DR. PATRICK MOORE, FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, TELLS YOU 20 THINGS YOU CAN STOP WORRYING ABOUT
He debunks global warming, the carbon theories, plastic oceans, forest fires, and the extinction of polar bears. These are all, surprisingly, a pack of lies.
The complete proof that CO2 had no discernible impact on global warming in recent history was published in 2013, by Humlum et al. His analysis considered the official, IPCC endorsed data sets of mean global temperature and CO2 and found that an increase in the rate of CO2 input did not result in increased rate of warming, thereby demonstrating zero climatic sensitivity to CO2, therefore CO2 is not a discernible cause of warming. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming
Thanks Jonathan, another fine piece of writing. I can only assume you take the denier drivel as a badge of honour? For all that, I’m mindful of @yanisvaroufakis recent challenge to the US left to find a way to win back the support of white male workers there if they are to halt the slide to fascism. The practice of environmental crisis is clear to be seen all around us, it is the ideological blanket over it that, alone, holds back the movement for change. Only a class approach can do this. We need to build the links between the fight for better wages and health care with pollution of our water and destruction of our soils, etc. In this regard, climate activists have something to learn. Public transport proponents need to support striking railway workers and rail unions need to broaden the economic strikes for working conditions into the socialisation of railways, etc. Leaving young middle class people to lead the environment fight back is a betrayal of workers. And leaves them exposed to the kind of crap you get thrown at you in some of these columns. Again, my respect for your guts and integrity.
The Guardian, the paper we love to hate, published an interesting article on these now fully accepted studies; the 'hockey stick' graph proposed by Mann/NASA et al as real evidence of dangerous global warming (as it used to be called). It appeared there had been an editing out of significant anomalies from other contradictory research in order to make his premise more compelling. Work like that of Dr. Keith Briffa. His data based on the study of tree rings indicates something very different.
The fact that so much is invested in climate change including these strange COP conferences that governments love to pay lip service to (except when it conflicts with their own petrochemical agendas) and yet make little effort to avert this supposedly existential threat may show political manipulation at work rather than true science.
This does not mean there are not serious proven environmental issues that need addressing (plastic choking the oceans, air quality in our cities, river pollution, deforestation, animal species extinction etc.) But like the theory of evolution, when science research of a particular vein is funding dependent (i.e including climate change effects in your study can open doors to a lucrative pot of funds) it can be at the expense of good science. When questioning or countering a line of research based on proper science may result in the loss of your job/funding/tenure many will opt for the lie. Integrity rarely pays well.
I have to acknowledge, apart from those few who were interested in environmental issues 40 years ago, almost everyone reading this article will have started to take notice of the climate conversation long after I did. In fact, most will have begun thinking seriously about the climate in the last 10 years – about the time the media started to sit up and take notice.
The media did so not because they suddenly started to care about the environment but because the raw data and effects of climate change were becoming hard to ignore. Anyway, by then, given that the fossil fuel companies knew back in the 1950s that the climate tipping point would be reached in about 2020, there had been sufficient time for the oil industry to reinvent itself as leading a green revolution. Those already sceptical of western states and their corporate overlords were, therefore, easily persuaded not just that the green revolution was a scam (which was true), but that climate change was too (which was woefully wrong). As a result, lots of critical thinkers on the left joined the dumbest parts of the right in becoming climate change deniers – not because they were paid to be (like Nigel Lawson) by the oil lobby but because they had sunk into terminal cynicism.
Those who were paying attention over the past 40 years watched this all unfold in real time. They saw the switch and bait. Those who were very late to the party now want to tell us that we are the ones being scammed. Forget it. You're in bed with Exxon, Shell and BP, whether you understand it or not.
Out of curiosity, I read that article. Is it really the best you've got to confidently assert "there is no climate crisis"?
It begins with a paleoclimatological chart of CO2 levels over the Earth's last 600 million years, and apparently this ought to be enough to "put an end to all 'climate change' arguments" by itself. It is left to the imagination of the reader how it is useful to compare the levels of CO2 in an era like the barren Cambrian—where the Earth was dominated by such advanced animals as the sponge and worm—to today.
