Originally published for the French “Association des climato-réalistes”, republished here by request of the author
Patrick Moore is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, which he helped to found, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, including Greenpeace itself on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for many applications.
Mr. Moore had a conversation with Grégoire Canlorbe, an independent journalist, during his stay in Paris in December 2017 for the climate-realist conference day. The interview was conducted on behalf of the French “Association des climato-réalistes,” the only climate-realist organization in France.
Grégoire Canlorbe: The beliefs and values of an individual generally reach such a degree of interdependence (regardless of the poorly or rigorously logical character of this interconnection) that challenging a particular aspect of his worldview sets the whole edifice in motion, and not just that particular belief or value. When you finally decided to distance yourself from Greenpeace, how much had you been evolving in your personal philosophy?
Patrick Moore: Well, I have to say even at the beginning of Greenpeace, I didn’t share all the same values and opinions of my comrades. I was doing a PhD in ecology, so I was involved in a science education and, although there were a few people in the original group who had some science education, in the end, science was lost altogether in the Greenpeace evolution, to where during my last 6 years as a director of Greenpeace International, none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. In the beginning, we had a very strong humanitarian orientation to save human civilization from all-out nuclear war.
That was basically the main focus of Greenpeace. The “peace” part was really what we were emphasizing in the beginning. Our theme was that all-out nuclear war would also be extremely damaging to the environment, the “green” part. So “green” and “peace” being put together in one word was a revolutionary concept and one of the reasons it gained so much authority and power, because it resonated with people that humans and the environment were one thing closely related to each other. As time went on, the peace kind of got lost when we shifted to “save the whales,” “save the baby seals,” “stop toxic waste dumping,” and “anti-nuclear energy”, instead of anti-nuclear weapons. And so the thinking shifted to where we were focusing more on nature, and that caused the “peace” to drop off the end of Greenpeace, a little bit, and by the time I left in 1986, Greenpeace and much of the rest of the environmental movement was characterizing humans as the enemies of earth, the enemies of nature. And this does not resonate with me.
Being an ecologist, I see all life as one system on the earth. Ecology is about the interrelationships among all of the different forms of life, including humans of course. We came from nature, we evolved from nature in the same manner, evolutionarily, as all of the others species did. So, to see human as separate and, in a way, the only evil animal, is how it is now projected. We’re the only bad animal, the only bad species. Even weeds are better than us, disease agents are not evil, they are just there, part of nature. While humans in a sort of original sin kind of fashion, have become characterized as the enemies of nature, so that’s why I left Greenpeace on the broader front, because I don’t believe in that even for one second, that we are the enemies of nature, and you’ll understand why later in the interview, but, for me, my distancing from Greenpeace began about four years before I left.
In 1982, there was a meeting of international environmental with about 85 of us, I believe, from all over the world chosen on geographical criteria. I was from Western Canada, the one person from Western Canada in that meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. After the first UN Conference on the environment in 1972 in Stockholm, the first United Nations agency to be in a developing country, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was founded in Kenya. And in order to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Stockholm conference, we 85 environmental were brought together by the Environmental Liaison Center, which was the environmental NGO’s liaison with UNEP. It was at that meeting that I heard for the first time in my life the term “sustainable development.” That term had been coined earlier in the day at a meeting between environmentalists from the industrial countries and environmentalists from the developing countries.
Most people think sustainable development was a compromise between environmentalists and industrialists, the development part, but no. It was a compromise among environmentalists, because if you’re an environmentalist in a developing country, you cannot be against development. Whereas most of the environmental people from the industrial countries were basically against mega-projects and developments like large dams and nuclear power plants, huge construction projects they were always opposing, and still do today. But in developing countries, if you’re against development, you are laughed away from the room, because developing countries are developing and that’s all there is to it, they’re trying to have a better life for their citizens and more wealth for their countries.
So that’s when I first began to realize, this term “sustainable development” told me that the challenge for environmentalism going forward would be much larger than just awareness of the environment. It includes the social and economic dimensions. Sustainable development means you have to take into consideration the fact that there are more than 7 billion human beings, who every day need food, energy, and materials to survive. Food, energy, and materials, all come from the environment. So I saw things in a completely different picture as a result of this new approach. I too, in the campaigning of the environmental movement that what we did 24/7, all we did was think about our campaigns, I kind of had the blinkers on, a little bit and only seeing the ecology and the environment and nature, and not seeing the relationships with the social and economic factors that govern our daily lives, and so I realized that the incorporation of environmental values into the social and economic fabric had to be taken.
You can’t just say, “Ok, we’re going to save the environment, never mind the people, just let them die, because they can’t have anything anymore, because it will affect the environment.” That’s not a correct approach and I think too much today, if you take for example, the movement against oil, and pipelines to carry to refineries and all of this. It’s basically being proposed that we commit economic suicide. If you look at the environmental movement position on energy today, they are against fossil fuels, they are against nuclear energy, they are against hydroelectric energy, they are against 98.5 % of the world’s energy. This would be suicide, not just economic suicide but really suicide, like dying. So, over 4 years, not knowing or understanding what I could possibly do next after being in Greenpeace for 15 years, right out of university, right out of my PhD, I had no chance to have a “normal” life in industry or government, at this point I was far, too far gone along my way of thinking to do that. So I left Greenpeace.
Why did I leave Greenpeace finally? Because they adopted a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. And of this I thought how ridiculous, I’m in this group where all the other directors have no science and they’re saying we should ban the element chlorine from existence in human affairs. They didn’t seem to understand that chlorine was the most important element for public health and medicine and when I saw this I realized they really didn’t care about people. They would ban an element which is so important in healthcare and in medicine, adding chlorine to our drinking water has been the biggest advance in the history of public health in swimming pools and spas where it prevents bacteria from killing us, and most of our synthetic medicines, pharmaceuticals or drugs are made with chlorine chemistry. Chlorine is important, precisely because it’s toxic to bacteria and other disease agents that are trying to kill us.
So in the end, that was the sharp point of the stick for me. I could not stay in an association, as an international director, that was against the use of chlorine for medicine and public health. And so I left and began a salmon farm in aquaculture at my childhood home on Northern Vancouver Island and, within a year or two, was being attacked by Greenpeace for growing fish. Then I really knew I was smart to get out, because aquaculture, of course, is one of the most important future methods of food production for this world. Producing healthy proteins and fats better for you in a diet than land animals, not that I don’t eat those but that’s a long winded explanation of why I left Greenpeace.
Patrick Moore in the company of Grégoire Canlorbe, in Paris in December 2017
Grégoire Canlorbe: President Trump makes no mystery of his climate skepticism, thus echoing the own language elements of his Russian homologue. It was revealed that Mr. Putin’s skepticism dates from the early 2000s, when his staff did very extensive work trying to uncover all aspects of the alleged anthropogenic climate warning. Do you believe the Kremlin, along with the Trump administration, has become a front-runner in the fight against climate change totalitarianism?
Patrick Moore: Yes, it’s been very obvious for some time that the Russians, particularly Russian scientists, do not believe that man-made climate change has been a catastrophe of some kind. I mean, most scientists will say, yes of course, there are over seven billion humans and our missions and our activities, especially the clearing of ecosystems for agriculture, it’s obviously having some effect on the world but whether it’s having a huge effect on the climate is very much debatable, and I don’t really believe it is true. Microclimates, yes, cities have made changes that had make it warmer inside, for example, the “urban heat island effect” as it is called. So everywhere you go where there is a city with a lots of concrete and lots of heat being used in the buildings, you will find that it is warmer in the city than it is out in the country right nearby.
So yes we do have an effect on temperature, climate etc. But to say it’s a catastrophe, that is the difference. There is no catastrophe, there is nothing happening today, not one thing, in the weather or the climate, that is anywhere nearer out of line with the last 10,000 years of climate since we came out of the last natural glaciation into this interglacial period about 10,000 years ago, the climate has been relatively steady in within a few degrees centigrade of the temperature and storms have always happened. As a matter of fact, it is predicted that storms will become less frequent and less severe as the world warms, if it does. So far we haven’t really seen much, we’ve seen less than a degree Celsius of warming, in what is supposedly this apocalypse occurring on the planet.
So Russia has long been skeptical and never really was a climate believer. Then you have India and China, both of whom kind of play along with the politics of climate change, but are really in no way doing very much on the policy front to address this so-called problem. They are just moving forward with their development and they don’t really believe in the same way that people in Western Europe and North America have this belief in dangerous climate change caused by humans. So I am very heartened by the fact that president Trump is taking the position he is, because we are being led down a path towards disaster not by the use of fossil fuels but by this hysteria about climate change and carbon dioxide.
