Dr. Patrick Moore - Carbon and Climate Catastrophe

[@peterdreyer5954]

Grasslands upon which ruminant animals live also build the soil. As a regenerative farmer I witness this beautiful process every day.

[@Reziac]

And there ain't no trees out there on the prairies. Yep, when I see cows, I see steak and fertilizer (and a host of other products). Cheers to you for keeping it going. Grasslands evolved to be grazed, and if they're not, they degrade into desert. U of Arizona did an interesting study on desert tortoises. The common wisdom is that cows were killing them and needed to be removed. That was done, and a lot of tortoises starved to death. Why? Because they don't eat plants, they eat dung. Cows replaced bison in the ecosystem, pretty much one for one. (Actually, there were probably more bison.) They are, in fact, necessary for the health of the system.

[@murraymcgregor7829]

​@@Reziac and peterdreyer5954 Thanks for your insights! I have heard our food is deficient in magnesium because these corporations use artificial fertilizer which binds to magnesium and prevents it uptake into the plant. If Big Food started farming regeneratively, replenishing the soil with manure we wouldn't have such a metabolic health epidemic.

[@ariearie5054]

Extra CO2 means a lot of extra Income for you

[@linmal2242]

@@murraymcgregor7829 I am sure a lot of farmers, big n little do, and use such as Mo Super to adjust that imbalance.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Green Peace is neither green, nor peaceful.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Don't worry - there's 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean. So Mother Nature is taking revenge big time.

[@vhawk1951kl]

How do you know that"Green Peace is neither green, nor peaceful"? - Yo have exactly how much direct immediate personsl percipience(as direct immediate and personal as pain) of greenpeace, when an where? none at all, ever? No surprises there. The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

It is certainly not two words, the rest of what you say is even less factual.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Mother nature doesn't exist.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@vhawk1951kl Why are you telling me all of this? Did my post sound like I support the idiocy of a climate crisis? Green peace isn't peaceful because they engage in violence and disruption. They aren't green either as they use fossil fuels literally by the boat load.

[@eutectoid1]

I could listen to patrick every day - common sense personified

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

I prefer to get my Big Oil lies straight from Big Oil since I also worked for Greenpeace but I'm not a sell-out.

[@louishennick6883]

You could listen to dumbed down corporate bullshet every day? Is it because it’s easier to understand? Or is it less frightening?

[@cristinataliani5619]

Patrick Lies For Money!!!

[@philippesarrazin2752]

Moore is indeed a liar. For years he has been saying there is no relation between co2 and temperature over the last 500 million years. But there is a relation between co2 and temperature if 2 other parameters are taken into account : the shape and distribution of the continents ( possibility to form ice caps at the poles) and the power of the sun which increases by 1% per 100 million years. I’m sure he knows that, but he is paid to say there is no correlation ! If the earth was not an ice ball 500 million years ago or more despite a much colder sun, this is because there was 10 or 20 times more co2. The couple of times when earth almost turned entirely into an ice ball it was because co2 dropped too low and could not balance a weak sun.

[@bobd251]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 He didn't sell out and he isn't lying. He didn't just "work for" Greenpeace, you knucklehead, he was a founding member and an icon of true environmental activism. Not the same as "working for" and not the same as Greta T. or voidisyinyang political activism and virtue signaling related to a fantasy climate crisis story. Get a grip.

[@louisegobert9027]

Thank you I worked as a nurse in Canada's beautiful North Thank you!!!

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

I was in Vancouver at the time of this H bomb test @Amchitka, a historic moment for Greenpeace.

[@susanpockett4314]

You're a good man, Patrick Moore.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

It helps his image if you don't know him well. Moore is a greenwashing, PR spokesman for polluting industries, paid to make them look good even when they do bad things. His former position at Greenpeace gives him priceless credibility, even though he works for the very industries that he and Greenpeace used to fight.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

So good to the polluting industries!

[@g1motion]

This comment was censored on Sabine Hossenfelder's channel. This is a test to see if Google deletes it. I think he's saying, it's impossible to debunk brain washing. Once smart people are fooled, they become trapped in the Overton Window for the group they livet in. There's a near insurmountable 'wall' between AGW skeptics and believers. Truth is, there's no 'proof' CO2 released by man has a significant effect on climate. Climate Change 'science' assumes AGW is true, and its believers focus on proving skeptics wrong, NOT understanding their arguments, which makes it impossible to include them in models. The predictions of various climate models looks like a fan, and they all require constant adjustments to track climate data as it accumulates. That doesn’t sound ‘settled’ in any way shape or form. The assumption that green energy causes no or minimal environmental damage is naive. Referring to the space under windmills as bird cemeteries, highlights this point. And it's a no brainer that covering large areas with solar panels will have harmful effects, as will 150db shock waves from pounding in windmill farms. Environmental Science is extremely complex. denigrating and excluding skeptics is destructive and guarantees faulty conclusions.

[@markstephens5118]

Phenomenal talk from Dr Patrick Moore as usual, my dearest wish would be for it to be shown in every classroom in the world with resource material to back it up ,but not just for the students but more importantly the ( was going to use a bad word ) teacher's.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

He's a sell-out - I worked for Greenpeace so I know global warming is real. But I don't get paid big bucks by big oil.

[@cristinataliani5619]

More Crap And Corruption From DR PATRICK MOORE

[@vhawk1951kl]

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@vhawk1951kl Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) ----------- Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr".

[@markstephens5118]

@@vhawk1951kl here ,here. The problem with climate models is that they are the quintessential run the flag up the flagpole example of garbage in garbage out, simply because no one, no individual, no collection of scientists no government or world body completely understand the climate, so climate models are always full of guessing. The religious aspect of climate zealots is also a big BIG problem as one of the major defining aspects of religion is there is no need for evidence just faith.

[@davidrussell8927]

Actually, you can put coal in a pipe. They did it for years to supply the now demolished Mojave Generating station. The coal was crushed and mixed with water to make a slurry and it was pumped hundreds of miles and dewatered with centrifuges before it was burned.

[@vhawk1951kl]

"Dewatered?(sic)!!!! *Only* in kinderland-America

[@user-wy4mp9ts3u]

clever

[@user-wy4mp9ts3u]

For relatively short distances but ships and trains are still the most efficient form of transport

[@anthonymorris5084]

The evidence is overwhelming, rising CO2 causes hysteria.

[@lalaboards]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

@anthonymorris5084 ...no worries, take a deep breath...

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@JugglinJellyTake01 Hold your breath, permanently.

[@1972martind28]

So much they need to tax us more

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@1972martind28 Yup. The Left solve every single problem with a tax, and environmentalists solve every single problem with this phrase - "Stop doing that, you can't do that anymore". Both represent some of the most myopic people on Earth.

[@ianhill1686]

Truly critical thinking at its best,just join the dots ,what a fantastic planet..

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Patrick Moore isn't a climate scientist. He's a greenwashing PR shill for big industry. He's the former head of the CO2 Coalition, for example, which received millions from the oil industry to promote the use of more gas and oil. Not a single scientific institution anywhere on earth agrees with him that today's climate change is natural and good for us. Exactly the opposite. So we can trust the 99.9% consensus of publishing scientists who actually work in the field or we can trust a man who gets paid big bucks to make industry look good. What do you think?

[@philippesarrazin2752]

Truly critical lies and ignorance. Moore is indeed a liar. For years he has been saying there is no relation between co2 and temperature over the last 500 million years. But there is a relation between co2 and temperature if 2 other parameters are taken into account : the shape and distribution of the continents ( possibility to form ice caps at the poles) and the power of the sun which increases by 1% per 100 million years. I’m sure he knows that, but he is paid to say there is no correlation ! If the earth was not an ice ball 500 million years ago or more despite a much colder sun, this is because there was 10 or 20 times more co2. The couple of times when earth almost turned entirely into an ice ball it was because co2 dropped too low and could not balance a weak sun.

[@jjo5917]

Nope. Truly misrepresenting science on behalf of corporate interests. He's not just an idiot... he's intentionally misleading for money. A scumbag.

[@petewright4640]

I presume you're being sarcastic.

[@fatcityhockey]

I agree that the use of chlorine has been a godsend in providing safe drinking water eradicating countless diseases and improving health in general but I don't think pharmaceutical drugs and their widespread overuse and contribution to our cronic disease epidemic is endearing to the benefits of chlorine.

[@JeffRaimer]

His use of the chlorine idea is a false equivalence.

[@orjanwrange3864]

Listen and learn from this important lecture, thank you Patrick!

[@philippesarrazin2752]

Moore is a liar. For years he has been saying there is no relation between co2 and temperature over the last 500 million years. But there is a relation between co2 and temperature if 2 other parameters are taken into account : the shape and distribution of the continents ( possibility to form ice caps at the poles) and the power of the sun which increases by 1% per 100 million years. I’m sure he knows that, but he is paid to say there is no correlation ! If the earth was not an ice ball 500 million years ago or more despite a much colder sun, this is because there was 10 or 20 times more co2. The couple of times when earth almost turned entirely into an ice ball it was because co2 dropped too low and could not balance a weak sun.

[@petewright4640]

Yes it's interesting how disinformation is propagated.

[@HarryHound]

Thank you

[@bobsweeney9133]

Dr Moore knows Real science.

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

Obviously he does. How else would he know to say the exact opposite of it.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

😂 Moore

[@waynepatterson5843]

​@@CC3GROUNDZERO You don't know what you are talking about. Climate Change activism is a fantasy pseudoscience based upon imaginary numbers in fictional datasets fabricated by the activists; i.e. an imaginary delusion.

[@philsmith4040]

C02 is a necessity for life and we need more of it! It makes things green.

