stick around, and keep your calculator handy.

    • Luke,
      You said:
      “Though CO2 is good for plants, there is a major problem with his argument. If CO2 levels increase further, many of our coastal cities will be flooded as sea level rise and the increase in temperature of the atmosphere will lead to larger more damaging storms. Is that the world we want?”
      CO2 levels are increasing steadily, and oceans are not rising any faster than they were before much CO2 was added to the air.
      There is not a single shred of objective and verifiable data to support your statement.
      If you disagree, post some data and sources to back up your statement.
      FYI, you are sorely and tragically mistaken in your belief.
      Cheer up, the world aint ending, and CO2 aint bad!
      Aren’t you relieved to have that burdensome weight lifted?
      If you are not, you may be ill.

    • Luke,
      Sea levels have been generally rising since the end of the last ice age. The sea level rise is not accelerating as one would expect if the rise was influenced by atmospheric CO2 concentration. Stop worshiping at the Gorical and look critically at the actual sea level records.Want to know when to be scared? Be scared if the sea level starts to drop, that means we are heading into either a mini ice age or event he full blown descent into the real thing.

  14. The warmers are winning the media blitz regardless of what we believe or gets posted here.

    • I really don’t think so, I’m seeing a plurality of activity in the blog-o-sphere that attacks the fear mongering pretty directly. Further, MSNB and CNN, the two cable nets that are most left leaning, are toast, and CBS had to pull it’s editorial policy more back to center to keep their news audience from eroding. Several well executed polls are showing that while many people believe that AGW is real about 60% in the U.S. now believe that the hype is overblown, and the consequences are modest to none.

      • I’m noticing the same, Mark. Some years ago, for instance, comments in newspapers were heavily alarmist and now I find it more the other way with a lot of criticism coming in. People everywhere are getting fed up with the hype and the lies. They might not be interested in the subject of global warming, but they don’t like being lied to and they don’t like the destruction and the cost that comes hand-in-glove with climate policies.

      • I agree with Mark and A.D.
        I noticed the same shift from mostly warmist to mostly non-warmist comments on a large number of different sorts of comment threads and discussion venues.
        And a lot of people just clam up because, after all, who really likes to get into an argument with the sort of people the warmistas have shown themselves to be?
        I am seriously considering going political for the first time in my life, and once the election season really cranks up, volunteering and going to work for a candidate who promises to fire all the liars.
        I strongly believe that many people are just holding their tongues and waiting to vote, at this point.

  15. CO2 is plant food sounds dumb. Absolutely necessary component, building block, compound or something like that for life on Earth. I ginned this one up a while back, maybe someone can do better.
    Point out that the so-called agricultural green revolution is in no small way a product of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • CO2 is plant food, along with water and sunlight. What we call “plant food” in the commercial sense is more akin to plant vitamins, to extend the analogy to human food a little further. Substances needed in small amounts on a regular basis.

      • Menicholas, I’d come out somewhere between Steve Case and yourself. Thermodynamically speaking, CO2 isn’t a food because no “work” (Gibbs Free Energy) can be derived from it. A better word is building block. The “food” required by a plant in this sense is purely sunlight.
        Nonetheless CO2 is an absolutely essentially building block. It is needed in bulk, and it is expensive for the plant to obtain because of its scarcity in the atmosphere. Much of plant physiology and plant water use is organized around the need to bulk harvest rare CO2 from the atmosphere.
        In the common parlance I have no problem with hearing it referred to as “plant food”.

      • How about “The air plants breath.” Simple and to the point.
        And the plants have been ‘short of breath’ for a very long time now. And they’re still a few hundred ppm short of ‘breathing easy’.

  16. Prager University is a website run by Dennis Prager, who is among other things, a conservative talk show host.

  17. CO2 is an essential and life giving gas. Of course, so what?
    Then doubling it in a blink of a moment is such a stroke of genius, eh?
    No unanticipated negative side effects when poking the system, there seldom are.
    But here the science is just settled, right?
    Promising to see WUWT suddenly recognise this “negligible trace gas” as important.
    That was not so hard, was it?