Well, who cares about CO2 when after all, life can thrive even in 40C or higher average temperatures of both air and water around the globe, with 10% of today's oxygen levels, and the complete absence of any life on land or even plants altogether? If we are conservative, perhaps we can cut emissions enough to end up with a similar climate to the Cretaceous, and maybe if the sea levels are similar to then, North America will get to enjoy being split into a few major landmasses with a sea between them all. Beachfront property for all!
Of course, one can safely ignore CO2 emissions altogether and for the sake of argument, say that it either doesn't matter, it's all nonsense, or perhaps even that we could benefit from more of it in the atmosphere; the reality of the climate crisis does not change very much. Most life is going extinct, and human life survives only at the present expense of the biosphere in exchange for its inevitable collapse leading to our own destruction.
Continuing the article, there is a brief mention of Big Oil pushing green energy to profit from climate change and electric vehicles not being good for the environment either. I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by the former, and the latter should be equally obvious. In any case, this says nothing about the climate crisis itself.
Finally, it gets more interesting, asserting that the purpose of green energy is to "impoverish the planet, and accelerate depopulation via hyperinflation, poverty, supply chain shortages and famine." Apparently climate change is a "psychological indoctrination program whereby humans grow to despise themselves as the main cause of planetary destruction, considering the human race a 'scourge' upon the world." I would be curious to see the evidence of this program's existence, but none is presented; we are to take the author for their word.
We are to believe this psyop is a "critical early phase of Death Cult normalization that allows for ritualistic suicide behavior in, say, the uptake of slow kill bioweapon injections." Maybe the reason our leaders rarely struggle to plan ahead with anything is because they've been preoccupied all this time, planning depopulation and inventing climate change for the past century to be able to push future biotech company's deadly MRNA vaccines. I am amazed by this level of commitment, and relieved to find out there is more reason to all this madness than profit.
Enlightened by the above, I am reassured to learn that many elites who I formerly worried about—such as the technocratic ghouls of the WEF and other organisations (shockingly unmentioned in the article, despite describing a few vague parallels to the reality of these people's beliefs)—are completely impotent. A death cult controlling society and narrative discourse sounds worrying; it is fortunate after many decades of planning, the worst they can come up with to try to kill us all is give one in so many thousands of people myocarditis.
The rest of the article is clips of newspaper articles throughout time, all with incorrect predictions of doom and gloom. Very shocking that sensationalist articles from the media intended not to inform, but to provoke and attract as many readers as possible while turning a profit, all turn out to be wrong. Well, I imagine they do—who cares to read all of this rubbish? Amazing how many of these the author of this collected; it says a lot about them and almost nothing about anything else.
Maybe the less you know about everything this article talks about, the more convincing it is...
Ah, you're one of those masked cultists, that believe the injections were well intended, but they failed because they were rushed a bit.
Of course, this sort of mentality goes hand in hand with the "climate crisis" which never arrived, yet was prophesied for over 70 years now..
People like you destroy works of art and block highways, believing they somehow change the climate this way.
You're a terrorist in the making. With this mentality, you will be glad that the COVID 'vaccines' killed people, because well, we gotta save the planet..
You understood nothing from those charts and the article. If anything, CO2 is beneficial to life, not detrimental.
All plants need CO2 to live. Less CO2, less plants. Less plants, less O2 being created. Less O2.. less animals, including humans. Unless we'll learn to breathe something else, that is.
But I guess logic wasn't your strong point in school, after all ..
Explain why the Amazon rainforest isn't exploding with diversity and lush greenery? According to your statements, that's exactly what should be happening - there and the boreal forests of the northern hemispheres. LOL.
90%+ of Earth’s atmospheric CO2 is from decaying leaves alone, at most 2% from fossil fuel.
If atmospheric CO2 is a crisis, what’s the plan to stop plants from rotting?
The leaves that die every season, or periodically near Tropical areas, grow back every season, or periodically, to remove CO2.
From my high school chemistry, it’s certainly possible that increasing the percentage of a select molecule in solution by even fraction of 1%, can be have a strong impact, even a disastrous impact.
However, there is no chemist known who concludes CO2 is THAT molecule.
Humans caused or cause the following? Of course not:
The latest Ice Age to end/the Global Warming that started about 10K years ago, or was it due Earth’s 41K year Tilt Cycle, which will cause warming for about another 10K years?