I mean, I had been a skeptic for over 30 years, going back to 1989 when this issue was first raised to a high public level in the media. It was clear to me at the time that we should question this very seriously, this idea that carbon dioxide is somehow pollution, or will destroy the world. When in fact carbon dioxide is the basis of all life. I wrote an essay in 1991, titled “Carbon is the currency of life,” and in that essay I make the argument and soon lost the arguments to this overwhelming tide of climate change hysteria. I made this argument that we first have to recognize that carbon and carbon dioxide are the basis of all life on earth. All of the carbon in my body and yours and all the other people, and all the other plants and all the other animals came from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So I’ve been skeptical from the very beginning and I’ve questioned the ability of science even to determine what’s right or wrong in some of these aspects.
We don’t have any scientific proof that CO2 is the main cause of the little bit of warming that has occurred in the last few centuries. It’s been 300 years since the dates of the little ice age, about 200 years from the modern minimum, when there was a second wave of cold right through the world, due to the lack of activity of the sun, something that people now are saying is about to repeat itself. We will see. But the factor that matters is the world has been warming gradually for 300 years, long before we started using fossil fuels. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on climate change says that humans are responsible for most of the warming since the mid-20th century, that’s 1950, only 67 years ago. So they say for the first 4.6 billion years of the earth history, the climate was changing due to natural factors, like solar and Milankovitch cycles and ocean currents, there are many natural factors that affect the climate, but since 1950, 67 years ago, humans are now the dominant force in the climate change on the earth?
Just there you can see in a way, what a ridiculous argument they are making, as if the natural forces that have been shaping the earth’s climate through orders of magnitude, larger changes in temperature, in particular through the history of the earth, that suddenly we are now the main cause of the climate change. If you look at it with facts it’s ridiculous to make this claim. There is no proof, if there was a proof, that human CO2 emissions were the cause of warming in the climate, they would write it down on a piece of paper, so we can read it and see it, but they have no such proof. All they have is the hypothesis based on the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas like water vapor, only water vapor is probably a 100 times more important than CO2. So they just say this, they say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore it’s the cause of climate warming. They have no proof whatsoever to back it up. And that’s why, in a way, it’s very frustrating, because you start right there with them just saying, “Well it’s simple physics the science is settled, the argument is over.”
What can you say to that? They’re basically saying, “Don’t bother talking to me, because I’m the truth even though I have no actual evidence for it.” This is why many people believe that climate change has actually turned into a new kind of religion, with even the Pope of Rome coming in with an encyclical in which he is denigrating humans. It’s a terrible thing he says about the human species in this encyclical. He says that we have turned the world into a “pile of filth.” Well, yes there are some garbage dumps in the world, but what are they? Full of paper and plastic and tin and things. It’s not actually the worst thing that could ever happen, the fact that we produce waste, like every other species does in fact. And that waste gets recycled into the earth in time. For a major religion, like the catholic religion, to characterize the human species as basically evil, basically dirty, filthy, is something that I simply do not tolerate. I won’t listen to it, because I know it’s an appeal to people who want to believe in doomsday, apocalypse, catastrophe…
For ever since humans have been around, there’s always someone who is predicting doom, “the end is coming” and this to me is only an internal reflection on their own short life, they’re afraid of dying and so they project that on the all world, they’re afraid of the world dying. This is not going to happen, the world will be here for a very long time and it will remain green and beautiful for a very long time as well. Except, it wouldn’t remain so green and beautiful if the carbon dioxide ran out, in other words, was all used up. It wasn’t until two years ago that I finally put all the pieces together in my own analysis of the climate issue, of CO2, of life on earth and going back to the fact that carbon dioxide is the primary food for all of life, along with water. Water and carbon dioxide are put together in photosynthesis into sugars, which are the basis for the energy for all life on earth, including our own. So you have to start with this basis factor.
But when you look at our knowledge of the history of the level or concentration of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere for the last 500 million years, we don’t have really good numbers before that but we have pretty good numbers from proxies, from marine sediments for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, going back half a billion years. What you see from now is a gradual, not perfectly even, but a gradual decline in carbon dioxide from at least 5 000 parts for million, in other words 0.5 % or half a percent, back in those days 500 million years ago, to the lowest level ever in history during the last glaciation, 20 000 years ago, CO2 bottomed up at 180 parts for million, which is only 30 parts per million above the death of most plants.
Plants not only need carbon dioxide to survive, they need a certain level of it, in the same way that we need oxygen to survive. But 5% oxygen in the atmosphere would not be sufficient for us to survive. We need it at the level it’s at, which is around 20% in order to survive. Plants are the same, and CO2 has been getting closer and closer to the level where plants would die as we’ve come in to this Pleistocene Ice Age with glaciation after glaciation after glaciation, 22 of them at least over the 2.5 million year period of the Pleistocene Ice Age. But it is obvious that if we have not intervened by putting some of the CO2 back into the atmosphere, that was taken out of it by plants to make fossil fuels, by green organisms to make fossil fuels, and by the shells of marine organisms to make calcium carbonate… Calcium carbonate is far more abundant in the earth crust than the fossil fuels, thousands of times more abundant, all of the carbon in calcium carbonate, came for carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea. That carbon is now locked away in stones, which are called carbonaceous rocks, which include limestone, marble and chalk, the white cliffs of Dover for example in England are made of chalk from ancient marine plankton.
Marble, chalk and limestone, probably the most abundant form of calcium carbonate, but also dolomite which the mountains of Switzerland known as the Dolomites, are made from. All of these carbonaceous rocks are of life origin. They were produced from the shells down to the tiny coccolithophores, which are a plant plankton in the sea, the basis for the food chain in the sea, in fact. All away up to the big shells of the coral reefs which are made of calcium carbonate. Those end up being in sediments, and there are 100 million billion tons of carbonaceous rocks in the earth crust on the sea bottom and on the land which has risen up from the sea, that were originally carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. That is why CO2 has constantly declined through the millennium, to where it has, just before we began burning fossil fuels, a blink in nature’s time, it had come to a level that threatened the existence of life itself.
There’s a number of ironies in the story. Because, when marine organisms learned to build armor pleating for themselves out of calcium carbonate, the shell of a clam, the shell of a crab and a shrimp, the coral reef itself to protect the tiny soft organisms that are inside them from predators, these shells were to protect themselves, to protect life, but in fact the unexpected consequence of protecting themselves has robed the atmosphere and the sea of carbon dioxide to such an extent, that if this had continued without the intervention of human beings using fossil fuels and limestone to make cement, which is 5% of human CO2 emissions, if we had not done those things, CO2 would continue to decline until life began to die and eventually did die, because of lack of carbon dioxide as the basic food for all carbon-based life, so this is my hypothesis. May people find it far-fetched, but they will eventually see that it’s true, because it is true. We are the only species that could possibly have drilled into the earth to take the oil, the coal and the gas and burn it for energy. That’s replacing a balance to the carbon cycle on a global level.
We have inadvertently saved the earth from the death of life. We are life’s salvation, not its destroyer, in the final analysis. And I know that this will be seen as incredulous but if you make a study of it, if you read my papers, if you look at my presentation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is on YouTube, you will see that my argument is correct. No one has actually challenged it in fact. All they do is attack the individual because they can’t attack the fact that CO2 has been declining to a point where it would threaten the survival of life on earth. It might a million or 2 millions years from now that this happens but that is nothing compared to the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth. Two million years is a blink in nature’s eye. This is what was about to happen if everything had stayed the same. But humans came along, started using fossil fuels for energy and making cement with limestone putting CO2 back into the atmosphere, that’s restoring a balance to the global carbon cycle. That is my argument, and I’m sticking with it because I know I am correct.
Grégoire Canlorbe: In the words of economic historian E.A. Wrigley, the Industrial Revolution, by basing growth on fossil fuels, has allowed the emergence of a “world that no longer follows the rhythm of the sun and the seasons; a world in which the fortunes of men depend largely upon how he himself regulates the economy and not upon the vagaries of weather and harvest; a world in which poverty has become an optional state rather than a reflection of the necessary limitations of human productive powers.” This is what economist Deepak Lal, specialized in the comparative study of civilizations, has called “Promethean growth,” as opposed to mere “Smithian growth,” which consists of increasing the extent of the division of labor.
Would you go so far as to contend the horizon of ecologism is precisely to return to a traditional growth, therefore Smithian, based on the division of labor and associated with an economy of organic type (an agrarian economy), limited by the area of cultivated land and supported by birth control?