[@stevangelical7052]

Water is good for life. But water can also drown.

[@54m0h7]

Love seeing these talks that show actual data, and Dr. Patrick Moore is one of the best at showing it and summarizing it for us. Great job!

[@Tengooda]

What particular "actual data" impressed you most?

[@barleyarrish]

@@Tengooda all of it.

[@Tengooda]

@@barleyarrish Which is the sort of answer that someone who hasn't understood anything, but doesn't want to expose his ignorance, would make.

[@barleyarrish]

@@Tengooda Sorry about that, but if personal attacks on people you disagree with is the best you can do, then take up a political cause that you are more conversant with.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Cite the data that refutes the scientific consensus on climate change. Moore isn't a climate scientist and does not work in the field. He's a greenwashing PR spokesman for big industry, paid to make polluters look good.

[@esecallum]

1966: oil gone in 10yrs 1967: dire famine forecast by 1975 1968: overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969: everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989 1970: the world will use up all its natural resources by 2000, urban citizens will require gas masks by 1985, nitrogen build-up will make all land unusable, decaying pollution will kill all the fish, killer bees, ice age by 2000 and America will be subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980 1971: new ice age coming by 2020 or 2030 1972: new ice age by 2070 and oil depleted in 20yrs 1974: space satellites show new ice age coming fast, ozone depletion and "Great peril to life" 1976: scientific consensus planet cooling and famines imminent 1977: department of energy says oil will peak in the 90s 1978: no end in sight to 30yr cooling trend 1980: acid rain kills life in lakes and peak oil in 2000 1988: regional droughts in the 90s, temperatures in DC will hit record highs and Maldives will be underwater by 2018 1989: rising sea levels will obliterate nations if nothing is done by 2000 and New York City's West Side Highway will be underwater by 2019 1996: peak oil in 2020 2000: children won't know what snow is 2002: famine in 10yrs if we don't give up eating meat, fish and dairy and peak oil in 2010 2004: Britain will be Siberia by 2024 2005: Manhattan will be underwater by 2015 2006: super hurricanes 2008: the Arctic will be ice free by 2018 and Climate Genius Al Gore predicts an ice free Arctic by 2013 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles says we have 96 months to save the world, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says we have 50 days to "save the planet from catastrophe" and Climate Genius Al Gore moves his 2013 prediction of an ice free Arctic to 2014 2013: the Arctic will be ice free by 2015 2014: only 500 days before "Climate chaos" 2018 A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels by 2023...Greta Doomberg. 2019: Hey Greta, we need you to convince them it's really going to happen this time 2020 Greta Thunderberg global warming will cause temperatues to rise to 80 degrees celsius and drown 80% of the population. 2024 Greta still alive. 2024 WEF

[@chesterfinecat7588]

2024 8.2 billion people with only 3% of biomass in wild animals and every summer “the hottest on record.” Everything is just ducky.

[@wheel-man5319]

Except everything you posted is false. You're posting the narrative of a malthusiandeath cult.​@@chesterfinecat7588

[@bobd251]

​@@chesterfinecat7588feel free to personally unburden the earth with your existence. You people are immune to facts and reason that disagree with your righteous belief taken on faith not science.

[@rodhenson7657]

All true, why am I still here.

[@anthonypaquette2501]

​@@chesterfinecat7588humans are only .01 of earth's total biomass with trees being largest at 84% and bacteria a distant second at 13%

[@johardy-bishop9105]

Every plant needs CO2. The islands in the Indian Ocean are still above water. 25 years ago we were told they would go under in 10 years.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Sea level has risen four inches since 1993, and its rate of rise has doubled, according to NASA. As a result, the Maldives have lost 95% of their fresh drinking water resources, due specifically to salt water overwash and infiltration. But no climate scientist ever said those islands would be underwater now. Some scientists predicted some of the islands would be submerged by 2100. The Maldives, in fact, spend half their national budget on climate change and holding back the rising tide. Most notable is their dredging of the sea floor to bring sediment to the beaches to build them up higher. Over fifty of the islands have reclaimed land from the ocean this way. Reclaiming land and delaying inundation for some future year does not mean sea level rise is nonexistent. Cities, towns and states all over the world are currently emptying their coffers to figure out ways to stop the tide from rising. New York and Louisiana, for example, already have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works. Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads by two feet. In January, Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Odisha state in India reports losing no less than 16 coastal villages to the sea. This isn't in someone's imagination. It's really happening and will only get worse going forward.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

"Every plant needs CO2." And? What climate scientist anywhere on the planet is calling for an end to CO2? NONE. NADA. ZILCH. Everyone all the way down to elementary school knows CO2 is good for plants, which is why there are no plans to eliminate it. We're unable to do that anyway. It's important to remember that CO2 is only good for plants up to a point. We've passed that point, with plants only absorbing a fraction of our emissions now and leaving the rest to accumulate in the atmosphere. . The dose is the poison. While CO2 helps plants grow more lush, the warming that accompanies rising CO2 cancels out those benefits by increasing crop-decimating heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and wildfires. Rising CO2 also increases lushness by increasing sugar content and, in crops that we eat, diminishing zinc, iron and protein content, making them far less nutritious. It's not nearly as simple as fossil fuel industry propaganda would have us believe.

[@minanovkiril]

Check all of the places on the planets oceans that are coral, coral reefs at this moment are dead everywhere on the planet and half a billion humans have no way to live off them. These folx will move north! Nothing can stop the stampede off humans coming from south of equator in order to live and get away from burning. Do not be delusional. This is not ideological it is real! And t is happening at the moment, we need to stop capitalism.

[@Dan-mm1yl]

​@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Do u know anything that stays the same over long periods of time? I dont

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@Dan-mm1yl That's a pretty lame answer, Dan. Your house is falling apart but why make repairs because, you know, "nothing stays the same?" Here is my response to that: WE are causing the deleterious changes with our emissions. Those changes will cost the world trillions annually in damages going forward. We are in complete control of our emissions and therefore the damages that will accrue. All studies to date establish clearly that reducing our emissions and switching energy sources will be far cheaper than continously repairing climate change damage every year. Why the defeatist attitude?

[@abbsidaleppo8707]

Confused on Garbage patch, as there is a ship out there cleaning it up? I think he underplays the damage of plastics.

[@linmal2242]

When 'cleaning it' what do you mean; just scooping it up to put it somewhere else ?

[@liberty-matrix]

"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Apparently you haven't seen NASA's follow-up satellite survey, which found that most of the greening has been due to massive new tree plantings (billions) and intense agricultural turnover in China and India. See HUMAN ACTIVITY IN CHINA AND INDIA DOMINATES THE GREENING OF THE EARTH, at the NASA website.

[@dnboro]

Well that's terrific. Perhaps you could give the 50 or so million people who will be impacted by sea level rise the good news. Might want to also give the good news to all the species of plants and animals that will go extinct.

[@forrestmallonee7717]

The planet loves CO2 we are in a carbon drought the planet is greener oceans are not rising but some people just need their far left communist Kool-Aid

[@miked5106]

​@dnboro and when will this incredible rise happen. We've been waiting patiently for 50+ years.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@miked5106 Sea level has risen four inches since 1993, and its rate of rise has DOUBLED, according to NASA. (See NASA SEA LEVEL) According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has increased an astonishing 400% and 1100% since the year 2000. (See NOAA HIGH TIDE FLOODING). Louisiana has already lost over 8800 acres to permanent inundation in its Lower Breton Sound area, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's why that state has a new $50 billion-dollar flood mitigation project in the works. So does New York, with its borough of Queens flooding on a regular basis. In January, Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 milion in damages. Annapolis is closing its City Dock neighborhood 60 times a year due to regular inundation. Miami Beach has been forced to raise 105 miles of roads by two feet. Globally, Odisha State in India reports losing no less than 16 coastal villages to flooding. The Maldives have lost 95% of their fresh drinking water resources to salt water overwash and infiltration and are spending half of their national budget on sea level rise mitigation. That includes the dredging of the sea floor to build up sinking beaches with new sediment on fifty of its islands. Patrick Moore, by the way, is a greenwashing, PR spokesman for the very polluting industries that he and Greenpeace used to fight. He is not a climate scientist, and he is profoundly debunked by those who are climate scientists. He is the former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by fossil fuel industry investors to promote the use of more gas and oil.

[@bryanbufton4358]

God bless you for what you've done.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

God bless him? For spreading misinformation and pro fossil fuel industry propaganda? Moore is the former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by the industry to promote the use of more gas and oil.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

He is going to need a lot of blessing to avoid hell. 😂

[@liberty-matrix]

"The problem with science is science follows the money." ~Russell Brand

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Wow, getting your science information from an addled drug addict/rapist. Does the stupidity in this country get any lower?

[@louishennick6883]

Patrick Moore, funded by fossil fuel corporations to deny basic science in his lectures, is the very example of that expression.

[@petewright4640]

And Russell Brand would know.

[@louishennick6883]

@@petewright4640 good point. I’ve never heard of him. Who’s Russel Brand? Guess I’ll have to look him up lol

[@louishennick6883]

Looked him up he’s definitely not the epitome of intelligence

[@ceecee6679]

Amen to the travel guide!!

[@SimonWallwork]

Listen to this man.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Please don't. Moore has stated that the evidence doesn't show that human activity is causing climate change. That flies in the face of Cornell University's 2021 survey of over 88000 climate studies, which found a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's warming. So who's right? The thousands of PhD-level climate scientists who make up the consensus or a non-climate scientist who is regularly paid by big industry to make them look good?

[@49inxs]

exactly

[@JeffRaimer]

Ignore this man.

