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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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