Patrick Moore: Very good questions. Well, one of the, I think, contradictions of the environmental green movement is that they’re using all these modern techniques of internet and social media, and just modern society, they’re using the energy that has been produced from the fossil fuels every day of their lives, whether it’s to manufacture the bicycle they’re riding on or to run the television they’re looking at. They’re using all these fruits of modern civilization, while at the same time condemning modern civilization. So I don’t get that. I mean, it doesn’t make any sense to me at all, and one way I’ve put it is that perhaps hypocrisy should be a civil crime. Then if it can be shown that you are frequently practicing against what you’re preaching, you might be convicted of something and totally you must not be allowed to do that any more.
For example, if you come to a fuel station to fill your car, maybe you should have to answer a question first: “Do you support the refineries, and pipelines and oil fields that are bringing this fuel to this gas station with pipes and trucks and everything?” If you say, “No, I’m against the pipeline, I’m against the drilling,” then you should be turned away and maybe even confiscate your vehicle, give it to someone who wants it to have gasoline in it. To me, this is a profoundly dishonest situation that we have with a movement claiming to be virtuous at the same time, as being more hypocritical that one could ever imagine in practice in the way they live their lives. You know the IPCC, Paris Conference, where was it held? Next to the largest private airport in the world, so that all the people and their jets could come in to this conference. How could this be justified? Why would people listen to somebody who says, “You have to stop using oil!” and then they’re flying their private jet to a conference which is against using oil. That seems to me pretty obvious.
Going back to Malthusian thinking, Malthus of course predicted mass starvation would occur centuries ago, because he said food production is linear whereas population growth is exponential. Well, the truth of the matter is, that has been reversed now. Population growth is no longer exponential; it is actually tapering off in terms of an exponential curve. Whereas food production has become exponential in its ability to feed the entire world population, and we can see now that with our knowledge of genetics and perhaps a bit of warming, and with a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, that agriculture will be able to feed ten billion people without any difficulty.
The real problem is dictatorships, civil wars, distribution, that’s a problem. Wherever there is poverty of this kind today like starvation, it’s almost always because of social factors, not because of the inability of agriculture to feed the world. So I think the environmental movement has a very backward understanding of how civilization is evolving and we are to level off our population. When you ask most people how can we stop population from continuing to grow forever, the most common answer you get is “educate women.” How can you educate women who are stooping in a field with six little children helping her to pick the vegetables by hand? They’re not able to be educated, they have to work in subsistence agriculture.
In subsistence farming 70 to 80% of the entire population are engaged in growing food. We still have this in Malawi, for example, in Africa and other African countries where more than 50% of the population are in agriculture growing food. When you mechanize agriculture, it goes down to less than 5% of the people needed to grow the food for everyone else. Now, a huge number of people are free to pursue other occupations, such as manufacturing goods and providing services. You can not have a modern technological society with subsistence agriculture, it’s impossible, because there is simply not enough people to do that, they’re all growing food and living in terrible conditions in the countryside, having women mainly being barefoot and pregnant most of their lives. Because on a subsistence farm, children are an asset for labor.
When agriculture is mechanized, like it is in France, in Canada and many countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, people become free to go to cities to get educated, women become emancipated, don’t have to have so many children, because children are a liability in a urban modern society. They cost money, they don’t make money for you like they do in subsistence farming, where you take then out of school at age 8 and put them in the field, or even younger. No one can get educated in a system like that but in a city you can.
Stewart Brand, who is perhaps a few years older than I am, lives in San Francisco, found in the Whole Earth Catalogue back when I was young and he was too, he became a very famous figure for environment and ecology and back-to-the-land. One of things that impressed me most is that he’s a human ecologist, an urban ecologist, whereas I am more of a country ecologist focusing on the food, energy and materials side of the equation that we need to survive everyday. Stewart said to me, “Many people come to me and look at the urban slums in Brazil or in Indonesia, and they say: look at the terrible life these people must have now that they’ve moved into these horrible urban slums.” And Stewart says his answer to those people is, “You should see where they came from,” they came from abject poverty and subsistence agriculture in a field somewhere, in the mountains, or the flat lands, in a country with no medical attention, no centralized electricity just living a terrible unhealthy life and dying young. That’s what subsistence agriculture is like.
When agriculture is mechanized, everything changes. That’s what is happening in China today, that’s why 300 million people are moving away from the country into cities in China. They will have a better life there, they will have electricity there, although in China even people in the rural areas have electricity because they are very well organized in that regard, unlike India where there is still nearly 300 million people who do not have regular electricity. China has done a much better job of that than the Indians. But the factor that matters is that it is the way society is evolving today.
I was reading Richard Lindzen saying this morning, that the temperature has risen by a 1°C approximately in a last 150 years. During that time, every single measure of human welfare has improved, including environmental quality, especially in the wealthy countries, where we can afford to build the technology to clean the air in the smokestacks from the coal plants, and in our exhaust from our cars. These days what comes out of the exhaust of a car is almost all water and carbon dioxide, both of which are essential to life. So what I like to say, most people gasp at this, the fact is fossil fuel, coal, petroleum, natural gas are 100% organic, as in the scientific meaning of organic. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon, in other words, the chemistry of life and all the fossil fuels are made from life, so they’re 100% organic. They were made 100% with solar energy. That was the only energy input.
Along with the carbon dioxide and the water and photosynthesis, and the many other minerals that are necessary to create the body of the planet to put the chlorophyll in the sunlight, to take the water and carbon dioxide and make sugar, forming the basis of all the energy for life on earth. That is the fact: CO2 is not a pollutant. That’s the very basis of this problem, it’s the perception of carbon dioxide as pollution, as dangerous for the future, when in fact it is the basis of life. And that is why the most important thing that can happen now, on the global basis in terms of the evolution of the movement to stop this hysteria about climate change and CO2, would be for the United States to overturn the endangerment finding of the Environmental Protection Agency which calls CO2 officially a “pollution,” when in fact it is fertilizer for plants. This is what has to be understood.
I don’t pretend to predict the future of human civilization. I mean, there have been catastrophes through history, there have been wars, there have been disease, pestilence and many, many awful things that happened in the history of human civilization. Climate change will not be one of those, but others could occur in some of other areas. As a matter of fact, most people don’t realize that more than ten times as many people die from cold in this world as die from heat. More than ten times. Does not just that one fact make you think that maybe it should be a little warmer? And then less people would die from the cold. I mean, it’s so obvious, then, to see if ten times as many people are dying from cold as heat.
Most people don’t even understand that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the Equator, in a hot climate, that’s where we came from, that’s what we’re adapted to. That’s why we warm our houses in France and Canada. Because it is too cold outside for us, we would die there. It’s only because of fire, clothing and housing, shelter, that humans can live outside the tropics. Otherwise humans could not live outside the tropics, they would have to stay where it never freezes. As a matter of fact, how many people know that at 18°C, you would die of hypothermia, if you were naked in the shade? Most people think 18 is a relatively confortable temperature because they are wearing clothes inside their house and in the sun, if you’re in the sun it would be different. But if you’re in the shade at 18°C with no clothes on, you would die of hypothermia.
That’s how much we need the warmth. We’re not a cold resisting species; we don’t have big fat and hair covering our whole bodies to insulate us from the cold like a bear does, or a seal. If only people would stop exaggerating this idea that the earth is getting too warm, it is colder now than has been in almost the whole history of life on this earth. There was no ice on the North Pole and the Antarctic millions of years ago. There was no ice. This is the first ice age in 250 million years, that we’re in now. There was another ice age 250 million years ago but in between then and now, the earth has been warm. Much warmer than it is today. Every single species that is alive on earth today, their ancestors lived through that warmer time. So when they say, “Oh yes, but our species has never been in this warm period, that was other species,” they were our ancestors, they lived through it.
So the longer life exists on earth, and the more things change, the more resilient life becomes. Today life is more resilient than it has been in the whole history of life, because we are the ones who survived and most people don’t even stop to think that their own existence, and the existence of every other single creature on earth represents a successful continuous reproduction from the beginning of life. Otherwise, it would have cut the chain. If your mother didn’t have children, you wouldn’t be here, and then you wouldn’t have children, and then they wouldn’t. Because it would be gone, that chain would be gone. So, through each line, each one of us has a solid line back to the beginning of life, it never got cut, all through evolution. 3.5 billion years.
Think about it. Most people never even imagine such a thing. I don’t know where they think we came from, we didn’t just materialize from nothing, we came from a line of reproductions through history, for millions, hundreds of millions and billions of years and here we are, so life is a secular miracle, it is my interpretation. I don’t mean a miracle like magic. I mean a miracle like something that possibly has not happened anywhere else in the Universe. To me there are only two possibilities: either there are millions of other planets with life on them, or we’re the only one. Because there wouldn’t be just two, or four, or a hundred, because there are so many planets and so many stars…
So either this is a unique situation that has occurred on the Earth, or there are millions of other planets with life and I would be willing to believe in neither, to tell you the truth. Because we don’t know that there are millions of planets with life. We have no education of it, we are a fairly young star, a young solar system here in this galaxy, and if there were other planets with life in this galaxy, you’d think they would have happened earlier than we did, maybe a billion year before. So why aren’t they talking to us? Why aren’t showing themselves? Where are the UFOs? I don’t see any. I think it’s equally probable that we are the only planet with life.