    • GeoEng,
      your commnet shows a total lack of familiarity here that AW, and his regular cast of contributors, and most commenters here are accepting of the fact increasing atmospheric CO2 provides additional radiative forcing on the atmosphere, one that should raise temps. The pertinent scientific question is, “how much?” Typically described as climate sensitivity, both equilibirum and transient.
      The role of water vapor reponses, clouds, and humidty changes in response to elevated IR forcing though is conveniently dismissed as unimportant by the modellers to arrive at their politcally useful results in order to demonize CO2 in their Chruch dogma.

      • Joel O’Bryan,
        Yes, sorry for my total lack of familiarity. It was a bit harsh. Lukewarming it is. It’s a slippery slope that one I’ve heard.
        And yes, they’re really devious those politicized climate model algorithms.

      • GeoEng was probably just parroting what he’d been told about WUWT by his emotionally-invested, politically-motivated, group-thinking peers.

      • “GeoEng July 28, 2015 at 2:07 pm”
        Geo, you seem to be confused about what you posted to start this thread. If you think it’s confusing me, it’s not.

    • GeoEng July 28, 2015 at 11:20 am
      It hasn’t doubled yet, but so far, “Where’s the [poisonous] beef?” A 100% Prediction Failure Rate for the hypotheses expressing catestrophic “CO2-Climate Change” doesn’t get me very worked up.

      • JPeden,
        Not getting worked up, our motto. 🙂
        Anyway, on significantly customizing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. I wouldn’t recommend that.
        I’m conservative, not irresponsibly optimistic.

      • geoeng,
        You would prefer going back to an earth where there were maybe a few hundred million people, tops, living hash, short and brutal lives of desperate poverty and random early death?
        Not me.
        Speak for yourself please.
        You can go revert to an agrarian preindustrial lifestyle. No one stopping you.
        BTW, what have you got against the trace gas which is responsible for all life on Earth, and is the indispensable base of the entire food chain of the biosphere?

      • GeoEng,
        I gagged a bit when I saw you describing yourself as “conservative, not irresponsibly optimistic”.
        You are ready to impose radical changes to the economy, and a radical reduction of our liberties, based on falsified climate hypotheses, and unproven, unworkable, not invented yet, technologies.
        How is that “conservative”? How are you not “irresponsibly optimistic”?

      • Menicholas,
        You know that’s a total misinterpretation of what I said. http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
        I’ll prefer the Holocene over the any other epoch. It’s where civilisation evolved. It’s stable, we’re adapted.
        I keep hearing “the earth had X times CO2 N time ago”. What a silly statement.
        Well, you go first!
        I like it here.
        I love CO2, I’ve said nothing else. You’re projecting.

      • TYoke,
        When did I mention policy? You’ve got all mixed up.
        Accidentally rising CO2 to an unknown level. How’s that so responsible?
        I’m risk averse. Then I’m the radical one? Oh man.

      • GeoEng,
        You’re right. You didn’t mention policy. You said about a rising CO2 level only: “I wouldn’t recommend that”. We’re all thrilled to have your “recommendation”, but guess what? CO2 levels ARE rising, and they’re going to continue to rise. Most of the increase is now coming from China and India, and they’re not going to stop.
        Now what? No further thoughts?

      • TYoke,
        I think you’re right and CO2 levels will just keep rising. And we’re not wired for fixing this.
        How it’s going to play out? Well, you tell me.

    • If the energy budget of the troposphere is in convective equilibrium, rather than radiative equilibrium, the ~1% increase in forcing from GHG may not produce any change at all in air temperature. It may just increase tropical precipitation by a percent or two.
      Convective equilibrium seems much more likely, given the entire lack of any empirical evidence of a GHG effect on climate so far.

      • Pat Frank,
        And it’s more to CO2 than a GHG effect, as Dr. Patrick Moore explains. And it’s a lot of unknowns.
        We don’t know how the composition of the biosphere would react. Some species might gain more than others.
        This would mean redefining the rules of the game, impact biodiversity, globally.
        It’s for sure an interesting experiment.

      • Sorry, my computer got blinky, had to log out. Meant to say …why not think about a real problem?

    • No unanticipated negative side effects when poking the system, there seldom are.

      I am glad you noticed that. It is amazing how many people think the smallest disturbance will have some catastrophic effect when we already know from past history this is not the case.