Staring in 800, the 400 year period when it got so warm that wine grapes were grown in Britain?
Changes in solar output?
Hard science proves CO2 levels increase 600 to 800 years AFTER warming.
Therefore, the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to both the warming period that ended around 800 years ago, and fossil fuel use.
The questions are:
What percentage of CO2 increases over the last 100 or so years are due to the warming period that ended 800 years ago vs present fossil fuel use?
and
Is more CO2 changing weather, if so, are these weather changes harmful, or beneficial?
Benefit example if warming:
More “livable land” in Canada and Russia.
An increase in CO2 from 300 to about 500 parts per million is causing weather changes?
Certainly possible, but zero proof.
Claims that more CO2 is “causing more hurricanes” and similar claims, are on par with the “efficacy of Homeopathy”, or “validity of Astrology”, placebo and faith based.
Again, hard science proves CO2 increases occur after increases in temperature.
Yet, many are caught in the correlation implies causation fallacy.
Regardless, don't extraordinary claims such as a “Climate Crisis” require extraordinary proof?
The only proven impact of more atmospheric CO2?
More food for plants.
Resulting in a more green Earth, more plants, to remove even more atmospheric CO2.
I’ve been reading Michael Shellenberger’s pieces on climate change and he seems to offer constructive ideas besides “we must stop climate change...” He’s also written about how climate change activist are now calling for the elimination of democracy and abolishment of governments, which undermines the narrative that the climate is what matters. Finally, he’s written a few articles on how climate activist are turning to victimizing themselves as a way to justify their actions. Greta does this constantly. Even the tweet from Louise in this article does it...”I wouldn’t have to be here if they did their duty...” Like poor Louise had no other options but to perform her stunt.
I’m far from a climate change denier but it seems like too much of the climate change activism is centered around elitist telling the rest of society what it needs to do. And the more it aligns with WEF messaging, the less I support it.
Either way, Michael Shellenberger’s content has opened my eyes to some different ideas.
Thanks for your articles, Jonathan. In a sane world, George Monbiot would be endorsing your words, instead of somehow hoping the establishment media will miraculously change direction on climate change.
You are a rare voice of Reason, in an Age of Insanity.
What are your thoughts on this ? It would seem to me that climate change protesters are creating the conditions for authoritarian responses in relation to protests. 
We live in non-democratic societies where "democracy" is licensed by the powerful for so long as it serves their interests. Will they try to use the protests to justify the crushing of dissent? Of course, they will. As they will when we start rising up because of unaffordable energy bills, empty supermarket shelves, floods and heat waves, the wasted expenditure on resource wars, and the more general collapse of "western civilisation". These are the struggles ahead. Burying our heads in the sand a little longer won't make the coming battle go away. It'll just make a victory even less likely.
While I agree with what you say the thing that I take grievance with is the notion that extinction rebellion is apolitical organisation.
It is purposely dissecting the radical elements away from the popular struggle thus meaning there will never be a political solution to the problem if the main body agitating for change is a non-political entity.
Using protest methods that causes friction between the protesters and the working population. Which allows the conditions for authoritarian crackdowns pre-emptively before the cost of living crisis kinda stinks like David sterling and his infiltration of the labour movement in the 1970s.
DR. PATRICK MOORE, FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, TELLS YOU 20 THINGS YOU CAN STOP WORRYING ABOUT
He debunks global warming, the carbon theories, plastic oceans, forest fires, and the extinction of polar bears. These are all, surprisingly, a pack of lies.
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/107-dr-patrick-moore-founder-of-greenpeace#details
"It's really quite simple. No CO2, no plants. No plants, no O2 production. No O2, we die."
I find this comment (from a different, relevant discussion) very telling.
The CO2 is at historic lows. We are close to an extinction level event, but it's because too little CO2, not too much..
If anything, we should be producing MORE of it, not less..
The complete proof that CO2 had no discernible impact on global warming in recent history was published in 2013, by Humlum et al. His analysis considered the official, IPCC endorsed data sets of mean global temperature and CO2 and found that an increase in the rate of CO2 input did not result in increased rate of warming, thereby demonstrating zero climatic sensitivity to CO2, therefore CO2 is not a discernible cause of warming. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming
Excellent article. Points well made. Thank you for the coverage.