Grégoire Canlorbe: Genocide, the only hygiene for the world, did not appear with the beautiful ideas that kill. Since the ancestral beginnings of human life, tribes and nations have been serving the murderous madness of their respective worldviews; but the genocide began well before the beginning of the bloodbaths of human life. Mother Nature is the mother of the genocide: she has perpetrated about 142 mass extinctions in the 3.85 billion years after the appearance of bacteria. Should it not bring us to envision the human being as the only creature endeavoring to “moralize” the evolutionary processes?
Patrick Moore: No, no, I don’t agree with the parallel between mass extinction on the part of humans and that on the part of nature. Mother Nature is not a person. 142 mass extinctions? No, some of those were not mass, some of them were really small. There has only been a few mass extinctions like five in fact. Another one happened when the Europeans went to the islands in Pacific, Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia. But this was not genocide. Genocide is the murder of your own species.
I thought a lot about genocide through the years and it is a dangerous subject because so many people are very emotional about the religious and the biological aspects, evolutionary aspects. Because when you look at the face of it, the human species is really the only one who practices genocide, in other words, the mass murder of its own kind, you don’t see it in tigers, you don’t see it in plants, you don’t see in fish. You do see predation throughout the animal kingdom, of course, but usually this is one species eating another species and certainly it’s not mass extermination. I am of the opinion that genocide is unique to the human species and that it is related to technology and the growth of the human brain.
So when people ask me, “Where is the missing link between the chimpanzee and the human?”, my reply: “We killed them in their sleep, or perhaps when they were awake and unarmed.” Whatever the reason, it seems to me that a kind of leapfrogging of human intelligence developing, and weapons manufacture. I think, for example, the club to hit people on their head came before the hammer to put a nail in a piece of wood. I’m interested to speak to people about this, although it is a very dark subject. I don’t know if I’m near correct in my analysis that, when the Homo sapiens displaced the Neanderthal, was it too a genocide or interbreeding? It seems now maybe there was a bit of both. But that is true of modern situations as well.
For example, when the Spanish conquered what is Latin America today, there was genocide. But today the population of Mexico is around 80% mixed between Native Mexicans and Spanish people. So I think it’s natural for people to interbreed with other cultures and other races, we see it all over the world. But for some reason, it is also natural to slaughter other races or other cultures in mass and what we see in Myanmar today with Bangladesh on one side and China on the other, it is a sad example of this kind of human behavior and it happened in many places through History. The terrible disaster in Africa with the Tutsis and the Hutus. So it is a very sad subject and one that you don’t want to, you know…
People get angry when you talk about it but I know it is pretty much unique to people. I don’t think anyone can point to another species which engages in the systematic mass murder of its own species. Therefore I come to think that it has to do with weapons and it has to do with intelligence. Maybe this is where the concept of original sin actually comes in, we appear to be born with a potential to engage in this form of mass hysteria, which is to murder a lot of people that are perceived to be on the other side or alien. People of the same color murder each other, people with the same evolutionary background murder each other in genocide. If you think of the Holocaust, the people who were being murdered had basically many of the same roots ethnically, i.e., Caucasian people, as the people who were murdering them.
So it is a very pernicious aspect of human evolution and hopefully it is one that seeing the world as all one world can eventually eliminate. But you can’t do it with laws, you can only with change of behavior, change of attitude, a collective change of attitude that has to be universal. It must be universally adopted that genocide is abhorrent and that you will not participate in it, everybody has to believe that, and maybe we’re getting there, I don’t know. The recent examples, a couple of them have been kind of proof that we’re not getting there. So let’s hope for the future.
You ask whether we should envision the human being as the only animal endeavoring to “moralize the evolutionary processes.” Well it is not as if other creatures don’t exhibit love, for example. And it is not as if other creatures don’t exhibit altruism, helping each other. So it is not an entirely human trait to have values of some kind. But yes, we do overemphasize that and in many ways for the good. But very often, for example, you have this virtue signaling that is happening today where people use morality as a way of propping themselves up as if they were better than the rest. That kind of morality is not particularly desirable. Morality is a two-edged sword, in many ways.
You know, some philanthropists are only doing it in order to appear to be more caring. It’s not easy to separate this out as to who is actually caring, and who is doing it out of self-interest. While I appreciate people who actually give something of their life for the betterment of others, this is a noble thing, there are other aspects of morality that are not so noble. If you look at the climate debate, coming back to that for a moment, the people who are the true believers in this debate, place themselves above we, lower mortals, we deniers. That is a false pretense. They make it appear that they know more than those of us who do not accept their dogma.
Maybe getting in to the philosophy of science a little bit, I know that wasn’t the main thrust of this question, the philosophy is actually being violated by the people who claim the climate catastrophe and who will not listen to anybody else in the discussion, they came to this like it was a lifeboat. It is not becoming of scientists to hide behind dogma and ideology. The whole purpose of science is to question, always to question, especially when you have an important subject, that is very controversial and very important for the future of civilization, our economy, our society, depends on energy and these are big issues, that we’re debating. And for someone who calls himself a scientist to use name-calling and derision, as if it’s an argument, and to make himself appear all virtuous because he holds a particular opinion about a very complicated subject, is totally anti-science. And you come then to this claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing dangerous climate change.
For a start, that’s a lie, because there is no controversial subject that would ever have a 97% support. The very definition of a controversial subject is one where people are divided, not like almost unanimous; otherwise there would be no question. The fact that so many people are questioning this so-called “truth” of a dangerous climate change, it is in itself indicative that there is no consensus. But then coming back to the really important point: consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political and social term and they have no business using the word “consensus” around science. Because virtually every important discovery in science has been by individuals, go back to Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Einstein, just to name a few, perhaps the most important ones. These were individuals who actually went against the consensus to the point where they were persecuted, even murdered in the case of Socrates. Well, he was forced to commit suicide or disavow his own beliefs. Galileo was forced to disavow his own belief or he would have been murdered. Instead, they put him in house arrest, even when he did disavow his own beliefs.
In my experience, it’s always the people who are on the forefront, breaking ground that are the ones who are vilified and criticized. This 97% consensus is coming from people who are so smug and so self-certain of their own righteousness that it has nothing to do with science, it is a pretentious and falsely virtuous movement which dismisses all other aspects of the discussion, as if they are some kind of gods, when in fact the “emperor has no clothes” is the correct expression for this situation. That’s why Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air on this issue. I’m not a politician and I don’t have opinions on all the economic and social issues but I have a very strong opinion on the climate issue and it’s very strongly in favor of the direction that President Donald Trump is taking the United States, and hopefully the world to throw out this ridiculous doom and gloom scenario around carbon dioxide, the most important food for all for life.
The fall of Troy, by Francisco Collantes (1634)
Grégoire Canlorbe: In my humble opinion, the preservation of natural species, a fortiori the protection of endangered species—whether their disappearance is linked to the action of the human being or the cruelty of Mother Nature in person—is a goal we must seek for the same reason that cosmopolitanism (mondialism) must be fought: living creatures, including those social organisms that are human nations and ethnicities, must survive and flourish in the richness of their respective natures; the flowering and diversity of life must be recognized, preserved, sanctified. Do you agree with the above?
Patrick Moore: I think you are referring to what is commonly called “globalism.” Which is the idea that there should be no borders and that people should be free to move wherever they wish on the earth and to live there. This is expressed today in the United States in the “Sanctuary cities” movement; even the Sanctuary State, California had declared itself a “Sanctuary State.” Which is interesting because it is kind of the opposite of the use of the word “sanctuary” from past times, when sanctuary meant a place where you could be private, and not be disturbed from the outside, whereas now the idea of a sanctuary is as if the city is a church, where anybody can come and escape from the law or from their plight or their trouble, they can come there.
I hardly think that such an evolution will occur in this world. Even in nature, birds and animals have territories and they have tribes, and they have families and they defend these territories. The North American native people who were there for 10 000 or more years before Europeans arrived, for example, they lived with territories. People have this romantic vision that it was all a common property. That is not true. The Native people in North America had nations and they had orders and they fought, and they would kill you if you came on their territory to take things from your territory. It is obviously deeply engrained in human psychology and society to have territory, in other words a city-state and now the nation state.