      • gregf101,
        “Past [geological] history” had no civilisation.
        Patrick Moore thinks the earth is noticeable greening. There is a significant effect, but the science is not settled. “Catastrophic” is you implying.
        A “smallest disturbance” of 70% increase, for an important life-giving trace gas.
        Happy to amaze you.

      • GeoEng.
        Odd. I had a teacher in 1956 on exchange from the United States who was teaching us backward Canadians about biospheres and plant breeding and CO2 way back then, 59 years ago. Still remember his name, Mr. Kirby. And I grew up in a town that had severely modified the air through 50 years or so of sulphur emissions. We learned that these processes are highly reversible and some 60 years on, that valley that was barren and rocky is now tree covered and verdant. I really can’t believe that a 0.04% increase in CO2 over the next 100 years will be an issue. But then, I suspect I have been around a bit longer than GeoEng. But GeoEng, if you took any of the same geology courses I took in engineering, you surely must have some doubt about what you are saying as we know the world over and different times have had much different local and regional chemistries. And we have done a darn good job of managing many of our real pollution problems. There is much more to do, but CO2 isn’t one I worry my grandchildren about. Over fishing, education, feeding the poor, medicine and other like things yes. Climate —> not anywhere near the top of the list for them though I read and have read about it since I was a single number 60 years ago as I found/find the history interesting. My grandchildren have been taught “Carry it in, carry it out.” as I was. Yet when I see the garbage left by “environmentalists” after their protests, I smell an oxymoron. Like those on the Portland bridge today.
        WJD, P.Eng.
        Or maybe you are just kidding?

      • Wayne Delbeke,
        “I really can’t believe that a 0.04% increase in CO2 over the next 100 years will be an issue.”
        “You have to run the numbers”, quoting Roy Spencer at Heartland’s ICCC6.
        Small numbers don’t look very significant, but I guess one can’t do science by eyesight alone. I get it’s unbelievable.
        By the way, 0.04% (400 ppm) is the level of CO2 today. In 100 years, 0.06% (600 ppm) would be more likely, keeping today’s release rate.
        “.. different times have had much different local and regional chemistries.”
        400 ppm, now that’s a long time ago. Very different indeed. And the speed of change are unprecedented.
        I agree, there are more imminent dangers to human society than CO2 rise, take nuclear weapons for one.
        And those “environmentalists” should get their act together and clean up or get fined.
        I’m curious, how did you find the greening of the planet believable considered the small change in CO2 levels?
        At what level of CO2 would this become an issue at all?
        Maybe I just haven’t been around long enough.

    • Jim I think that most folk think of themselves as environmentalist and conservators of nature. Heck it’s the way people are hustled into recycling; to do their little part. It’s the reason all the “cute” pictures of wildlife are so manifestly popular. What is required is rationality in these areas. Everyone supports “sustainable” harvesting in the oceans. Everyone thinks that our world should be as pollution free as we can make it. That does not mean we should return every wild area to some pristine ideal before the expansion of modern man. That is simply impossible unless you eliminate mankind from the environment. As you well know there are a number of “ecologists” who are unabashed about advocating a reduction of human population levels to one billion. Listen to guys like Ehrlich and that will be achieved either by some form of enlightened “humane” totalitarian world government or catastrophe. If this could be well understood by “environmentalists” we would be better off.
      In your area of the world there is the goofy proposition that millions of area feet of water need to be released to the sea rather than the California Aqueduct to protect a few hundred 2 inch long smelt. No one needs to run roughshod over vanishing species but then again if sensible measures to care for our own species demands it then that is the way nature has always taken care of that sort of conflict.

      • Hear, hear, fossilsage! I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question Why must absolutely every species be saved from extinction, without a valid, scientific reason? Corollary: Why is every single species that goes extinct a teeth-gnashing tragedy and indictment of humanity?
        First, saving every species from extinction will nilly is AGAINST the natural order of things. 99.9% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. It is the fate of species.
        Second, we are in a drought in California. No I don’t want to torture baby seals or unnecessarily drive any species over the edge. But what is a valid, non-emotional reason that the Delta smelt matters? (And Biodiversity is not a scientific discipline. It is barely a definable word.)
        There’s a little bit of truth to the saying that if you want to be saved from extinction, get a better PR Rep, or rent a Panda suit. Sometimes there are conflicts between human needs and the needs of a bait fish. I think it is moral to choose humanity.