Thanks Jonathan, another fine piece of writing. I can only assume you take the denier drivel as a badge of honour? For all that, I’m mindful of @yanisvaroufakis recent challenge to the US left to find a way to win back the support of white male workers there if they are to halt the slide to fascism. The practice of environmental crisis is clear to be seen all around us, it is the ideological blanket over it that, alone, holds back the movement for change. Only a class approach can do this. We need to build the links between the fight for better wages and health care with pollution of our water and destruction of our soils, etc. In this regard, climate activists have something to learn. Public transport proponents need to support striking railway workers and rail unions need to broaden the economic strikes for working conditions into the socialisation of railways, etc. Leaving young middle class people to lead the environment fight back is a betrayal of workers. And leaves them exposed to the kind of crap you get thrown at you in some of these columns. Again, my respect for your guts and integrity.
The Guardian, the paper we love to hate, published an interesting article on these now fully accepted studies; the 'hockey stick' graph proposed by Mann/NASA et al as real evidence of dangerous global warming (as it used to be called). It appeared there had been an editing out of significant anomalies from other contradictory research in order to make his premise more compelling. Work like that of Dr. Keith Briffa. His data based on the study of tree rings indicates something very different.
The fact that so much is invested in climate change including these strange COP conferences that governments love to pay lip service to (except when it conflicts with their own petrochemical agendas) and yet make little effort to avert this supposedly existential threat may show political manipulation at work rather than true science.
This does not mean there are not serious proven environmental issues that need addressing (plastic choking the oceans, air quality in our cities, river pollution, deforestation, animal species extinction etc.) But like the theory of evolution, when science research of a particular vein is funding dependent (i.e including climate change effects in your study can open doors to a lucrative pot of funds) it can be at the expense of good science. When questioning or countering a line of research based on proper science may result in the loss of your job/funding/tenure many will opt for the lie. Integrity rarely pays well.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-graph-ipcc-report
Spot on. I've outlined many of these issues here https://shadowlightblog.substack.com/p/ukraine-conflict-and-the-climate
I have to acknowledge, apart from those few who were interested in environmental issues 40 years ago, almost everyone reading this article will have started to take notice of the climate conversation long after I did. In fact, most will have begun thinking seriously about the climate in the last 10 years – about the time the media started to sit up and take notice.
The media did so not because they suddenly started to care about the environment but because the raw data and effects of climate change were becoming hard to ignore. Anyway, by then, given that the fossil fuel companies knew back in the 1950s that the climate tipping point would be reached in about 2020, there had been sufficient time for the oil industry to reinvent itself as leading a green revolution. Those already sceptical of western states and their corporate overlords were, therefore, easily persuaded not just that the green revolution was a scam (which was true), but that climate change was too (which was woefully wrong). As a result, lots of critical thinkers on the left joined the dumbest parts of the right in becoming climate change deniers – not because they were paid to be (like Nigel Lawson) by the oil lobby but because they had sunk into terminal cynicism.
Those who were paying attention over the past 40 years watched this all unfold in real time. They saw the switch and bait. Those who were very late to the party now want to tell us that we are the ones being scammed. Forget it. You're in bed with Exxon, Shell and BP, whether you understand it or not.
JSO is also in bed with Getty OIl. They are deliberately annoying and serve to put people off the environmental message https://jowaller.substack.com/p/i-knew-it-hugely-annoying-insulate?utm_source=publication-search
https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/the-man-who-invented-climate-change?r=tq9u1&utm_medium=android
There is no climate crisis.
https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/psyop-climate-change-the-absurd-co2?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email
Out of curiosity, I read that article. Is it really the best you've got to confidently assert "there is no climate crisis"?
It begins with a paleoclimatological chart of CO2 levels over the Earth's last 600 million years, and apparently this ought to be enough to "put an end to all 'climate change' arguments" by itself. It is left to the imagination of the reader how it is useful to compare the levels of CO2 in an era like the barren Cambrian—where the Earth was dominated by such advanced animals as the sponge and worm—to today.