[@howardland2928]

Thamk you Doctor Moore.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Yes, thankyou, Patrick, for providing the perfect example of how a greenwashing PR spokesman for polluting industries brainwashes a gullible audience into rejecting the world's scientists.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

"Plastic is great for marine wildlife" Moore serves his masters well.

[@SchantaKlaus]

It has been studied quite thoroughly... But the real issue is that all attendees at the COP meetings know how bad plastics are - yet they have allowed increasing use of them when natural alternatives exist and are readily available. They ones telling us to feel guilty are the ones who do not lead by example - the rules for Thee and not for me approach tells me all I need to know.

[@bobmunro888]

Thank you Patrick. Very informative. Met you at Myron's celebration of life in West Vancouver. Very interesting.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Not informative. Misleading.

[@filiplachance8576]

"The constant downward trend of CO2". Wow. He totally ignored the recent stable period, shown on his own graph, encompassing the entire pleistocene period into the holocene, during which HUMAN civilization has been able to flourish. You might want to stop and think about that because modern human beings don't have the same climate needs as dinosaurs or giant insects.

[@jungleb77]

Patrick Moore is a convincing, but wrong. I’m not sure what flipped in his thinking.

[@petewright4640]

Well said.

[@SchantaKlaus]

I don't get your point ... You're saying that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is appropriate to sustain life on Earth, it seems... Well, isn't that a given? And that's not how you identify a trend. ... Climate Alarmists are allowed to ignore segments of graphs, but that's not what is going on - the graph clearly shows CO2 diminishing over time - it, as you observed, plateaued during that period - the graph doesn't show CO2 rising above previous levels - it displays the downward trend you are trying to ignore.

[@ryanc9241]

@@jungleb77 nobody is 100% correct all the time, but cherry picking one (and it wasnt a very good one as per the response above) item to justify your thinking is deeply flawed, sort a like a climate hysterist.....Hes right on damn near everything he stands for and states, as much as climate fearmongers are wrong in everything they stand for and state

[@jungleb77]

@@SchantaKlaus his point is that CO2 has been higher in the past, but during periods when life was much worse for humans or there were no humans at all. During the entire time that humans weren’t hiding from sabertooth tigers and dying all the time, CO2 has been stable and lower than it is today. CO2 is clearly increasing sure to industrial activity, it’s not magically going to decrease.

[@phil20_20]

The present issue is the rapidity of temperature change, and whether we can adapt fast enough. The Melanchovich Cycles and recent greenhouse gas increases may be causing a spike in our climate change. Sure, this will balance out over time, but can the individual wait that long? I have no doubts that the human race and other life will survive, but it's going to be a rough few decades. The wise will consolidate their resources in preparation for the coming changes in our economies and world politics. I've been saying, Nuclear and Trees, for decades. The whole thing has devolved into ineffectual politicking now.

[@martinkirchhoff1084]

Dr Moore is completely out of the main stream of Clima Science.

[@WiersmaMark]

@@martinkirchhoff1084 moore is out of the climate consensus, which is not science. Voting for who is wrong or right is a democratic decision. Science is observation, verification and replication, as Moore correctly says. Co2 being the main driver of climate change has never been proven. It is fear mongering.

[@robertmarmaduke186]

...is completely out of the mainstream of Clamydia Science. So true!🤡

[@vhawk1951kl]

Good for hiM , the fallacy argumentum ad populum is a favourite of crazed religious fanatics that subscribe to that asinine religion of climate-change/globalwarming_ism. can you not se the flaw in eat sh1t, fifty billion gazilion flies can't be wrong? The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@vhawk1951kl]

To what is that relevant and more shortly, so the fcuk what? The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@ryanc9241]

which is why he is able to dissent, because he is not bought and paid for nor a hostage to his career

[@dbiedler]

Thank you.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

CO2 decreased over millions of years because we no longer have the massive and long-term volcanic upheaval from the collision and break-up of continents. Sea-floor spreading itself has greatly slowed. (Down 38% from 19 million years ago.) Ocean chemistry changes have also played a role, specifically with a decrease in dissolved calcium, creating conditions where CO2 becomes more soluble in the oceans, reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

[@murraymcgregor7829]

It seems Coal powered electricity is essential to keeping our CO2 levels up to sustain life.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@murraymcgregor7829 Not even remotely true. You've bought into Patrick Moore's fossil fuel industry propaganda, not science. With thousands of volcanoes and trillions of organisms spewing gigatons of CO2 every year there isn't the slightest chance that CO2 would ever drop down to levels low enough to hurt plants. For the 800,000 years leading up to the Industrial Revolution, in fact, CO2 never got above 300ppm and most of the time remained around 260ppm, and the world didnt end. This is a scare story from big oil, not reality. The ocean in fact is fast approaching a temperature that will push CO2 out into the atmosphere rather than absorb it. When that happens, the greenhouse effect will strengthen in earnest and we'll be in serious trouble, as even more CO2 will be entering the atmosphere.

[@dnboro]

@@murraymcgregor7829 Wow. The last time CO2 was as high as it is today, humans did not even exist. So why do we need more than we have ever had to sustain life. It seemed to be sustained for a very long time before the industrial revolution.

[@robertmarmaduke186]

A decrease in calcium would mean an increase in CO2 only because the carbonate forming organisms are being starved out of the water column. If oceans are 'warming' (they're not) that would decrease CO2 solubility and then reduce 'acidification'. So which is it? If sun is warming the oceans that would be the source of increasing CO2 in the air. If oceans are cooling, that would increase acidification. The whole Climate Change BIöb is replete with these physical conflicts, so they Tipping Point! and run away.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@robertmarmaduke186 There is no conflicting information. You're simply misinformed. The oceans today are a net ABSORBER of CO2, not net EMITTERS. As they continue to warm that process will reverse, which is projected to happen sometime within the next century. The oceans are warming at a record rate, now at 360 (+2) zetajoules, according to NASA. The last ten years were the warmest years of all. See NASA OCEAN WARMING and let me know what you see on their graphs.

[@WiersmaMark]

While Patrick Moore helped to stop the industrial whale fishing successfully, it should now focus on the smallest creatures: krill. Huge trawlers fish out krill by the millions of tons. Krill is at the beginning of the food chain, don't fish out krill, let it continue to be eaten by larger fish high in the food chain.

[@dnboro]

Krill depends on winter ice as a part of its lifecycle. Climate change is a massive threat to krill and thus the food chain.

[@WiersmaMark]

@@dnboro can you explain this with some more details please? As this is not what Patrick Moore says. Krill feeds on vegetation and ice cover reduces the amount of light entering the water, so the grows of algies. Makes sense to me.

[@marktanska6331]

Some reason people want to believe in disasters that will destroy them? Yes I wonder that myself. Only thing I can work out that people are so dissatisfied about their lives that they look for a external solution to end the misery.

[@vhawk1951kl]

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. religion tends to stupefy.

[@JeffRaimer]

@@vhawk1951kl Science much?

[@gordonm8745]

Beati pauperes spiritu. May God forgive you your stupidity. 🙏

[@jacquiewatson1750]

Observation bias is alive and well, everywhere. My 27 year old son introduced me to how it was affecting my thinking. The younger generation may well be our saviours! The non kool aid drinking ones at least.

[@LeonieHall-c4o]

Cement. Print your new house from cement. Thereby releasing much carbon into the atmosphere

[@brucethomas471]

Well, all of this presentation feels so good, and is factually correct as far as it goes, but leaves out some very important facts. One, sea level follows the same curves. Sea level 3 million years ago was nearly 9 meters higher with our current CO2 levels. And it is now rising over 4 mm per year, in fact every decade you can expect another mm per year increase. Two, heat waves, forest fires and storms are gutting the insurance and global transport industries. California, Texas and Florida insurance markets are especially affected. Three, Ocean temperatures are increasing fast. Ocean currents circulate warmer Ocean water under ice sheets and glaciers, melting them from underneath. Four, aquifers worldwide are being over utilized, and eventually will fail to deliver water for crops. So, by all means, dazzle us with earths ancient history. Just don't ignore the inconvenient facts about what else was going on, while you attempt to exonerate human failures and ignorance. The sea level will not stop rising until there is ocean atmosphere equilibration. Heat waves and fires will not stop until the jet stream flows normally, without omega blocks. As for ice sheets and aquifers .. Well, no one wants to starve, right?

[@tom5216]

Have you checked the number of forest and wildfires in data from the 1930s. I think you’ll find they were much more prevalent then than now.

[@robertmarmaduke186]

Tipping Point is the Climate equivalent of Evangelical Signs & Tribulations. In fact the Climate Cult Revelations mirror all of the previous four fundamentalist hysterias 'The Sky God is Angry! Send Tïthes to UN lPCC Bishopry! Latest satellite records research shows 99% correlation between global cloud cover, solar cycle intensity and surface temperatures. _CO2 and methane impact are not detectable_ Cloud cover is in long-term decline from solar activity (and galatic location) cosmic rays that trigger cloud formation. That's what's driving change in weather. ALL WE CAN DO THEN IS PREPARE BY INCREASING CO2 AND BY PLANTING MORE COVER CROPS AND *BY PREVENTING UN BRUSSELS DICTATORSHIP AND BRUTAL CARBON TITHES.*

[@garyjones4001]

You have been brain washed with bullshit

[@stephmullin9709]

The earth is not 3 million years old

[@JanHatch]

My information says humans and plants thrived for 200,000 years because CO2 was stable at 280 ppm which moderated the climate. Now at 420ppm it threatens extremes.