There is a vision that we should move beyond that, to one world government. How do you have, just for openers, one world government that is democratic in nature? It is simply impossible, there is no way you could ever get an agreement of any kind. To make that leap from the Nation State system of 250+ sovereign countries to the idea that this could just be all one big melting pot anybody can go wherever they want and… I don’t know who makes the laws, should the United Nations make the laws? In a microcosm, the European Union reflects this idea to some extent in that the EU made it so that it was possible to move around wherever you want, if you were member of the EU.
But if you look at the Brexit example, and it is in a way understandable that Britain would be the first country to not want Europe to be telling them what to do, I mean, it is an island that has shaped its character all through the History of Europe for the other countries are all connected to each other as they always have been. But I do not believe it is even remotely possible to have a global government and I think it is actually not remotely desirable. I mean, I don’t like my own government in this point in time, I am Canadian and I think the Canadian government is not doing a very good job, but all government have their problems, you’re never going to have a perfect government.
Right now, [in December 2017] Germany is having one of the most difficult times in modern History with trying to form government, they can’t even form a government, I don’t know what the latest is there, but it is a very difficult time at a national level, and part of the reason for that is because they allowed people to just freely come in to the country by the millions, who were in no way assimilated to the German way of life and will change it fundamentally, in ways people won’t enjoy. But I am not a political philosopher, I’d be the first to admit that, but on a face of it, I think the idea that there could be one world government is not only utopian but it is a false utopia that would not be a good thing for the history of civilization.
If countries want to cooperate with each other through treaties that is fine, and many countries are very closely aligned. The United States and Canada being an example of two countries that even though Canadian has this undeserved superiority complex with regard to United States, the two countries get along pretty well. The border is not open to anybody but it is open as borders can be, the only people that aren’t allowed to come through are people with criminal records etc. I don’t get it that in the Europe, and in the United States today there is this large number of people who do not differentiate legal and illegal immigration, they just call them “immigrants,” whether they came there with permission or not and the idea that you should not have to ask permission to cross a national boundary is beyond me.
I think it would be total chaos if the world went in that direction and indeed it has proved to be total chaos in Europe. I don’t think it has anything to do with race, it just has to do with complete dislocation and change in the shorter time period. I mean, everybody is an immigrant at one time or an other. The human species immigrated into Europe tens of thousands of years ago but it didn’t happen overnight. We can’t expect some kind of global government to just fall out of the air overnight, it’s not going to happen, and if it is indeed our goal to have one government, we have to expect that it would take 5 000 years for it to come about, I would think, rather than something that could happen overnight.
Grégoire Canlorbe is a top official of the French “Parti National-Libéral” (literally “National-Liberal Party”), conservative, nationalist, and free-marketist. Apart from his political activities, he has conducted numerous interviews for academic journals, and collaborates with the sociologist and philosopher Howard Bloom. He promotes a new form of liberalism (libertarianism), which he calls “territorial-aristocratic liberalism.”
Contact: email@example.com – https://www.facebook.com/gregoire.canlorbe
Actually knowing something about ecology gets in the way of being a green.
Actually knowing anything gets in the way of being a green.
I know nothing, other than greens are mad.
So where is GreenPeace today amidst rapid prolifieration of nuclear weapons, ICBMs, and medium range ballistic missiles? Gone for the green as in money that’s where.
Greenpeace was never against Russian or Chinese nukes. It was only American nukes that were evil.
It was bought lock stick and barrel by the KGB, and rented back to US and European corporates as a way to sell more rubbish to dumb consumers
Splendid, insightful, thorough interview— well worth reading in entirety.
you’re kidding, right? he’s just another useless wannabe celebrity with fascist fantasies.
” Then if it can be shown that you are frequently practicing against what you’re preaching, you might be convicted of something and totally you must not be allowed to do that any more.”
this parasite is just the same as all the others, no matter what color lipstick.
You weirdo’s give yourselves away with your childish names….gnomish….and then you open your mouths and remove all doubt.
just cuz 5149 people chose ‘Bill’ ahead of you
doesn’t mean you should just drive by to hate on somebody
who chose a nick more original.
Please provide a list of things you have done that are even slightly useful. Seems to me you attempt to compensate for your own lack of self-esteem by attacking others. I hope it helps you.
Yes, it’s people like Patrick Moore that give me hope.
Funnily enough, our own Patrick Moore (the astronomer, who has sadly passed away) was also a bit of a sceptic.
Good interview, the kind of interview you can only read at places like WUWT.
It doesn’t matter what Patrick Moore has to say about the alarmist AGW narrative, he is not in the rotation of people who speak and get “balanced” media coverage.
From where I sit (Toronto) when the experts are called in to publically speak on the issue it’s either Al Gore or Bill Nye. When our media calls on the experts to opine electronically it’s always Michael Mann or others holding the same alarmist point of view.
What a stench.
March 13, 2018 at 10:32 am
Yes, you’re quite right. Anyway, many thanks Anthony…one of the best pieces I’ve seen on WUWT for some time.
So sad that this kind of thinking gets ignored by the usual left wing media around the world.
A one world government would be dangerous. Too easy for a dictator to take control or for groupthink to take over. You need different power centres to create different opinions that have a struggle for ideas. A one world government would mean only 1 party in power would dictate events for the whole planet. Much too dangerous. and if you had a 1000 parties in this one world government with coalitions, nothing would get done. One world government is the most dangerous idea to ever come out of the greenie camp along with many other stupid ideas such as socialism,sustainable development, green energy,,,,AGW… etc.. It seems greenies dont study history and are forever doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The US began going downhill when the federal government neutered the states.
yup- when they legislated the means to enforce the collection of tribute for a ‘new world royalty’ back in 1787
only gold and silver coin, mind.
it only took about 7 years for the new nation to debase the fiat to less than a joke.
and yet this event has been spun into a variant of the santa claus myth.
I do not see why a ‘government’ of the world has to have ‘parties’ and a ‘president’. Parties are nothing more than factions and should be prohibited.
There is zero need for a ‘leader’ like the US president. The point of a democratic institution is to cast votes in favour of ideas and laws. The whole point of a Party is to subvert that. Out with them.
Other a someone to chair the meeting, there is no requirement for a ‘leader’. That position can be rotated.
There is, in short, no need to replicate the worst aspects of national governments at the International level. Representation would of course have to be proportional because the current UN arrangement is unfair.
Patrick Moore is thoughtful, well informed and intelligent. Rare qualities.
oh, come on. he’s no willy mays.
he’s a drip in the flood of gum flappers doing their level best to make human society a negative sum game.
Quatsino Seafarms Ltd was his daddy’s biz.
he’s been nothing but a talker ever.
greenpeace kicked him out in a power struggle.
he had to find a new flock to support the Church of the Immaculate Soft Hands of Saint Patrick.
gnomish if you were talented in anything close to be able to lick Patrick Moores’ boots I might give you the time of day. Otherwise you are just a troll here and you are in for a lot of verbal punishment on this site.
lead the parade, mcduff.
but for fun- do tell me what you think mr moore has ever actually done besides talk.
i’m completely uninformed of anything he’s done besides recycle air and food.
is that what you think that makes his feet so appetizing?
gnomish does not address any of what Patrick Moore says. He (I assume) just does a drive-by ad hominem typical of the troll with nothing constructive to offer. He should be banned immediately.
Robert Austin March 14, 2018 at 11:51 am
“gnomish does not address any of what Patrick Moore says. He (I assume) just does a drive-by ad hominem typical of the troll with nothing constructive to offer. He should be banned immediately.”
how did you miss the direct quote (you know – the words between those inverted commas- should be very obvious because of the conspicuous parsimony with shifted keys) that was the basis of my comment?
were you simply vain enough to imagine your drive by ad hom would be constructive? beep! wrong.
but you do win a hypocrisy participation trophy.
now, go to the dictionary and look up the words. i have only your best interest at heart, here.
I agree with Robert Austin above, who correctly states that gnomish should be banned immediately. Why do we need to have to weed through this type of personal insult, without any substance, as to the character of Patrick Moore. The only purpose that gnomish accomplishes here is to make me stop wanting to come to this site if that is what I have to endure, instead of participating in a meaningful discussion, and/or debate. Gnomish offers no debate, no discussion, no clue other than his ability to derail this entire post, which was one of the best I have read here in a long time. Patrick Moore makes a lot of sense, and that has the marxist left outraged. Either gnomish goes, or he wins by being allowed to post slander and malfeasance against a giant voice like Patrick Moore.
i quoted from the article this statement attributed to your dear mr moore:
” Then if it can be shown that you are frequently practicing against what you’re preaching, you might be convicted of something and totally you must not be allowed to do that any more.”
and i reassert that is the mind set of the progressive fabian fascist- and here you come emulating him. now you are crying for censorship…lol
are you a clone of melissa click or a lewandowsky sock puppet?
just what have you brought to the table other than triggered wailing?
gnomish March 14, 2018 at 4:53 pm:
How is the idea of outlawing hypocrisy “the mind set of the progressive fabian fascist”, gnomish? And what is wrong with that if it is?