Well, who cares about CO2 when after all, life can thrive even in 40C or higher average temperatures of both air and water around the globe, with 10% of today's oxygen levels, and the complete absence of any life on land or even plants altogether? If we are conservative, perhaps we can cut emissions enough to end up with a similar climate to the Cretaceous, and maybe if the sea levels are similar to then, North America will get to enjoy being split into a few major landmasses with a sea between them all. Beachfront property for all!
Of course, one can safely ignore CO2 emissions altogether and for the sake of argument, say that it either doesn't matter, it's all nonsense, or perhaps even that we could benefit from more of it in the atmosphere; the reality of the climate crisis does not change very much. Most life is going extinct, and human life survives only at the present expense of the biosphere in exchange for its inevitable collapse leading to our own destruction.
Continuing the article, there is a brief mention of Big Oil pushing green energy to profit from climate change and electric vehicles not being good for the environment either. I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by the former, and the latter should be equally obvious. In any case, this says nothing about the climate crisis itself.
Finally, it gets more interesting, asserting that the purpose of green energy is to "impoverish the planet, and accelerate depopulation via hyperinflation, poverty, supply chain shortages and famine." Apparently climate change is a "psychological indoctrination program whereby humans grow to despise themselves as the main cause of planetary destruction, considering the human race a 'scourge' upon the world." I would be curious to see the evidence of this program's existence, but none is presented; we are to take the author for their word.
We are to believe this psyop is a "critical early phase of Death Cult normalization that allows for ritualistic suicide behavior in, say, the uptake of slow kill bioweapon injections." Maybe the reason our leaders rarely struggle to plan ahead with anything is because they've been preoccupied all this time, planning depopulation and inventing climate change for the past century to be able to push future biotech company's deadly MRNA vaccines. I am amazed by this level of commitment, and relieved to find out there is more reason to all this madness than profit.
Enlightened by the above, I am reassured to learn that many elites who I formerly worried about—such as the technocratic ghouls of the WEF and other organisations (shockingly unmentioned in the article, despite describing a few vague parallels to the reality of these people's beliefs)—are completely impotent. A death cult controlling society and narrative discourse sounds worrying; it is fortunate after many decades of planning, the worst they can come up with to try to kill us all is give one in so many thousands of people myocarditis.
The rest of the article is clips of newspaper articles throughout time, all with incorrect predictions of doom and gloom. Very shocking that sensationalist articles from the media intended not to inform, but to provoke and attract as many readers as possible while turning a profit, all turn out to be wrong. Well, I imagine they do—who cares to read all of this rubbish? Amazing how many of these the author of this collected; it says a lot about them and almost nothing about anything else.
Maybe the less you know about everything this article talks about, the more convincing it is...
Ah, you're one of those masked cultists, that believe the injections were well intended, but they failed because they were rushed a bit.
Of course, this sort of mentality goes hand in hand with the "climate crisis" which never arrived, yet was prophesied for over 70 years now..
People like you destroy works of art and block highways, believing they somehow change the climate this way.
You're a terrorist in the making. With this mentality, you will be glad that the COVID 'vaccines' killed people, because well, we gotta save the planet..
You understood nothing from those charts and the article. If anything, CO2 is beneficial to life, not detrimental.
All plants need CO2 to live. Less CO2, less plants. Less plants, less O2 being created. Less O2.. less animals, including humans. Unless we'll learn to breathe something else, that is.
But I guess logic wasn't your strong point in school, after all ..
Explain why the Amazon rainforest isn't exploding with diversity and lush greenery? According to your statements, that's exactly what should be happening - there and the boreal forests of the northern hemispheres. LOL.
Because it has been deforested systematically in the past 100 years?!
Are you serious when you ask these questions?
Per MIT / Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
90%+ of Earth’s atmospheric CO2 is from decaying leaves alone, at most 2% from fossil fuel.
If atmospheric CO2 is a crisis, what’s the plan to stop plants from rotting?
The leaves that die every season, or periodically near Tropical areas, grow back every season, or periodically, to remove CO2.
From my high school chemistry, it’s certainly possible that increasing the percentage of a select molecule in solution by even fraction of 1%, can be have a strong impact, even a disastrous impact.