[@robertmarmaduke186]

Climate has NEVER been this poor in CO2 and been many 1000s ppm in past. Every species alive today's survived far more extreme heat and cold. Latest satellite records research shows 99% correlation between global cloud cover, solar cycle intensity and surface temperatures. _CO2 and methane impact are not detectable_ Cloud cover is in long-term decline from solar activity (and galatic location) cosmic rays that trigger cloud formation. That's what's driving change in weather. NOT CO2! ALL WE CAN DO THEN IS PREPARE, *BY NOT LETTING A UN DICTATORSHIP SUCCEED!*

[@Fran-ey4bu]

Still one of the best anti alarmist videos. When will the Al Gore madness end?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Not a single scientific institution anywhere on earth agrees with Patrick Moore. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. Moore is a greenwashing, PR spokesman for polluting industries, not a climate scientist, and he's profoundly debunked by those who are climate scientists. Moore is paid to make industries look good even when they do bad things. He is the former director of the CO2 Coalition, for example, which has long been funded by fossil fuel industry investors to promote the use of more gas and oil. Moore employs verbal sleight of hand, little lies of omission and cherry-picked data to mislead and regularly spotlights debunked graphs in his presentations. An untrained lay audience is almost always fooled. Don't take my word for it. See FACT CHECKING PATRICK MOORE, CLIMATE SKEPTIC See also RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S WHAT THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

[@paulmac-bb1se]

Thanks for the honest info keep it going👍🏼

[@jjo5917]

It's dishonest actually.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Moore works on behalf of the very industries that he and Greenpeace used to fight. He is, for example, the former director of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by energy industry executives and conservative climate denial groups to promote the use of more gas and oil. Check their website and see for yourself. Moore has also worked on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Asia Pulp and Paper (a logging firm), the CASEnergy Coalition, the Canadian Mining Association, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, Westcoast Energy and B.C. Gas, PVC manufacturer IPEX, and BHP Minerals. Moore isn't a climate scientist. His degree is in forest ecology, but he is not a forest ecologist, he's a paid spokesman for industry. In other words, he's a liar.

[@gillescarrabin8776]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481thank you for clarifying where he comes from : there is a huge lobby from the fossil industry to continue the statu quo to preserve their massive income

[@philippesarrazin2752]

How do you know it is honest ?

[@user-wy4mp9ts3u]

Humanity may have unwittingly prevented the imminent onset of a new ice age

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

That's fossil fuel industry propaganda, promulgated by Patrick Moore, who is the former director of the CO2 Coalition, long funded by energy industry investors to promote the use of more gas and oil. The next major reglaciation wasn't due for tens of thousands of years. A new Ice Age has never been "imminent."

[@archibaldikowski3646]

Still didn't drink his glyphosate... ^^

[@LeonieHall-c4o]

Ah well, maybe not everyone can be always right. Yeh, he's wrong about glyphosate and meansanto. And bayer

[@bobd251]

Yeah that was a dumb thing to say. Drinking a cup of glyphosate is not exactly like exposure due to its use on crops as a herbicide.

[@user-wy4mp9ts3u]

Spoiler Alert,one possibility is that CO2 increase may cause more rain,this is a definite possibility,CO2 was the first thing used in cloud seeding experiments that worked,it is possible but by the same token more rain will remove more CO2 from the atmosphere.

[@davidbell4986]

I agree with Dr. Moore. Is there any dispute of what he says by "climate scientist"?

[@chesterfinecat7588]

Take it from a guy with a math degree, this guy is a nut. People don’t live in timescales relevant to geologic epochs.

[@denisdaly1708]

We are warming 200 times faster than natural processes. This is devastating for civilisation and the biosphere

[@barleyarrish]

@@chesterfinecat7588 You are the nut...

[@chesterfinecat7588]

@@barleyarrish A corny response: See me skiing on “Snowball Earth” because next glacial epoch we’re rocking.

[@barleyarrish]

@@chesterfinecat7588 I think (nut) case proven, m'lord

[@lisaw6855]

Gregg Braden also has some great details on this.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Braden is an American crank, woo-meister, and New Age fantasy literature author. He argues that human emotions affect DNA, that collective prayer may heal the body, that the world is a mind, that science is pointing to religion and other woo-woo. He's not a climate scientist. Neither is Moore.

[@MatsubaAgeha]

All he has to say about GMO is "Where's the poison?" Are you EFFING kidding me!!??? 🐠y, VEEEERY 🐠y.

[@user-wy4mp9ts3u]

That is the one area where l think he misspoke

[@inverted_real_it_y]

As mr. Pike famously said; “Whenever the people need a hero we shall supply him.” The same goes for the villains on the world stage so, to put this man in perspective; the role he plays now is of a sort of hero for the people awake to the climate scam. It is a way to earn trust so they can use him to push the wrong idea on different topics. You'd probably find he was very much pro experimental injection or he defends hormone blockers for teens (I am just making up examples, I have not looked into it). The media is full of these fake heroes/villains, to name a few; Russell Brand, Alex Jones, Naom Chomsky or Joe Rogan. The list is long, I am trying to keep this comment short (if they'll even allow it to remain here).

[@iviewthetube]

Interglacial periods are better times.

[@wheel-man5319]

Yeah! Warmer weather is better for everyone!

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@wheel-man5319 Unless you live in Phoenix, which last summer suffered through 31 straight days of above 110-degree temperatures. At 104 degrees photosynthesis breaks down, and many seeds won't even germinate. You can't farm in temperatures like that. Or consider the Amazon. In 2015 it suffered a record drought that killed an estimated 2.5 billion plants and trees and millions of animals. It was supposed to be a once in a thousand year event. Yet last year it happened again, only worse, killing far more flora and fauna and igniting 26 million acres with out-of-control wildfires. Rain forests are normally to wet to burn. It's important to keep in mind that the Amazon supplies us with a substantial amount of our oxygen. Then there are the 660 major cities that line the world's coasts. Sea level has risen four inches since 1993, and its rate of rise has doubled, according to NASA and the World Meteorological Organization. That in turn has increased high tide flooding all over the world. Louisiana and New York alone have already spent a combined $100 billion on new flood mitigation projects. Now multiply that by all the other vulnerable coastal areas that will have no choice but to empty their coffers to protect themselves from the rising tide. Warmer weather has consequences, and while it may be better for some, it won't be better for all.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481Yawn... BTDT. Survived.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@wheel-man5319 So you're okay with spending trillions of dollars annually to clean up the damage from climate change and sea level rise? Okay with insurance companies jumping ship and leaving entire states? Okay with massive premium hikes in vulnerable areas? (As long as it's not yours, right?)

[@wheel-man5319]

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Yes. As it happens, if there's a real problem rather than a power grab by an already power mad elite, then it is a reasonable spend. But I'm with Bjorn Lomberg on this. There are much better things to spend our money on since even the worst ipcc predictions don't really reach the point of being an existential threat.

[@timmoore3188]

It's great he saved the baby seals. What's going to happen to them when the ice flows that protect them from non-human predators are all melted?

[@robertmarmaduke186]

It's already freezing down into Canada, N Europe the US Rockies N Sierras, even snowing in Italian Alps already, still "Summer"(sic) They'll be fine.

[@timmoore3188]

@robertmarmaduke186 I hope those Alps seals are fine because most of the Northern ocean waters are warmer than normal.

[@alexmirza5210]

The oceans and ice take time to warm/melt so there is a delay before rise in average atmospheric temperature. Large heat sink. As the oceans do warm, they will release some of their CO2 so accelerating atmospheric CO2 levels further making it a positive feedback cycle. However I see your point that it's the temperature change that drives the CO2 level. The data would tend to suggest otherwise..

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

CO2 can both lead and follow temperature. Today's warming is being LED by CO2, not the other way around.

[@philgowan6298]

If I say Monsanto is bad, does that mean I'm scared of gmos ? No. I understand science and human nature. Not everything is black or white. Great presentation overall.

[@SchantaKlaus]

Have you heard of High-albedo crops? Uni students are working on them. They will be paler to reflect back the sun!!! So, a lack of green is a lack of chlorophyll - the chemical needed to process carbon dioxide and sunlight... If the plant can't do this then it can't produce energy. If we (or livestock) eat low energy foods we'll either have to consume more or we will become weak and sick.

[@ex1echo]

Sitting with your legs crossed in front of someone as old as your grandfather is considered quite inappropriate. Moreover, pointing your leg toward someone, especially when they are seated in front of you, can be seen as disrespectful.

[@paladancray7242]

AHH NO CARBON! NO LIFE DeAD PLANET PERIOD!

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

As if PhD-level climate scientists are unaware and ignoring this fact.

[@barleyarrish]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 not in their interest, no grant, no house, no lifestyle...

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@barleyarrish Oil industry CEOs make a hundred times the yearly salary that climate scientists do. Those CEOs also fund nearly 100 climate change-denial front groups, think tanks and websites, according to investigations by Drexel University. Patrick Moore himself is a former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has taken millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote the use of more gas and oil. Moore is not a climate scientist. He's a greenwashing shill for big industry and has been for decades.