I’m not criticizing you; just trying to understand you.
“How is the idea of outlawing hypocrisy “the mind set of the progressive fabian fascist”, gnomish? ”
the idea of forbidding speech- what does it mean?
somebody dictating what others may say
somebody seeking indictments for what others may say
somebody enforcing diktat of the authoritarian person who presumed to ‘permit speech’
some punishment or consequences to be inflicted by some other unrelated third part for the utterance of words.
and somebody’s gotta pay for all this. punishment for saying things doesn’t fall off trees.
that’s nanny state writ large and in your face. it is exactly what the snowflake antifa fags are demanding when milo or shapiro or coulter give a speech. exactly the same.
and, as you have seen these last 2 characters pop up for the sole purpose of expressing their triggeredness.
their desire to have some thug shut me up somehow is the self same hypocrisy their devoutly wished.for inquisitor would be in charge of investigating…lol
this is really quite simple
Hey gnomish, here’s my brief bio if you care to know what I have done.
Quatsino Seafarms was MY company which I founded with my late brother and late brother-in-law. We grew salmon for 8 years, Aquaculture is the future.
I left Greenpeace voluntarily, There was no power struggle.
You are pond scum.
awesome to have a reply, mr moore.
my information re establishment of the salmon farm was second hand. if it’s wrong, then i was wrong to fail in citing the source rather than making the assertion. i can not defend second hand info and therefore i yield completely on that point
my other one stands, which is that your beliefs are fabian socialist fantasies of micromanagement of human behavior which depend completely on money taken from others to finance.
furthermore, i do not have any doubt that you consider yourself to be one of the central governors rather than the herd you propose to dictate your terms to.
iow, you are no different in principle to any antifa fag desiring control of the speech of others.
and you want to be paid to proselytize others with this toxic anti human belief system of central control- with you at the center, obviously.
i see that you inhabit a bubble different than mine, for your list of ‘achievements’ is, in my view, a catalogue of of parasitism, to wit:
” Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction for 15 years while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.”
so you helped create this engine of human hate, i see that.
“Dr. Moore founded and chaired the BC Carbon Project, a group that worked to develop a common understanding of climate change. ”
beats workin, wut?
“Dr. Moore served for four years as Vice President, Environment for Waterfurnace Internationa”
vice president of environment? really? that’s a thing? and you got paid? wtf did you produce?
“Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC”
more sitting around yammering, eh? what did you produce and of what value to whom for what?
is this like al gore inventing the internet? how not?
“Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a consultancy focusing on environmental policy and communication”
omfg. this is for real? and this does anything besides convert food to fertilizer?
“The Allow Golden Rice Now! Campaign demands that Greenpeace and their allies discontinue their campaign of opposition to Golden Rice”
so you have a campaign against some other campaign… this sure as hell sounds like pro wrestling.
the activist ecosystem, however, depends on hosts to prey upon because they are a negative sum game.
activism is not not not an industry – it is a profligate waste.
“Moore joined the founding meeting of the CO2 Coalition in Washington DC and was appointed a director of the organization with the aim of educating on the benefits of carbon dioxide for life on Earth.”
and somebody has to pay for this crap? this is half of what’s wrong with the word right now- you bunch of parisites exhorting and extorting.
““Speaking Truth to Power Award”, 9th Annual Climate Change Conference, 2014”
did algore release your chakra for that one?
all the things you consider boasts- i call them confessions of a worthless trougher.
it is perfectly well understood that the only relationship to be had between parasite and host is bad for the host.
gnomish, March 15, 2018 at 6:07pm:
But surely, it isn’t the idea of forbidding speech, is it? As far as I can see, it is the idea of outlawing “frequently practicing against what you’re preaching” (in Patrick Moore’s own words). I don’t think that means anyone’s speech would be forbidden: it would be actions that contradicted what one preached that would be forbidden. If such a law was put into effect, I imagine that a lot of ostentatious exponents of fascism, socialism, environmentalism, climatism and many other ‘-isms’ would soon fall foul of it.
ok, cassio- the proposition that human beings be accused, indicted, arrested, tried, convicted and punished.
necessarily implies the body of men who must be paid to hear the complaints of accusers, issue warrants, capture and detain a new class of speech criminals …
just think about it a little bit.
and yes- the speech is the crime. the deed is not- because if it were there would be laws over it already. speech is the only thing that makes it a crime
frikn social justice jihadis have unbridled fantasies of fabian sharia featuring themselves as the 12th imam.
gnomish, March 16, 2018 at 9:21 pm:
Yes, but that’s true of any law, surely. I don’t see how that’s an objection to this one specifically.
They would not be ‘speech criminals’, but would be ‘hypocrisy criminals’. I think hypocrisy is not just a matter of speech, but is essentially a matter of a disparity between something that one preaches, or advocates in speech and what one actually does in one’s behaviour. So it is that disparity which would be outlawed, not the person’s speech, and s/he would be free to change his speech or his behaviour (or both) at his own discretion in order to stop being a hypocrite.
I have been thinking about it, gnomish. And I still don’t see anything wrong with it in principle, although it would need to be applied with due care and attention in practice just like any other law, of course.
As I have explained above, it is neither the speech in itself nor the deed in itself that would be the crime, but the mismatch between the two.
Not necessarily. Consider, for example, those climate activists who advocate the total rejection of fossil fuels by all human society while consuming fossil fuels with unrestrained gusto themselves in their personal lifestyles. Is there some law which they are breaking by consuming fossil fuels freely? I don’t know of any. However, an anti-hypocrisy law would enable such “fossil fuel hypocrites” to be confronted with their apparent insincerity and double-standards in a court of law and made to account for them.
Take a pill.
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow), March 20, 2018 at 5:55 pm,
“Take a pill.”???
Why? What for? Sorry, but whatever you’re meaning to say with that is lost on me.
Ditto. Excellent article. Thankyou Anthony.
I feel like I must have heard Patrick talk about this carbon depletion (really REALLY wanted to write “deplenishment”) problem before. I’ve been thinking similar thoughts and wondered if there was any credible research along these lines. It seems to me, that with the large amounts of carbon dropping to the ocean floor each year to be sequestered geologically, the planet would be more at risk for carbon loss than carbon gain. The idea that humans have become part of the natural carbon cycle, by burning fossil fuels to return it to circulation, is quite gratifying.
The trouble with prior CO2 levels is that, unless better proxies come along, we are stuck with mostly models.
One can put trend lines through both models and actual proxies though and the results seem to be the same. The Earth would have dropped below sustainable CO2 levels at some ‘point in near future’ without our ‘reckless activities’. Just going off GEOCARB III (a model), we appear to have added about 30 million years to Earth’s life expectancy in one hundred years. Not bad going.
It would be really interesting to read a study into how long life would have continued to flourish is we didn’t start burning fossil fuels. 280ppm pre industrial revolution isn’t too much above the doom level. The next glaciation may have been the end…
The interesting thing is that even with 75% increased production of burning fossil fuels in last 38 years there is only a 20% increase in the C02 ppm. So it looks like we dont even have much control over that not to mention even less control over the temperature.
ripshin:” wondered if there was any credible research along these lines ” – The Biosphere project had the potential to learn more about this – they experienced wild fluctuations in levels of CO2 and all of the pollinating insects died. Seems we could’ve learned something meaningful.
Please see my paper on the subject of carbon “deplenishment” here:
My website id http://www.ecosense.me You can write me there.
Thanks Patrick! Will definitely read this paper on…deplenishment…
As far as the Catholic Church goes… [snip – unnecessary religious commentary, and it’s prohibited by site commenting policy. -mod]
I was raised as a Conservationist. Conservation movement is the most successful environment movement in history. The modern Environmental movement, which contrary to various groups, only started in the late 1960s not at some earlier time. The difference, the most distinct difference, between the two movements is the Conservation movement includes human as a part of the entire system while humans might cause a problem they are also the source of the solution. The Conservation movement understands humans have made mistakes usually based on ignorance While as most of you have found out sometime in the mid to late 1970s humans became an evil disease from the view of almost every modern environmental organization. From their standpoint human need to be removed from the planet, well all humans but those that believe in the current orthodoxy. The reason those in the Environmental movement get along so well with the Far Left in the socioeconomic politics is that they are all the ultimately elitists.
Conservatism, i.e. Capitalism is the natural state of human development.
Socialism is an artificial political construct which introduces far more harm into civilised society than Capitalism ever has.
Conservationist, not conservative.
Not that I disagree with anything you wrote.