However, there is no chemist known who concludes CO2 is THAT molecule.
Humans caused or cause the following? Of course not:
The latest Ice Age to end/the Global Warming that started about 10K years ago, or was it due Earth’s 41K year Tilt Cycle, which will cause warming for about another 10K years?
Staring in 800, the 400 year period when it got so warm that wine grapes were grown in Britain?
Changes in solar output?
Hard science proves CO2 levels increase 600 to 800 years AFTER warming.
Therefore, the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to both the warming period that ended around 800 years ago, and fossil fuel use.
The questions are:
What percentage of CO2 increases over the last 100 or so years are due to the warming period that ended 800 years ago vs present fossil fuel use?
and
Is more CO2 changing weather, if so, are these weather changes harmful, or beneficial?
Benefit example if warming:
More “livable land” in Canada and Russia.
An increase in CO2 from 300 to about 500 parts per million is causing weather changes?
Certainly possible, but zero proof.
Claims that more CO2 is “causing more hurricanes” and similar claims, are on par with the “efficacy of Homeopathy”, or “validity of Astrology”, placebo and faith based.
Again, hard science proves CO2 increases occur after increases in temperature.
Yet, many are caught in the correlation implies causation fallacy.
Regardless, don't extraordinary claims such as a “Climate Crisis” require extraordinary proof?
The only proven impact of more atmospheric CO2?
More food for plants.
Resulting in a more green Earth, more plants, to remove even more atmospheric CO2.
Complete and utter bunk and you know it. Bot from Russia maybe?
You didn't refute anything he said.
Instead, throwing ad-hominems.
Typical of a brainwashed masked cultist, wanna-be climate defender..
I’ve been reading Michael Shellenberger’s pieces on climate change and he seems to offer constructive ideas besides “we must stop climate change...” He’s also written about how climate change activist are now calling for the elimination of democracy and abolishment of governments, which undermines the narrative that the climate is what matters. Finally, he’s written a few articles on how climate activist are turning to victimizing themselves as a way to justify their actions. Greta does this constantly. Even the tweet from Louise in this article does it...”I wouldn’t have to be here if they did their duty...” Like poor Louise had no other options but to perform her stunt.
I’m far from a climate change denier but it seems like too much of the climate change activism is centered around elitist telling the rest of society what it needs to do. And the more it aligns with WEF messaging, the less I support it.
Either way, Michael Shellenberger’s content has opened my eyes to some different ideas.
Thanks for your articles, Jonathan. In a sane world, George Monbiot would be endorsing your words, instead of somehow hoping the establishment media will miraculously change direction on climate change.
You are a rare voice of Reason, in an Age of Insanity.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/05/06/extinction-rebellion-training-or-how-to-control-radical-resistance-from-the-obstructive-left/?fbclid=IwAR1OdU4RTDuwCf2pWs8HcMUVzO5lvaVv46wy0LLHwvwbMVaWRhgi559vZFI
Woke up
Wake up
Vote them put that can't
Demand cease fire and negotiations.
*NOW*
What are your thoughts on this ? It would seem to me that climate change protesters are creating the conditions for authoritarian responses in relation to protests. 

We live in non-democratic societies where "democracy" is licensed by the powerful for so long as it serves their interests. Will they try to use the protests to justify the crushing of dissent? Of course, they will. As they will when we start rising up because of unaffordable energy bills, empty supermarket shelves, floods and heat waves, the wasted expenditure on resource wars, and the more general collapse of "western civilisation". These are the struggles ahead. Burying our heads in the sand a little longer won't make the coming battle go away. It'll just make a victory even less likely.
While I agree with what you say the thing that I take grievance with is the notion that extinction rebellion is apolitical organisation.
It is purposely dissecting the radical elements away from the popular struggle thus meaning there will never be a political solution to the problem if the main body agitating for change is a non-political entity.
Using protest methods that causes friction between the protesters and the working population. Which allows the conditions for authoritarian crackdowns pre-emptively before the cost of living crisis kinda stinks like David sterling and his infiltration of the labour movement in the 1970s.
Certainly not apolitical https://jowaller.substack.com/p/i-knew-it-hugely-annoying-insulate?utm_source=publication-search