[@vhawk1951kl]

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. It's probably best not to abuse capital letters because if you do, not only do you emphasis nothing but you declare to all the world that you are an hysterical raving lunatic. Is that what you want to do?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@vhawk1951kl There is no "global temperature," but there is a clear global temperature trend, with each decade warming more than the previous one. So, no "collapse" of the science here. That warming trend is, according to NASA gravimeters, melting the icecaps at a rapid pace, which in turn is raising absolute sea level (up four inches since 1993 with a doubling of its rate of rise. See NASA SEA LEVEL RISE). According to NOAA, high tide flooding has risen an astonishing 400% and 1100% respectively along the U.S. southern and Gulf coasts. (See NOAA HIGH TIDE FLOODING). Maine is uplifting land from glacial rebound yet last January it suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Louisiana has already lost over 8800 acres to permanent inundation in its Lower Breton Sound area, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's why that state has a $50 billion flood mitigation project in the works. So does New York, with the borough of Queens flooding on a regular basis. Annapolis closes the streets and businesses of one of its neighborhoods 60 times a year due to tidal overwash. Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads. Odisha State in India, meanwhile, reports that no less than 16 coastal villages have been lost to the rising tide. Pretty clear indications of a warming planet, my friend. So is the tripling of heatwaves the EPA says has happened since the 1960s. Marine heatwaves are up 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. Wildfire seasons have expanded by over a month, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Atlantic hurricanes have intensified 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to NOAA. A Taiwanese study of typhoons shows the same intensification. EPA stats show that extreme precipitation events are increasing around the world. So are drought intensity and drought urations, according to the IPCC. All pretty clear indications of a warming world unless you're deliberately trying not to see them.

[@amargasaurus5337]

As far as I was taught in school (a semi-private secondary school down in Patagonia Argentina) the problem with GMOs wasn't the GMO part of it, but the fact that they were modified to tolerate extremely high amounts of pesticides. The idea is that you engineer a powerful plant killer, then you engineer your desired crop to resist it, then you apply plant killer to your crops and all the weeds die while your GMO plant survives. On one hand yes, it makes sense that we might want to find an alternative to using mass plant poisoning to stop weeds.. ..on the other hand, that doesn't mean AT ALL that Genetic Modification is the problem. People trying to ban (or refusi g to buy) GMO crops entirely because SOME of them are GM'd to resist Pesticides, is to me the same as banning knives because some dood stabbed someone on the bar down the corner. It's nonsensical and the potential collateral damage to humanity WAY outweighs any possible benefits.

[@SchantaKlaus]

Going against nature will always fail. We need to stop sciencing everything, it's why we have agricultural issues in the first place. Britain used to farm very successfully until the government and it's scientists stepped in. Now we've lost mush of our arable land making us dependent upon supply chains from abroad - how is that Green exactly? Working with the land and native plants and creatures will always prevail. Time we kicked these meddling suits, who've probably never accidentally stepped in cow dung, away from our food supply.

[@fredbloke3218]

Now please tell us why smoking cigarettes is good for your health and why the fossil companies decades ago research about their emissions causing future warming was wrong.

[@SchantaKlaus]

Seems to me the planet warming Up has been good for the vast majority of species. Things don't survive so well in an Ice Age - everyone knows it.

[@modero6370]

I like the argumentation: We went to Alaska and hydrogen bombing stopped. We did this and that and succeeded. I would add to the list that to this day some East Germans believe that the Vietnam war stopped because of the protests in the East Block. Successes all around if only in the minds of the activists. Congratulation. Sarcasm over.

[@lloydrichards9463]

This is not science. It's paid politics. Every year that goes by makes it more difficult for Mr. Moore to maintain his position on this issue. His efforts are at least heroic, if not lucarative.

[@robjones9359]

Net zero isn't lucrative?

[@JohnPoxon-t2t]

I agree. Another paid denier.

[@SchantaKlaus]

​@@JohnPoxon-t2t But look at what will happen to us if everyone goes along with this anthropomorphic Climate Change nonsense - life will not be worth living. I'd say the ones who stand to gain absolute control over all life on Earth are the guys we need to stop listening to.

[@ryanc9241]

are you in denial of reality? The hysteria side is the literal embodiment of what you acuse Moore of.

[@mikepotter5718]

One day this guy will be telling us he staged a bear cub accident in Stanley park. He sounds like RFK.

[@jimsuard]

At about 13:00 you say "180'000 ppm". Should be "180 ppm"

[@derekmoore2779]

I sailed from Hawieie to wahington state the only garbage was off the columbia river and itbwas not a patch but i did see individual pieces . No garbage patch, but i did find a underwater volcano north of Hawieie and had to turn off my moter to save my raw water pumb.

[@poetmaggie1]

The evil message that humans are enemies of nature should be a red light but it's a message from the devil. Why doesn't anybody say that. God said "His creation was good."

[@vhawk1951kl]

humans*Are* nature. There’s just no curing you anthropomorphic idolaters of your fcuk-the commandments idolatry is there?

[@petewright4640]

Vladimir Putin is part of God's creation. I wouldn't call him good.

[@ceist8552]

At 22 minutes, Moore uses a fake dishonest meme of Central England temperature. Central England does not represent GLOBAL average temperature.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Moore works on behalf of the very industries that he and Greenpeace used to fight. He is, for example, the former director of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by energy industry executives and conservative climate denial groups to promote the use of more gas and oil. Check their website and see for yourself. Moore has also worked on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Asia Pulp and Paper (a logging firm), the CASEnergy Coalition, the Canadian Mining Association, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, Westcoast Energy and B.C. Gas, PVC manufacturer IPEX, and BHP Minerals. Moore isn't a climate scientist. His degree is in forest ecology, but he is not a forest ecologist, he's a paid spokesman for industry. Moore is famous for his assertion that "over the Earth's history there's no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature." He then shows a graph which looks pretty damned convincing. The crime here is that no lay person questions his graph's validity and provenance. Or anything else he presents as Gospel. They should. Coal mining engineer and climate denier Monte Heib took historical CO2 data and historical temperature data and slapped them together in a hand-drawn graph and assumed this was an accurate depiction of earth's climate history. It wasn’t. But deniers and skeptics have posted and re-posted his famous graph thousands of times across the internet. It has ZERO scientific validity, as you would expect from someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. The data he used was in time steps of ten million years, too long to determine correlations between CO2 and temps. (Climate scientists today use time steps of 500,000 years.) He also neglected to add the effects of a sun that increases its output as it evolves over hundreds of millions of years. Climate scientists regard the Monte Heib graph the same way they would regard their kindergartner's first attempt at "art." Unlike a child's first efforts, there is nothing funny or endearing about an amateur's attempt at deception and it certainly won't ever end up taped to their refrigerators. ;) Unfortunately, Moore uses a similar lie of omission with his wildfire graph, which appears to show far more wildfires in the 1920s and 30s than today. What he fails to share with viewers is that his graph includes millions of acres of INTENTIONAL BURNS. Today's wildfire graphs do not include intentional burns. Moreover, according to fire data historians, burn acreage in the early 20th century was counted by multiple government agencies and sometimes counted TWICE. Moore also neglects to add critical context: Many fires in the early 20th cenury were simply left to burn out on their own because there were no access roads to reach them. Does he mention the speed traveled by horse-drawn fire carts vs. today's diesel fire trucks? The efficiency of today's powered hoses over hand-pumped hoses? The lack of early detection vs. today's super fast spotting by satellites? Moore has stated that the evidence doesn't show that human activity is causing climate change. That flies in the face of Cornell University's 2021 survey of over 88000 climate studies, which found a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's warming. So who's right? The thousands of PhD-level climate scientists who make up the consensus or a non-climate scientist who is regularly paid by big industry to make them look good?

[@Ethelred966]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 the four humours theory was the consensus of the medical profession for centuries (the idea that disease is caused by imbalances of the humours). Don't mistake consensus for fact.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@Ethelred966 The consensus is based on the overwhelming evidence gleaned from the over 350,000 climate studies published in the last fifty years. By contrast, the "four humours" had no such data to support it, nor modern day PhD scholars, nor peer-reviewed studies, nor scores of scientific institutions. It was based merely on opinion and anecdote. The four humours were developed when people believed mice appeared spontaneously in piles of hay. Their science was infantile. You're drawing a false equivalency if there ever was one.

[@Ethelred966]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 so.... you are saying that ypu have read 350,000 climate studies? And that all of them supported your conclusions?

[@chesterfinecat7588]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Good luck These people are clueless.

[@Askalon9]

​@Ethelred966 We are so deep into the multi-polar crisis, of which global heating is a symptom, there is no clear path forward out of our predicament, other than to not look (up).

[@MrTryReasoning]

Dr Patrick Moore, You are a great man.. I am old enough to remember your efforts and successes. THANK YOU! CO2 / Oxygen are symbiotic each working withe the other.. We breath out CO2. Vegitation takes that in.. Gives off Oxygen The very cause of life cycles of both. ???

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

He's been a greenwashing, PR spokesman for polluting industries for decades, including the oil industry. He's the former director of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by oil industry investors to promote the use of more gas and oil. Does anybody here think that might be relevant?