    • Absolutely wonderful whenever a recognized expert publicly opposes dogma that is masquerading as science. Thank you Dr. Moore.

  18. Patrick Moore, B.Sc. (Hons) Forest Biology, University of British Columbia (1969); Ph.D. Ecology (Thesis: “The Administration of Pollution Control in British Columbia: a Focus on the Mining Industry“), Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia (1972); Ford Foundation Fellowship (1969-1972); Vice-President, Pacific Salmon Society (1969-1972); Director, Western Canada Chapter, Sierra Club (1971-1973); Co-Founder, Greenpeace (1971-1986); Member, Board of Directors, British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (1984-1991); Founder and President, Quatsino Seafarms Ltd. (1984-1991); President, British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (1986-1989); Member, Board of Directors, British Columbia Aquaculture Research and Development Association (1990-1993); Member, Aquaculture Advisory Council, British Columbia Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (1990-1993); Founder and Chairman, British Columbia, Carbon Project (1990-1994); Appointment, British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1990-1994); Consultant, British Columbia Hazardous Waste Management Corporation (1991-1992); Member, Power Generation Working Group, Greater Vancouver Regional District (1992); Member, Economic Development and Environment Committee of the Vancouver Board of Trade (1992-1994); Consultant, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (1992-1996); Consultant, Westcoast Energy and British Columbia Gas (1993-1994); Director, Architectural Institute of British Columbia (1995-1996); Director and Vice-President, Environment and Government Affairs, Waterfurnace International (1995-1998); Advisor, Canadian Mining Association (1996); Honorary Doctorate of Sciences, North Carolina State University (2005); Founding Co-Chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (2006-2013); National Award of Nuclear Science and History, National Atomic Museum Foundation (2009); Speaks Truth To Power Award, EarthFree Institute (2014); Member, Board of Directors, Forest Alliance of British Columbia (1991-Present); Co-Founder and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit (1991-Present); Chair, Ecology, Energy, and Prosperity Program, Frontier Centre for Public Policy (2014-Present)

    • Patrick Moore, B.S ….
      Yep. Lots of government-paid BS there. So, he was paid as a “consultant” for hazardous waste disposal and the paper industry and the mining industries. Therefore, since he was paid to dispose of hazardous waste, nothing he claims can be correct science or regarded as truth, right? /sarchasm – that gaping whole between a liberal and the truth.

  19. Luke,
    I am a grad. of The University of Texas at Arlington in Electrical Eng. .
    Work on the first Nuke plant for Texas Electric Service Company at Granbury Texas.
    Navy needed me so off to install high tech of the time in Laos to track NVA and Russian troops hauling arms into S. Vietnam. Used lots of IBM 360’s and other high tech of the time. Came back and worked at General Dynimics research and development in Ft. Worth on the terrian following radar on the F-111, then off to Sandia Lab on still classified high energy mico wave directed things. Then into family buss. farms, ranching and such after a Banking and Finance Degree from TCU Ft. Worth.
    Thing is I have a few brain cells and they work.
    CO2 makes my cows happy.
    My cows feed many people.
    CO2 makes my wheat crop bigger and that feeds even more people.
    Wind mills are just fine in New Mexico to bring stock water to the surface for my old cows to drink. Its not much good for much else.
    The nuke I helped build is still going just fine.
    You need to think a bit too.

      • Had a look at your scarey figure 4 and found it to be not scarey at all. Consider that the scarey trajectories are for a measly 10 cm and that New York and Newark are subsiding, ther is nothing there that can’t be coped with by engineering.

    • Robert Austin, You don’t mention the that the data for 20, 30, and 40 cm floods are showing the same exponential increase in NYC (and it looks like the 50 cm data are starting to show the same pattern). Will engineering provide a solution for these kinds of flooding events? If so, how much will it cost? If I owned property on the coast in these cities, I would sell it fast- wouldn’t you? I am sure the insurance companies and lenders are looking at these data too. It will soon be very expensive to by a home in these areas.

      • Weather phenomena and civil engineering may be interesting discussion topics, but aren’t related to the falsified idea of CAGW.
        And it’s already quite expensive to live in NYC. If anything, natural disasters, (Natural. Disasters. Apt phrase.) often drive down property values in the short term.