Socialism is impossible to actually implement in practice. It always eventually either leads to Communism or dictatorship
To me the eternal fight between socialism and capitalism is a waste of time. The peoples struggle should always be decentralisation against centralisation.
Both socialism and capitalism end up in feudalism. In socialism the political power eventually grows into a complete power. And in capitalism the financial power eventually grows into a complete power.
We need to decentralize all kinds of power, be it political, financial, religious, etc……
Greenpeace was no small contributor to the impression that mankind was the problem. It was part of being ‘against corporations’ but as they were infiltrated and taken over, it boiled down to being antagonistic to any society advanced past the Sumerians.
Moore had some good answers. Quite frankly, I didn’t understand a few of those questions.
yep, me too – and not seemingly lost in translation either
I saw the same thing he did the instant I traced the carbon cycle (using both lists and diagrams). I was also hearing how CO2 levels were “as high as x-hundreds of thousands (or x-millions) of years ago”. (And the planet has cooled since then, too, on a geological timescale.)
Recently, the hypothesis is further supported by observing the effects of the reverse process: Mild warming + 40% increase in CO2 directly linked to10 to 15% more biomass than in the early 1980s. Even after all the burning down, chopping up, and killing off we have done in the meantime.
Two things i have maintaind following my inquiry into AGW that convinced me it was all a massive hoax are well illustrated by PM:
1. The planet almost ran out of atmospheric CO2, being that it was as low as 180ppm, meaningful plant life dies at around 150ppm.
2. Man happened along shortly following this precipitous event and discovered fire, according to the green human haters the source of all planetary evil.
3. Man later discovered how to liberate accidentally, but naturally sequestered Co2 by burning fossil fuels.
4. The single, observable manifestation of increased atmospheric Co2 over the last 30 years of satellite observations is that the planet has greened by 14%.
5. There seems no meaningful, observable, negative manifestations of increased atmospheric Co2.
Nor am i a scientist. I’m a realist, and a layman, and it doesnt take much investigation to establish these basic facts.
Nor have I even got half way through the article!
[The mods appreciate your self-awareness. We were about to ask the same question. -mod]
Over enthusiasm, forgive me please. 😁
I’ve done the same thing more than once.
Anywho, I’ve been wondering if in the future mankind will have to build a nuke or two, and use the power output for nothing other than breaking down calcium carbonate in order to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Interesting thought, assuming the idiots could capture and sequester atmospheric Co2 in the first place. Perhaps a bit like nuclear fusion, a pipe dream always 20 years into the future, but still far more likely than human Co2 sequestration.
Although, there’s always the good old primitive method of burning fossil fuel to release the stuff.
Could God have screwed up, and introduced humankind as the solution?
To be honest, I’m inclined to believe in that more than any climate scare, and I’m not a religious man. As wacky as it might appear, it makes a lot more sense that the green alternative. At least to me.
I’m thinking of a couple of thousand years in the future when most of the fossil fuels have already been burned up. What do we do next to keep CO2 levels up?
Had a semi-boss once who was always listing “three things.”
He got up to ten once – and a coworker yelled “For God’s sake, don’t take your shoes off!”
The 180ppm you mentioned, that was during the last glaciation right? Then it rebounded somewhat during the interglacial, but still was only 280ppm pre-industrial revolution. My feeling is that the next glaciation could have been the end.
I believe you’re correct. But it was a fairly pathetic rebound really, considering the planet has been at 5,000ppm, commercial greenhouse operators maintain levels of 1,500ppm and, submarines and astronauts breathe up to 6,000ppm Co2.
Seriously, what are these green eco nuts thinking about? A solar minimum might have depleted Co2 from 280ppm to below 150ppm had it, perhaps, not been for mans intervention.
Were one religious (other than the Pope of course) one might proclaim it a miracle of human survival.
Sounds like a good movie. Maybe have some protagonists traveling around the 1800s world trying to find a solution for a soon to die earth. Finally, in an unrelated science discover, Canadian geologist Abraham Pineo Gesner invented kerosene, and the world was saved!
Before the global warming nonsense got started, I read one “environmentalist” who proclaimed that Gaia had to invent man in order to get all of that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.
CO2, not Co2. The latter would mean a molecule consisting of two atoms of cobalt.
Tablet typing I’m afraid. Sorry.
No. 4 – The 14% number is drastically less than one paper that says that net global CO2 uptake, has doubled in 50 years or, 200%. They cannot both be correct?
Doubled means it increased by 100%.
Jonathan “Doubled means it increased by 100%.”
“Increased by 100%” means the same thing as 200% of what is was. (But I suspect you already knew that ….)
If you WERE a scientist,
there’s a high probability
that you would be on
a government payroll,
pressured to predict a
coming global warming
catastrophe, that would
‘end all life on Earth’,
which is a good thing
to do when job security
is your goal !
“I like to say, most people gasp at this, the fact is fossil fuel, coal, petroleum, natural gas are 100% organic, as in the scientific meaning of organic. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon, in other words, the chemistry of life and all the fossil fuels are made from life, so they’re 100% organic.”
I took an intro Organic Chemistry class many years ago and the quote above from Patrick Moore is exactly the definition of “Organic” that I was taught. That is why I am always annoyed when some one describes their food product as “Organic”, because I always think, its “Organic” compared to what, Inorganic food?
I too struggle with the assumed general meaning of ‘organic’, having similarly been indoctrinated as an undergraduate chemistry student.
As defined here in the UK by the Soil Association, ‘organic’ farming seems to be essentially 19th century farming: manure, mineral fertilisers (and some mineral pesticides) and not a right lot else, unless you can ‘justify’ it in your attempt to get ‘certification’, from them, fee required of course. And a total opposition to GMO’s, despite the fact that widespread use of many such plants would bring about reduced (evil modern) pesticide use.
Another word regularly abused is ‘renewable’. Fossil fuels are actually renewable, it’s just that the timescale is quite extended.
Likewise, fossil fuels and nuclear energy can both be described as solar power.
Mentioning that over dinner usually causes some ‘green’ indigestion.
There is just as much danger in producing toxic or poisonous plants by plant breeding as there is with GMO products. Both should be tested for safety. Intrinsic opposition to GMO products is ridiculous.
Mankind will never run out of fossil fuels. We discover more and more every year
Organic chemistry is actually the chemistry of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The Moore interview is very good but he used the term “carbonaceous” incorrectly when referring to carbonate rocks (limestone, dolomite). The correct term is “calcareous” rocks.
Carbonaceous rocks commonly include black shales that contain a significant amount of carbon as fine graphite, pyrite (FeS2) and possibly a small amount of petroliferous material as well. They can be source rocks for oil and gas deposits.
March 14, 2018 at 3:47 pm
And let’s not forget that wonderful, but much maligned, stuff – Uranium from these carbonaceous shales!
Excellent views on life and our environment by Dr Moore. We need more like him to speak the truth.
“Before the global warming nonsense got started, I read one “environmentalist” who proclaimed that Gaia had to invent man in order to get all of that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere”
Yup, pretty much what I’m saying..
The marine calcifiers brilliantly made armour plating for themselves with calcium carbonate, inadvertently assuring the early extinction of nearly all or even all life. Humans brilliantly figured out how to turn fossilized hydrocarbons into the energy for civilization, inadvertently guaranteeing the continuation of life for many millions more years, perhaps hundreds of millions.
Fantastic, thank you. I have long maintained that it seems incredibly coincidental that man happened along and discovered how to make fire, just in time for him to make a meaningful contribution to atmospheric CO2 (although at only 2ppm per year as far as I’m aware) when the planet needed it most.
I’m not a religious man, but it might be perceived as divine intervention in some circles.
Quite apart from that, I’m humbled you considered my comment deserving of a reply. It’ll make a great dinner party tale. And I have saved your PDF as evidence!
This previous article by Dr Moore is worth reading too.
Greenpeace co-founder pens treatise on the positive effects of CO2 – says there is no crisis
The interviewer’s questions were obscure; the interviewee’s responses were superb. 🙂
No need to worry about CO2 sinking to dangerously low levels as long as only biological processes are using it up. CO2 levels have probably been a limiting factor on global plant growth for millions of years, with plants using it up as fast as volcanoes produce it, until there’s barely enough to go around. They will have a hard time committing suicide by holding their breath. –AGF
” … has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” ….”
No, they never “abandoned science”, they never were interested in science beyond a cynical appeal to authority to know something which they didn’t, and to weally weally ‘caring’, and being ‘good’.
Classic sheep in wolf’s clothing tactics.
It was warped, biased idiocy from the very beginning, and it never wavered from that.
Patrick Moore is my environmentalist. And nice hippie hair!
Anyone got a graph of atmospheric CO2 ppm over time with a trend to see where it would be going if not for burning fossil fuels? Might be a really interesting talking point about PM assertion about release of CO2 saving plant life?