[@Fran-ey4bu]

It’s so much easier to attack the speaker than to refute the facts, isn’t it?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@Fran-ey4bu Would you like me to provide those facts? Let's do it. Moore deifies CO2 as a kind of ambrosia for the planet. It is, up to a point. Beyond that point, the rising temperatures that accompany it melt ice sheets, elevate sea levels, intensify hurricanes, and increase extreme precipitation events, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and marine heatwaves. The net damage is considerably more than the net benefit, according to ALL university studies. CO2 greens the planet, he asserts. It certainly does, up to a point. But then he neglects to tell his listeners that we've gone far beyond that point. Heatwaves, for example, have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Heatwaves decimate crops. With just a few days of temperatures above 75 degrees, lettuce, spinach, cabbage, cauliflower , peas and broccoli BOLT and stop developing. Between 85 and 95, tomatoes and cucumbers drop their flowers, reducing yield. Blueberries become necrotic and rot. Wheat yield plummets. At 104 degrees all photosynthesis breaks down, and many seeds won't even germinate. Think of places in the world like Phoenix, which suffered through 31 straight days of above 110-degree temperatures this summer. If you're a subsistence farmer (and there are still over a billion in the world) you lose your crops, your sustenance and your livelihood all in one fell swoop. Moore doesn't talk much about the increase in extreme precipitation events either. With every degree of temperature rise, the atmosphere is able to hold significantly more water vapor. That's resulting in epic downpours that are not only drowning crops but washing away valuable topsoils and fertilizer. While wet areas of the world are getting wetter, dry areas of the world are getting drier. That not only withers crops and blows away topsoils, it creates the conditions conducive to wildfires. Canadian wildfire burn acreage has DOUBLED in the last 30 years. Last year's fire was the largest in history, burning SIX TIMES the average acreage. Wildfire burns in the western U.S., meanwhile, have TRIPLED. The fire in Greece last summer was the largest in European history. The Amazon lost over 26 million acres to wildfire damage from 2023-24. These fires not only destroy entire forests, they release masses of CO2. Their smoke travels hundreds of miles, dimming the sun and reducing photosynthesis. Moore addresses all this by presenting a debunked wildfire graph, which shows greater fire damage in the early 20th century than today. What he fails to share with his audience is that his graph includes MILLIONS OF ACRES OF INTENTIONAL BURNS. Today's statistics do not count intentional burns. He also doesn't mention that multiple agencies counted burn acreage in the 1920s and 30s and sometimes counted them twice. The sad thing is that the wildfire graph isn't the only dishonest piece of data he shares with audience. His graph appearing to show no correlation between CO2 and temperature over millions of years was created by a climate-denying mining engineer named Monte Hieb, who amateurishly slapped together historical temperature and CO2 data (which he got from a scientist named Chris Scotese, who was not an expert on climate reconstructions) and assumed it would all be an accurate representation of climate history. It wasn't, as we should expect from someone who is untrained in the field. Hieb used timesteps of 10 million years to show a divergence of correlation, far too long to be even remotely accurate. Today's climate scientists use timesteps of 500,000 years or they simply rely more on direct proxy evidence to give far more accurate numbers. Moore also neglects to share NASA's updated satellite survey of the "greening of the earth." Their second survey in 2019 showed much greater resolution of the greened-up areas than the one taken in the 90s, and it turns out that a substantial portion of it did not arise from C02 but from the planting of 66 billion trees by China, and by nearly that many more in India. The Sahel, below the Sahara has also greened up, not from C02, but from mass plantings installed along the "Great Green Wall." Intensive new farming methods in both China and India are doubling and tripling up of crop-plantings, creating even more green. Europe has also implemented mass reforestation, along with other parts of the world. The internet's denier sites never mention NASA's second survey. Hmmmm. See HUMAN ACTIVITY `IN CHINA AND INDIA DOMINATES THE GREENING OF THE EARTH, NASA STUDY SHOWS, NASA.GOV, FEB 11, 2019 See FACT-CHECKING PATRICK MOORE, CLIMATE SCEPTIC for more.

[@robertmarmaduke186]

So Harris-Walz will drop $2.45 a gallon Carbon Tax in January, 2025, then use the $B tax revenues for the Climate Refugee Equity Reparations Fund, to jack Seniors out of their homes, and make room for Illegal Immigrant Welfare Tenants. _You and I will eat Cheese Whiz and be happy in our 15-minute city tenement walk-ups._ 🐼🙋🇨🇳 _"We are unburdened by the past, because tomorrow, today will be yesterday!"_ Vice Chief KämäIä Haha'ahaha

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

You've paid gasoline and oil taxes for years, but you're okay with that, right? Okay with gouging taxpayers out of the trillions in subsidies we pay the fossil fuel industry every year? Okay with the trillions in damages that climate change is bringing? New York and Louisiana already have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works because of sea level rise, and we're just getting started. Flood damage alone is projected to cost us trillions annually going into the future. Insurance companies in vulnerable areas are not only raising premiums, they're abandoning some areas altogether. Did you calculate all that when you made your comparison to a carbon tax?

[@ryanc9241]

how is that different from the UN stooges promoting hysteria? the classic lefty morally superior "it ok for me, but not for thee" approach to the world

[@alexmirza5210]

Climate change concern is focusing on really short term, rapid temperature rise at a high rate - over the next decades and century. Which is superimposed on the natural cycles and their large fluctuations. The reason is there is now an unprecedentedly large human population on Earth, most now in cities and population centres, many of which are low lying and not well adaptable to the consequences of rapid albeit moderate global warming. That's not to say that there aren't advantages of increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

[@BROWNDIRTWARRIOR]

Wow, whew. I guess everyone can relax now, huh? Now please insure me the earth is flat as well.

[@SchantaKlaus]

Bahaaa - you've fallen for their trap. You've been programmed to think anyone not copying the TV is stupid. If you can still get sick and pass a virus on after being injected with a 'medicine' to prevent such things from happening then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the contents of said syringe are not a vaccine. Everyone knows the COVID jabs are not vaccines yet they still call them so because the TV does. It's a brainwashing device.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Lowkey my hero

[@felawes]

Excellent. Always worth remembering Net Zero is insanity.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Are you misunderstanding net zero? Net zero means stopping our CO2 emissions from increasing the atmospheric accumulation any further. It doesn't mean elimination of all CO2 from the atmosphere. It means balancing the amount of our emissions by how much is absorbed.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Not only isnet zero insanity but al so it is completely and utterly futile. What is les than sane is the queer idea that the climate is something that can be fine tuned.. The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@vhawk1951kl Please enlighten us as to why the icecaps are melting, sea level is rising, hurricanes are intensifying, wildfire seasons are expanding, and why heatwaves, marine heatwaves, extreme precipitation events, drought intensity, and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases are increasing worlwide. Tell us why the glaciers are melting and global snowpack is diminishing. Tell us why the Amazon suffered a once in a thousand year record drought in 2015 and 8 years later suffered an even worse record drought that burned down 26 million acres with out of control wildfires.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 None of what you allege is true nor have you verified any of it for yourself. You are as passive and credulous as a kinderlander or American. The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@michaelstansfield3085]

Sorry mate, incorrect on all points. You are demonstrating Olympian gullibility.

[@mikaelfransson3658]

WHEN A SCIENTIST SAY SOMETHING HE MUST KNOW WHAT HE TALK ABOUT! THE,REAL FORCE FOR THIS SPEAK MUST BE WHO PAY HIM! /Mikael

[@Kebekwoodcraft7375]

Exactly what I thought who is paying him for this nonsense and he should have a debate with someone who knows the subject 😊

[@AnnKelly-v8v]

People do not understand this. People need to study the geologic history of our planet..

[@vhawk1951kl]

By "study the geologic history of our planet..", you mean believe what others tell them about what those other believe or suppose about the past How might you or I discover anything about the non-existent or past Who is to decide what is whatever you mean by the geologic history of our planet..? Is it not axiomatic that no being can directly immediately personally experience anything or *know* at all of the non-existent or past, but perhaps you are not concerned with epistemology The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@LarryCleveland]

Dude humans were hot around. What are his sources? I see none.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

Sure. Check this then : Moore is indeed a liar. For years he has been saying there is no relation between co2 and temperature over the last 500 million years. But there is a relation between co2 and temperature if 2 other parameters are taken into account : the shape and distribution of the continents ( possibility to form ice caps at the poles) and the power of the sun which increases by 1% per 100 million years. I’m sure he knows that, but he is paid to say there is no correlation ! If the earth was not an ice ball 500 million years ago or more despite a much colder sun, this is because there was 10 or 20 times more co2. The couple of times when earth almost turned entirely into an ice ball it was because co2 dropped too low and could not balance a weak sun.

[@barleyarrish]

@@LarryCleveland Just two for you, The white cliffs of Dover and all limestone deposits, not to mention what has already been consumed by the Subduction zones.

[@jjo5917]

@@barleyarrish I don't care how much CO2 or heat there was millions of years before humans evolved. I care about the climate in which we became extraordinarily successful (the last 5,000 years mostly).

[@TheDAT9]

I used to subscribe to Greenpeace in your time there.

[@tomgreene1843]

Can this man give a few lectures in Ireland? Can anyone have the incorrect UN statement changed ?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

The "incorrect UN statement" is based on the ELEVEN studies that confirm the scientific consensus on climate change, which is now 99.9% of all publishing climate scientists, according to the latest survey of the field by Cornell University. By contrast, Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and does not work in the field. He is a paid, greenwashing PR spokesman for big industry, and is the former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by the fossil fuel industry to promote the use of more gas and oil.

[@stephenserio392]

Hemp is the answer!

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Moore hasn't a clue, nor does he care. The debunkings of him on potholer54's channel are quite fun though.

[@jimvinson6046]

Get some help.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

@@jimvinson6046 What help? Where from? Might you help by explaining what you mean?

[@grindupBaker]

Molecular Collisions rate variation is how the tropospheric temperature lapse causes the tropospheric IR Molecules to cause the so-called "greenhouse effect" (GHE) in Earth's troposphere and it's how the backwards stratospheric temperature lapse causes the stratospheric IR Molecules to cause the backwards GHE and cause a cooling attempt, reducing the GHE. This is because the IR Molecules manufacture at a rate of e * (Kelvin/100)**4 * 5.67 and Kelvin decreases with altitude in troposphere so there's less manufacture as the air gets higher, but increases with altitude in stratosphere so there's more manufacture as the air gets higher. BUT the IR Molecules DO NOT absorb at a rate of e * (Kelvin/100)**4 * 5.67, they either absorb independently of the Kelvin or (more likely) they absorb inversely to the Kelvin. So the fact that photon manufacture is proportional to Kelvin but photon absorption is either independent of Kelvin or inverse to Kelvin causes the GHE warming effect in Earth's troposphere and the GHE cooling effect in Earth's stratosphere.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Greenhouses do not heatthemselves, there merely prevent what is inthem from getting colder. Do you have any idea if and when the Earth is in themodynamic equilibrium? No, I rather thought not?