  20. I believe the first sentence still needs work.
    Put a period after zealotry. Erase the “and”.

  21. I greatly admire Patrick Moore and agree with almost everything he says, but when pointing out the higher concentrations of CO2 over geological time, I think one should also point out that the Sun is also understood to be increasing in brightness over these time scales.

    • Canman,
      You said:
      “…but when pointing out the higher concentrations of CO2 over geological time, I think one should also point out that the Sun is also understood to be increasing in brightness over these time scales.”
      Yeah, so?
      By what percent do you believe the sun has brightened by, and over what time frame?
      Links and sources please.
      And how much higher has CO2 been in the past, with no causal link to temperature?
      (Graph is posted above for long term CO2 vs temp trends.)
      Compare these two figures, and explain how one is relevant to the other.
      Thanks in advance.
      There is a vast mountain of historical data strongly implying that CO2 is not linked to the temperature of the Earth. Increasing CO2 has not been shown to lead to higher temps. Not then, not now, and therefore likely not ever.

      • I’m a lukewarmer and you seem to be on the far end of the skeptic scale. I don’t always agree with Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield), but I do think he makes a good case in this video:

        If Moore would’ve mentioned that the Sun has increased in brightness, his critics wouldn’t be able to say he didn’t mention it. All that said, I think Moore makes eminent sense on energy and that Potholer and his ilk are a bunch of economic and engineering illiterates.

  22. What alarmists like Dana Nuccitelli / Guardian want us to believe is that CO2 has eaten from the tree of knowledge and gaining the knowledge of good and evil has gone from innocence to malicious malevolence.
    So the right has Satan, the left has CO2 and life goes on regardless as to how many numskulls the human race is capable of creating.

    • Alx July 28, 2015 at 1:30 pm:
      “So the right has Satan”
      Nah, the right has the “Progressive”-Commie Pre-Enlightenment Totalitarian Throwbacks. There’s no need for a Supernatural Satan.

  23. Life relentlessly removes CO2 from the atmosphere, by making fossil fuels but mostly by making limestone, until it bounces off a “floor” below 200ppm at which time plants start to die and their CO2 is released. This has happened only two times in earth’s history, during the Carboniferous ice age and during current times (we are in an ice age right now) . So how did CO2 recover last time back to a more normal 1,500ppm during the age of the dinosaurs? Several ways. That ice age ended releasing CO2 from the oceans. Also, fossil fuels and limestone get subducted and belched out by volcanoes. Limestone also weathers releasing CO2. But we were stuck in the CO2 basement and would have stayed there for millions of years if not for the burning of fossil fuels.

  24. Why is Patrick Moore working with Prager University?
    “Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.”

    • M. Mann is at Penn State University. Penn State U is an accredited academic institution and it does offer certifications and diplomas. Do you think Penn State U would place this on their Web Site. Are you kidding?
      Do you think any University comparable to Penn State would do so? Are you kidding?
      Photosynthesis as described by Dr. Patrick More is not a University level course. It is not even a high school level course. Not even a High School would sponsor what Dr. Patrick Moore presented.
      Photosynthesis is in 5th-6th grade school curriculum.
      See here:
      See also what else this “grade school teacher” brings to her students. Just marvelous.
      My daughter is a high school science teacher and what she does is add the “physic principles and numerical crunching” to the basic learned in middle school.
      Not that I want to denigrate what Dr. Patrick Moore presented. If American citizens and particularly politicians need this presentation from Dr. Moore to understand that CO2 is not carbon and not a pollutant and without CO2 there is not possible life on earth as we know it, after finishing high school education we are in serious trouble.
      I just take the presentation by Dr. Moore as a reminder of “what did you learn in school” and I don’t care where it is presented.

      • rd50 July 28, 2015 at 4:06 pm
        “If…we are in serious trouble”
        Hate to tell you this…….

      • “If American citizens and particularly politicians need this presentation from Dr. Moore to understand that CO2 is not carbon and not a pollutant and without CO2 there is not possible life on earth as we know it, after finishing high school education we are in serious trouble. ”
        Yup, you got that part exactly right.
        He does need to say it, and we are in trouble.
        The decades long alarmist meme has succeeded in skewing the minds of a great many folks.
        Not everyone mind you, but a lot of folks.
        People who are not well steeped in science education often have a surprisingly low level of general knowledge, from the point of view of those who actually paid attention and retained what they learned.
        Spreading lies for all this time has not helped one little bit.