March 14, 2018 at 2:36 am
Chris, if you watch the Youtube clip that is linked about half way down the article you can see just such a graph up on the screen. It was a talk to the GWPF in 2015 so there may be a link to it somewhere on their website. Maybe even try and contact Moore directly…I’m sure he would oblige…unlike Al Gore!
Here is a link. The uptick in CO2 on the right is our contribution to reversing the downward trend.?dl=0
Anyone else think that the questioner is unnecessarily projecting artificial intellectual constructs onto a discussion of nature and politics
“All they do is attack the individual because they can’t attack the fact that CO2 has been declining…” – Moore.
That is far too common in any argument when one side has the answers and the other has nothing but slogans and propaganda.
If the common thread with alarmist/Warmians/Greenbeans/CAGWers is that humans are horrible evil things and should be erased from the planet’s surface, does anyone besides me think that they should volunteer to go first? Self-sacrifice to save “other” is some form of heroics, right? When they bring up this utter nonsense, do they truly understand what they are saying, that they are included in the ‘end all human life’ part?
My takeaway from this article is that humans ARE saving the planet from going into entropy, that the Age of Mammals will continue for some time to come.
It is unfortunate that these benighted, uninformed souls who want to eliminate humans from the mix don’t understand that they would not be around to see what happens. I simply cannot climb on the doomed train with them. I prefer to watch and wave bye-bye.
As Patrick Moore was in my thoughts while writing a limerick for St. Pat’s day 2018, I will share it early with all:
Ode to Climate Activism
I long was a fan of Ecology,
‘Til it became ‘Gaia’s Theology’.
To question the memes
Is heretical it seems,
And errant exceeding apology!
Rather than Meteorology,
These pontiffs employ Sociology.
Is their pleasure – our pain,
As they garner support by Psychology.
Yes, the science-of-climate’s esteem
Is built on ‘unprecedented extreme’.
It appears the mundane
Would be ill to their gain,
As it’s lucrative for them to scream.
So, it’s up to the people to learn,
And facts, from spin to discern.
Is the planet in harm,
Or just false alarm?
Which way will society turn?
Hear, hear! Ha, ha!
As long as we are getting into “poetry”, here’s something I wrote in the summer of 1965 when I was living with a bunch of writers:
red and ripe
soon will rot
I have changed my tune since then…
Why is Dutch singer Thomas Berge on that picture with Patrick Moore?
About animals and genocide; Many ants species do war, right? And I think it’s more about the fact that animals can’t do genocide, not that they won’t do it. The difference is that humans have actual capabilities to wipe out species. if animals could wipe out their competitors by pressing a button, I think they would do it.
Also about immigrants:
“Total chaos” in Europe? Really? Has he actually even been in Europe, or just got his information from sensationalist newspapers? I live in Finland and there is no “total chaos” in here, despite all the nationalist fearmongers who use the same tactics as climate fearmongers. I have said this before but skeptics out of all people should be skeptical of today’s journalism. Besides, you would think that an American would be sympathetic to immigrants, because US was born out of large scale immigration in just few hundred years, the fact that Moore ignores. But I guess because liberals support immigration, and Trump hates it, it has to be bad. Afterall, liberals are always wrong and Trump is always right. Immigrants have always been a convenient scapegoat for everything. “Immigrants cause everything and everything causes immigrants”. Today it’s the muslims before that the bad guys were asians, italians, irish, swedish, germans…
Open borders and “global gov” is not the same thing, yet Moore seems to confuse the two things. There is a lot of economic evidence that immigration is a good thing overall. It’s also morally right, I’m not saying we should have a a global government. I’m saying that people should be allowed to move and live where ever they want, and that they should be treated as individuals, and not as a collective.
I’m afraid it is serious Fredar, allowing entry to millions of single young men with no jobs, and no commitment if not outright hostility to their hosts was never a good idea. The mainstream media and governments are trying to cover this up rather than allow people knowledge of the true extent of the problem. Large parts of Malmo in Sweden, for example, are now No Go zones for postal and emergency services – it’s just too dangerous. The terrified remnants of the Jewish community are abandoning the place (and Europe generally) due to racist persecution. The German and Swedish governments are only now being forced to admit that they have a very serious problem on their hands.
In the UK sex grooming gangs have raped (and even murdered) thousands of school girls in the towns of Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford and that is, quite possibly only the tip of the iceberg. The people, seeing this, are getting very angry and calling out this appalling failure of the primary duty of government – the protection of its citizens..
The immigration into North America of Europeans was very different, coming as they did with a desire to integrate and a shared western heritage that believes in democracy and the Christian ideals of the sanctity of life and the sovereignty of the individual.
I don’t know where the idea that immigration is a moral virtue came from, I don’t believe there is any such thing. Large scale Islamic immigration is looking more and more like a major catastrophe and certainly the Eastern European countries, with their collective memory of horrific contact with the Ottomans, want no part of it.
This is not immigration, it is invasion, no different from all the illegals in the US. Immigration refers to a legal process. I just love you people who conflate legal with illegal immigration. A country has a right to decide who enters snd who stays. If you don’t think the Paris massacre was chaos I’d like to see your definition.
I have never been disappointed after reading
anything Patrick Moore has written.
He’s right about the science,
and is a good writer too,
which is unusual for PhDs.
Perhaps you were not born yet. At the height of the Cold War we took on the US Atomic Energy Agency, arguably the world’s most powerful organization at the time. I understand the role of nuclear weapons in keeping the peace, MAD as it is called. But at the time the arms race was out of control and more of the massive threat, as illustrated by the Cuban missile crisis. Greenpeace was an important part of the effort to stop the Cold War and stabilize global politics. Then we succeeded in forcing France to stop atmospheric nuclear tests long after the US, Britain, and Russia agreed to go underground. And if you think stopping the unnecessary slaughter of more than 10,000 whales every year was idiocy then you are the idiot.
Well done Patrick. You remain a true Rainbow Warrior. 🌱CO2=LIFE🌱 Mankind didn’t make a safe climate dangerous, but took a dangerous climate & inhospitable 🌍 & made it safe with fossil fuel technology! “Neither current events nor history show that the majority rule, or ever did rule.” – Jefferson Davis A consensus, especially a consensus about a theory without proven hypotheses, which is all that the ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ remains to date, is a notion which lies outside natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth or the establishment of a physical law. Scientific consens(us) is scientific nonsense. Science gets things wrong. It’s the only way they ever get things right – trial and error, and lots more research. Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on real world evidence not theoretical computer models. Among the great triumphs of scientific inquiry over the past 300 years is the ability of man to insulate himself against nature’s vicissitudes, and even to channel, to an astonishing degree, the forces of nature to his benefit. Perhaps our understanding of climate will rise to the same heights someday. But that day is not now, and those who believe that they can legislate solutions to problems they do not fully understand are certain to create more troubles than they will prevent. 🌱CO2=LIFE🌱 and is not a poisonous pollutant. Government funding for climate related science has, for too long, been concentrated on finding evidence of the hypothesis, derived from the theory of Greenhouse Gases controlling the baseline temperature of earth, that it is man causing the current warming by elevating CO2 levels. This despite ample proof of past much higher CO2 levels, optimum for the flourishing of plants and thus ALL life on earth dependant on them, not having resulted in any “tipping point” or runaway warming. The reason the climate change belief system has been so dramatically successful is because it fulfils needs of one sort or another for a very large number of people. 1. Money – approx. $3 trillion has been spent on renewable energy, mainly wind and solar, since 2000, and considerably more than this is planned for the next two or three decades. None of this would have been spent if the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ had never entered our minds. With all this money sloshing around, CAGW is probably the best funded belief system in the history of the world. 2. Political power – one of the best ways to gain political power is to convince people of a threat, then claim to be the only party capable of shielding them from that threat. “Vote for us, otherwise your children will inherit a devastated wasteland!” 3. Academia realized a long time ago that being the handmaiden of the politicians and the money-makers could be very lucrative. If you challenge academics on their CAGW beliefs, as I have done, you will receive a ferocious pushback because you are threatening the research funding on which their livelihood depends. 4. We live in an intensely materialistic society (shop till you drop!), and many people have this unacknowledged spiritual void inside themselves (what’s it all about, then?). Belief in man’s wickedness and in the possibility of spiritual redemption by buying a Prius or protesting against pipelines helps to fill this void. (“Oh holy Al Gore and blessed Saint Suzuki, be with us now and in our hour of need”.) I have a nasty feeling that we are stuck with the CAGW belief system until someone comes up with an alternative and equally successful belief system. I love how you are correctly telling people we live in a CO2-impoverished atmosphere, and unless we do something about it, the next ice age, which is going to come, will wipe out the human race.