[@4Nanook]

Two big bad things in GMO's, 1) Improved fructose production which is largely responsible for the diabetic epidemic in the United States, and 2) Seeds that can't reproduce so poor farmers HAVE to buy seed from Monsanto each year rather than retaining a portion of their crop to plant in the next season.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Is 2) bad? You will only buy if it makes economically sense? And maybe GMO shouldn’t spread without control?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Can an epidemic have diabetes and the fuck has disbetes to do withe asinine religion of climte-change/global warming_ism , which religion is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. You are confusing abs conflating the entirely unconnected and unrelated. Who told you that there is a diabetes epidemic in in kinderland/America and why do you believe them? - Just born as passively credulous as a kindelander? that asinine religion of climate-change/global warming_ism is a sub-religion of that queer religion modernism to which nearly all of those that work in what is called the media subscribe so the various media act as a pulpit for the various religions and sub-religions of modernism such asclimate-chsnge/global warming_ism and sewerism/homosexual_ism cum fake-omen_ism

[@EstructurasLigeras]

This video is the definition of Cherry Picking

[@stephenbrough8132]

Shared on FB in the hope of getting a meaningful conversation going.

[@angusmcangus7914]

I never get tired of listening to Dr Patrick Moore.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

You would if you knew how not a single scientific institution on earth agrees with him.

[@angusmcangus7914]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 You mean like no-one listened to Galileo and thousands thought Einstein wrong? Science is not about agreements.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

no-one listened to Galileo ?? thousands thought Einstein wrong ???? You have it wrong mate

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@angusmcangus7914 Scientists AGREED with Galileo. It was the Catholic Church who disagreed. Big difference. Einstein's proposals were outrageous. Science accepts nothing without evidence and data. When that evidence was produced, scientists got on board. This is exactly how science is supposed to work. Climate change has a mountain of evidence, gleaned from over 350,000 studies published in the last fifty years, which is why the scientific consensus is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey by Cornell University. Patrick Moore is the former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by the fossil fuel industry to promote the use of more gas and oil. This is what Moore does for a living. He's a paid, greenwashing PR spokesman for big industry, charged with making them all look good even when they do bad things.

[@Chuck68ify]

Government science sellouts don't count. ​@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

[@bikechickluvs2groove]

And some of these Inuit people so called keepers of the land helped these rich people get those rugs. Money talks

[@CAM-fq8lv]

No mention of methane and melting permafrost.

[@chesterfinecat7588]

That wouldn’t conform to his BS.

[@dey4588]

It would show co2 follows warming in the geologic record. Co2 is the gas of life. Which would humanity most likely survive; iceball earth or green earth? Think food. We grow food during the summer.

[@raireva4689]

and cow and you farting....

[@bobd251]

​@@chesterfinecat7588 and if he did, it wouldn't conform to your BS.

[@gordonm8745]

@@dey4588 Only a reptiloid would say such things. Also you just gave a good explanation to stay IN a burning building, cause CO2 is just the "gas of life". Fun fact: it can literally kill you.

[@Ethelred966]

Thank you Dr Moore for being a planetary defender 🌎

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Was he a planetary defender when he headed the CO2 Coalition, which was funded by the oil industry to promote the use of more gas and oil?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@Ethelred966 More CO2 equals more heat, which HURTS plants by increasing heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and droughts. See CLIMATE CHANGE CUT GLOBAL FARM PRODUCTIVITY 21% SINCE 1960S, a study by Cornell University in Science Daily, April 1, 2021. See also SEVERITY OF DROUGHT AND HEATWAVE CROP LOSSES TRIPLED OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES IN EUROPE, in Environmental Research Letters, Jun 10, 2021. Did Patrick Moore tell you what happened in the Amazon in 2015.? A massive drought killed an estimated 2.5 billion plants and trees and millions of animals. It was supposed to be a once in a thousand year event, yet in 2023 it happened again, only far worse, killing even more flora and fauna and setting ablaze 26 million acres with out-of-control wildfires. Rain forests are normally too wet to burn. Also to keep in mind: the Amazon supplies us with a substantial portion of our oxygen. Moore isn't a climate scientist. He's a greenwashing PR spokesman for industry, including big oil when he headed the CO2 Coalition. Not a single scientific insititution on earth agrees with him that today's climate change is "natural" and "harmless" and that more CO2 would be "good for us." NONE. NADA. ZILCH. Give that some thought. Moore earns his money because he performs his PR job well. He certainly persuaded you into believing him.

[@Ethelred966]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 more CO2, more plants.

[@barleyarrish]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 CO2 the Gas of Life, I'm afraid your Death Cult his lacking in both Evidence and popularity, boo hoo

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@barleyarrish The "gas of life" is one of the fossil fuel industry's favorite propaganda memes. Just a little lie of omission that conveniently leaves out that rising CO2 causes the warming that melts the icecaps, raises sea levels, intensifies hurricanes, expands wildfire seasons, reduces farm productivity, and increases heatwaves, marine heatwaves, extreme precipitation events, droughts, and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. It leaves out the trillions of dollars climate change is costing us and the fleeing of insurance companies from vulnerable areas of the world.

[@TheEzboyz]

Maybe you should explain this to the minister of the environment for Canada, Steven Guilbeault. Hold on, this may be too difficult for him to understand LOL.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Why would the minister of the environment take seriously the former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by fossil fuel industry investors to promote the use of more gas and oil? Moore isn't a climate scientist and has been robustly debunked by those who are. You can take the word of a paid, greenwashing PR spokesman for big industry, as Moore has been for years, or you can believe the 99.9% consensus of publishing climate scientists and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions that publicly endorse their findings. I know who my money is on.

[@haroldluther2676]

This is NOT a cold period!!! 2022, 23, and 24 are the hottest average global temperatures in recorded history every month.

[@peterhessels2903]

Midieval Warm Period was considerably warmer, and only 1000 years ago, before extensive fossil fuel use. Roman Warm Period was as well. These warm, affluent times were since the most recent glaciation.

[@1972martind28]

1930s were hotter if you’re looking at the older unaltered charts. The Earth presently is only around 1°C warmer than the coldest its been in 10,000 years.

[@Tengooda]

@@peterhessels2903 You claim, "Medieval Warm Period was considerably warmer [than recently]". That is not true. There have been numerous reconstructions of GLOBAL average temperatures, in particular the very extensive collaboration of numerous scientists from many countries that produced the PAGES2k reconstruction. None of those reconstructions show the MWP to be warmer than recently.

[@Tengooda]

@@1972martind28 You claim, "1930s were hotter if you’re looking at the older unaltered charts." That is ONLY the case with respect to the contiguous USA, it does NOT apply to GLOBAL temperatures. Moreover, why do you cling to "older unaltered charts"? The raw temperature data from the USA contained readings that were taken at DIFFERENT times of the day. If you measure the temperature at noon it is usually warmer than at 9am. The reason why the records were adjusted was to correct for errors like that, and there is every reason to consider that the modern adjusted records represent reality far more reliably than the raw unadjusted records. The ONLY reason why you cling to the old records is because they tell you what you want to be true.

[@peterhessels2903]

@@Tengooda kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXeomYWahKmepc0si=MRevCVlmrti4Pq95

[@standTrueNorthStrongandFree]

Highly respect and pretty much sing from the same song sheets as Patrick, save his GMO comments, which I counter with: 1.) they likely contribute to digestive disorders and complications, and much more root toxilogically, 2.) the health issue is the herbicides and pesticides sprayed on the GMO crops bio-engineered to withstand same. We are not GMO'd (yet), and cannot withstand these herbicides and pesticides.. which consumption linear risk of developing chronic, debilitating and terminal diseases. The censored and attacked health science says so.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

OK, now you just need to diversify your sources about climate and you will realize he keeps saying half thruths or lies.

[@sustainablealternative2912]

may yo be arrested for treason against humanity

[@judyundt9114]

Well, I respect different points of view. But your assumption that plastic is harmless is just your opinion. I'm now 54 and got very sick 7 years ago and struggled to maintain a healthy weight. After a few years of keeping a food diary and finding out that I suffer from liver issues with no signs of fibrosis. I have quit eating gmo corn products ( most farm animals are feed it and it concentrates in the meat). And I have switched to all organic food and my liver issues are pretty much history.

[@piotergod]

Guy is now paid by oil industry, so he talks what he talks.

[@LauchlanMac]

Could that be because the least harmful and most efficient vehicles for the planet are not EV’s but in fact ICE vehicles?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@LauchlanMac ICE vehicles the least harmful? Cite your data.

[@LauchlanMac]

Many people now realising the harmful carbon footprint of electric vehicles that can never be offset. This is why governments are simply stating ‘tailpipe emissions’ as they know full well the harm caused mining the cobalt, the destruction of the water supply in Congo as a result, not to mention the sickening working conditions and deaths on those mining the stuff. To offset the carbon footprint of the average electric vehicle you would need to run it for 300,000 miles on original battery (which is impossible) using only wind or solar power. Over 70% of European electricity is from coal fired power stations. The average car in uk is scrapped at 185,000 miles. It’s very telling that the population need to be blackmailed and taxed into something which ‘supposedly’ saves the planet. May I suggest you read a book called Cobalt Red for more information on that topic. Ps, there ain’t enough cobalt to allow everyone an electric vehicles either. If you want to do the best to help the planet? Keep your current car for as long as possible. Don’t buy any new vehicles electric or ICE

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@LauchlanMac Counting ALL of a vehicle's emissions, from first day of manufacture through the junkyard, EVs easily win that battle, producing far less CO2 than ICE vehicles do, according to multiple studies, including a two-year study by the Union of Concerned Scientists.. The sickening working conditions in the Congo have nothing to do with whether an EV is cleaner or better for the environment than ICE cars. This is an issue of ethics with the MINING COMPANIES, not with EVs. EVs achieve emissions parity with ICE cars around 15000-20,000 miles, according to Reuters, not 300,000 miles. See WHEN DO ELECTRIC VEHICLES BECOME CLEANER THAN GASOLINE CARS, which is based on a study by the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago..