      • This was in school way before “Common core”. You can’t teach photosynthesis without CO2. My children (now below/above 50) learned this in school, not university.
        I now have grandchildren in 5, 7, 9 an 11 grades.
        They all know about photosynthesis and they can explain it to me. Certainly not as their school teachers explained it to them but they come across that CO2 is not a pollutant. Then they add all kind of details. Have fun with grandchildren.
        I still have a big garden. My grandchildren are always told by my children, when visiting, how much they worked in it when they were young. My children never tell them that they made quite a bit of money selling the vegetables from the garden on my street corner!
        The one in 5th grade will make diagrams and answer and ask questions, she likes this stuff. She belongs to Young Farmers of America (or something like this) and goes to meetings.
        Obviously children learn this stuff in school while quite young. How much they retain and for how long they maintain an interest in such is another thing.
        It is just disappointing to me that Dr. Moore has to remind us that CO2 is needed. I can understand that yes, not all of us will remember every little thing of “what we learned in school”. Still, if politicians are not willing to consider the absolute need for CO2 we are in serious trouble.

      • Sir, I appreciate your comments, and commend you for raising what sounds like a fine family of knowledgeable children and grandchildren.
        The point that I and some others are making is that there is a concerted disinformation campaign going on, and has been for some time now.
        Kids are being fed a load of alarmist tripe dressed all up as factual information.

      • rd50 you should be quite right but how then do well educated judges and politicians allow themselves to believe that CO2 is a pollutant and a danger to the planet and it should be kept to the unprecedented and almost dangerously low levels of the present era pre industry?

    • Do you live in Perth? I know someone who moved there a few years ago. Large town, is it?

      • Population just over 2 million. It’s the fastest growing city in Australia, currently the fourth largest but is expected to overtake Brisbane as the third largest by 2030.

  25. Anthony, Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace. It’s just not true. You should know that. Aren’t the facts sufficient to you?
    [your facts are not sufficient to me, and you are most certainly wrong. It’s clear from your twitter feed you are consumed with hating people whom you disagree with -A]

    • Wow Sara. You should wake up. There are many many pictures of Moore in early Greenpeace days. Of course he looked different then. You do know how time affects living organisms, yes? There are also documents of all sorts. News reports.
      Investigate it for yourself. If you then use the same technique to research the issue of CAGW, we’ll be welcoming you back here real soon.

    • Umm, how can Moore be a Greenpeace co-founder, if he first made contact with them one year after the founding? Or is the letter fake? … http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-not-patrick-moore/
      Honestly, why put yourself in this position? Just stay to the truth, that he was a member of Greenpeace, not a co-founder.
      And for the record, I’m consumed with finding out what’s real and what’s not, and not much else. You must be reading/projecting something into my twitter feed… Not everybody who disagrees with you is an enemy, you know.

      • Read “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” Sara. By the way, I was around at the same University and protesting the testing of atomic bombs at Amchitka when the seeds of Greenpeace were planted. Looked at your twitter feed. I see by your language you are of a generation that would not know about the start of Greenpeace and how it has been corrupted. Oh well. Your world, get used to it. Have a nice day.

  26. I am a retired biologist, I wrote the following piece several years ago which was published in the Daily Telegraph letters. I received emails from a member of the European Climate and a Canadian senator asking permission to use it.
    I am a biologist with more than 30 years professional experience.
    I object to the characterising of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It is an essential component of our atmosphere, without which there would be no life as we know it on our planet. No plants, therefore no food, also all the oxygen in our atmosphere comes as a by-product of photosynthesis. 2CO2 +2H2O → 2CH2O + 2O2. In English, Carbon dioxide plus water goes to carbohydrate plus oxygen.
    Carbon dioxide concentration is the critical rate limiting factor in photosynthesis.
    It is essential to plant growth, and at higher levels, plants grow bigger and stronger, are more resistant to disease and the damaging effects of pollution, and are more drought tolerant.
    The science is well established. At less than 200ppm (parts per million) there is no photosynthesis at all. Above this figure, photosynthesis increases in line with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels up to 1000ppm, which is the optimum. At the present level of about 400ppm, we are comfortably above the minimum, but well below the optimum.
    Commercial Glasshouse crop growers add CO2 to the atmosphere up to 1000ppm
    For those who wish to check this out, a book has recently been published called ‘The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment’ by Isdo & Isdo. Each of the 55 examples given is backed by many references to peer reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals.
    The association of the word green with low levels of atmospheric CO2 contradicts the basics of plant physiology, and contrary to popular sentiment, more CO2, not less, makes for a greener world.
    Fossil fuels are green energy because they produce an essential plant nutrient as a by-product of their combustion.

    • Hey Mick – thanks for your letter. It’s important that people with experience and training speak up! The metabolism of heterotrophs and autotrophs are dependent on each other and that’s a fact.

  27. Moore’s video is fine, but I don’t see that he presents “surprising facts … that you won’t hear in the current debate.” The facts he presents are familiar to anyone involved in a debate which isn’t simply loony.

  28. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Not losing sight of the fact that CO2 is not causing a climate problem.
    That it is, is an unsustainable theory, leaving us with the fact that the IPCC and its servants are creating a destructive civilization scenario.

  29. I am surprised that some people are surprised at the low level of scientific understanding of basic topics such as the plant lifecycle.
    Most people are not (in my experience) interested in any science or engineering concepts, they just want the benefits accrued from their use.
    It is a common trait of people to assume that others are like yourself.
    But everyone is different in outlook, needs and desires.
    We only need look at typical politicians and journalists: all with degrees and experience but no engineering or science knowledge and therefore, very susceptible to anyone with a good story to sell.
    It has to be admitted that the greens have sold their story very well indeed….

    • Most politicians where I come from are Lawyers. They enact legislation regardless of science or common sense. Very few have science degrees.

  30. Thanks to Patrick Moore for this excellent video.
    No time to read the above comments – my apologies.
    Some recent posts on this subject, including a note on icecap.us:
    I have no time to run the numbers, but I do not think we have millions of years left for carbon-based life on Earth.
    Over time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, so concentrations get lower and lower. During an Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop to very low levels due to solution in cold oceans, etc. Below a certain atmospheric CO2 concentration, terrestrial photosynthesis slows and shuts down. I suppose life in the oceans can carry on but terrestrial life is done.
    So when will this happen – in the next Ice Age a few thousands years hence, or the one after that ~100,000 years later, or the one after that?
    In geologic time, we are talking the blink of an eye before terrestrial life on Earth ceases due to CO2 starvation.
    I wrote the following on this subject, posted on Icecap.us:
    On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
    Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
    More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
    Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.
    As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
    Best, Allan

    • The earth recovered from the only other CO2 crash during the Carboniferous ice age (major) back to a healthy 1,500ppm in the age of the dinosaurs. Eventually, we would have too in millions of years. But it would have taken major volcanism (fossil fuels and limestone get subducted) and an to the current ice age (melting of Greenland and Antarctic). These would be major upheavals. How nice that the burring of fossil fuels gives us a healthy CO2 levels without all the drama. We might even get a little mild, beneficial warming out of it.

  31. I’m still way behind on this issue – how can a gas needed for the cycle of life between plants and animals be classed a pollutant?

  32. “Dr. Patrick Moore, who was one of the original founders of Greenpeace who left the organization in disgust of their current political zealotry…”
    Dr. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, so what does his leaving 30 years ago have to do with Greenpeace’s current positions? In fact, he himself said he left over their position on chlorine and PVC, among other chemicals – not over CO2 or climate change: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

    • I assume Anthony meant current at the time zealotry. The Zealotry that has continued ever since in many changing flavours..

      • I did not see a political angle in his reasons for leaving. It was because he felt they were not using enough science in making their decisions. If there is a political angle in opposing chlorine and PVC, I’m all ears.

  33. Great lecture except one statement: “…by mid-century we will have to feed 8 to 10 billion people.”
    Who is this “we” that “must” feed 8-10 billion?” Does this childish socialist political thinking need to wriggle into every science discussion? Let’s overcome the emotionalism instead of pandering to the grandiose. Leave it out.

    Hugo Weaving, acting as spokesman for the IPCC, Greenpeace, The Royal Society and Oregon State University, has made this statement in a press conference today:
    “The purpose of life is to end.”

Comments are closed.