[@piotergod]

@@LauchlanMac I am aware how current technologies used for electric vehicles are harmful for environment. Do not forget that there are already new ones being developed which may be not that harmful. And production of combustion cars has also significant carbon footprint and their use too. I am also aware that electric cars are greenwashing.

[@christopherlipowski397]

What about the obsession regarding electric cars and the significant hazards of the lithium batteries used as their source of power? Lithium fires are escalating and emit highly toxic smoke, gasses, fumes, and particulates.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

ICE cars burst into flames far more often than EVs do. Data from the National Transportation Safety Board shows that EVs are involved in approximately 25 fires for every 100,000 sold. Comparatively, approximately 1,530 gasoline-powered vehicles and 3,475 hybrid vehicles are involved in fires for every 100,000 sold. Other studies from Europe agree with the NTSB's findings.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

When you calculated the environmental damages EV batteries cause, did you compare them to the damage caused by drilling, mining, fracking, methane burn-offs, oil spills, fires, explosions, the transporting of oil over thousands of miles of pipeline and via tens of thousands of tanker trucks and trains, the sprawling refineries and the dangerous benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene they spew; the oil pits that kill more birds than wind turbines, the hydrogen sulfide, benzene, naphthalene and C02 produced when oil is burned, the carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, unburned hydrocarbons and C02 when gasoline is burned? Did you calculate the cost of accelerating sea level rise, from the melting of ice sheets, caused by the C02-driven warming? How about the increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes? The extreme precipitation events? The increase in droughts and wildfires?

[@0ddba1l]

Everyone should see this video and in Schools but this will never happen in the UK with a Labour or Tory government.

[@jjo5917]

everybody should see it along with an actual scientific rebuttal from potholer54 so they understand how Moore misrepresents science on behalf of corporate interests.

[@sidharthafocus]

Could never be shown in schools, because he is a raving lunatic broadcasting ignorance being only one reason.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

No one should see the video because it's fossil fuel propaganda, presented by a paid, greenwashing spokesman for big industry, not science.

[@0ddba1l]

@@jjo5917 I had never seen one of potholer54's videos but have now. He starts off by saying a "so called University" and it has dignified professors "who look as though" they are speaking quite knowledgeably. This is called POISONING THE WELL. Also, because it has appeared on a particular platform means nothing anyway and is irrelevant to the argument. He also tries to discredit Patrick Moors credentials. This is called "arguing from a point of authority". That is not an argument at all. Someone's credentials are not what determines whether an argument is correct or not. It is like when Kelly J Keen was told she cannot possibly know what a women is because she is not a biologist and she replied "I am not a vet, but I know what a dog is". If you feel safe in your argument, then it should speaks for itself and you do not need to argue from a point of authority. When someone makes an argument from authority it shows they are haughty, arrogant and rather narcissistic. They put themselves above their opponent and view them with contempt. It is good old fashioned snobbery from people who are not as bright as they think they are. It says everything about them and nothing about the other person. The should be debunking the argument not the person. He makes the argument that because the climate has always changed, that does not mean that it is not man-made carbon dioxide making it change now. That is a back to front argument. He should be proving that it does. It is like saying to someone, prove that you are not a mass murderer. How can you prove a negative. It is for the person making the accusation to prove the claim. He cherry-picks graphs (don't they always). Again it is irrelevant where they came from. This section of the video requires more investigation as to whether anything he says is factual and, let's face it, no one is really going to bother. He, of course, stays away from any arguments that you do not need to be a scientist to prove of disprove. He makes statements as though they are undeniable facts like temperatures have risen drastically over the last 40 years, which, just from being alive during that time, we know it not to be true. He makes the claim that Patrick Moor only has these views because he makes money from it and it is linked to the Oil Industry. Well that very same argument can be made of the Climate Alarmists make money from the Green Economy. Potohler54 finishes off the video with some nice "humble bragging" at the end to show how virtuous he is and how he is better than you because he raises money for charity or at least gets other people to donate. This of course demonstrates that I was wrong about him being narcissistic and he must be trustworthy and good person after all. Oh wait, I have just remembered Jimmy Savile ? I can do sarcasm too. No one on Potholer54's video comments points out 96% of the worlds C02 is natural and a necessity to the function of the planet also that C02 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, man only produces 4% of the 0.04% and C02 has little to do with anything as it is a low order green house gas. C02 is also 1.53 x the weight of air same weight as propane gas in fact. I can prove in experiments propane gas stays at ground level as does C02. From design of explosive devices using propane gas and air, when you want to ignite propane gas you need the source of ignition low as the gas will always be below the air or oxygen in a given space or container. Also if you use a fire extinguisher it will always drop the C02 low to ground to smother the flames that is why C02 is perfect for the job as it is heavy. It is also used as a shield gas in welding for same reason. Potholer54 comes across as a conceited person and his views of little consequence. If I said this on his video he would just delete the comment and block me I know the TYPE.😎

[@0ddba1l]

@@jjo5917 I had never seen one of potholer54's videos but have now. He starts off by saying a "so called University" and it has dignified professors "who look as though" they are speaking quite knowledgeably. This is called POISONING THE WELL. Also, because it has appeared on a particular platform means nothing anyway and is irrelevant to the argument. He also tries to discredit Patrick Moors credentials. This is called "arguing from a point of authority". That is not an argument at all. Someone's credentials are not what determines whether an argument is correct or not. It is like when Kelly J Keen was told she cannot possibly know what a women is because she is not a biologist and she replied "I am not a vet, but I know what a dog is". If you feel safe in your argument, then it should speaks for itself and you do not need to argue from a point of authority. When someone makes an argument from authority it shows they are haughty, arrogant and rather narcissistic. They put themselves above their opponent and view them with contempt. It is good old fashioned snobbery from people who are not as bright as they think they are. It says everything about them and nothing about the other person. The should be debunking the argument not the person. He makes the argument that because the climate has always changed, that does not mean that it is not man-made carbon dioxide making it change now. That is a back to front argument. He should be proving that it does. It is like saying to someone, prove that you are not a mass murderer. How can you prove a negative. It is for the person making the accusation to prove the claim. He cherry-picks graphs (don't they always). Again it is irrelevant where they came from. This section of the video requires more investigation as to whether anything he says is factual and, let's face it, no one is really going to bother. He, of course, stays away from any arguments that you do not need to be a scientist to prove of disprove. He makes statements as though they are undeniable facts like temperatures have risen drastically over the last 40 years, which, just from being alive during that time, we know it not to be true. He makes the claim that Patrick Moor only has these views because he makes money from it and it is linked to the Oil Industry. Well that very same argument can be made of the Climate Alarmists make money from the Green Economy. Potohler54 finishes off the video with some nice "humble bragging" at the end to show how virtuous he is and how he is better than you because he raises money for charity or at least gets other people to donate. This of course demonstrates that I was wrong about him being narcissistic and he must be trustworthy and good person after all. Oh wait, I have just remembered Jimmy Savile ? I can do sarcasm too. No one on Potholer54's video comments points out 96% of the worlds C02 is natural and a necessity to the function of the planet also that C02 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, man only produces 4% of the 0.04% and C02 has little to do with anything as it is a low order green house gas. Producing more C02 just means plants grow faster and bigger NATURE BALANCES it out. C02 is also 1.53 x the weight of air same weight as propane gas in fact. I can prove in experiments propane gas stays at ground level as does C02. From design of explosive devices using propane gas and air, when you want to ignite propane gas you need the source of ignition low as the gas will always be below the air or oxygen in a given space or container. Also if you use a fire extinguisher it will always drop the C02 low to ground to smother the flames that is why C02 is perfect for the job as it is heavy. It is also used as a shield gas in welding for same reason. Potholer54 comes across as a conceited person and his views of little consequence. If I posted this comment on Potholer54 video he would just delete it and block me, I know the type. Also Dr Patrick Moore talks about a hell of a lot more than C02 in this video to point out all this SCAM is about MONEY and POLITICS rather than the environment. 😎

[@Don-ry6kd]

Great talk. Patrick Moore shows real science not propaganda "science". One minor issue though: at 1:15:30 he says if we cut our CO2 emissions to 20% of current, the CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to go up, but more slowly. No! Half of our current emissions are absorbed by trees, crops and other vegetation. So if we cut the emissions to 50% the CO2 would remain stable. If we cut to 20% the CO2 level would gradually decline.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Moore is the former head of the CO2 Coalition, which has lnog been funded by fossil fuel industry investors to promote the use of more gas and oil. He's not a climate scientist, and his opinions are rejected by 99.9% of those who are.

[@vhawk1951kl]

it is a rather sweet and naive - not to say asinine and infantile, idea that men(human beings/dreaming machines) could possibly *fine tune* the climate or the temperature of the earth(and there is no..... such..... thing) or fine tune the exact proportions of gases in the atmosphere, but the fact of the matter is that they cannot and it is utterly futile and unrealistic to go in for what is little more than p[pointless virtue signalling. The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind. ​

[@philippesarrazin2752]

Impressively weird logic

[@Don-ry6kd]

@@philippesarrazin2752 what is weird about it? Here is another way to put it. We emit twice as much CO2 as we detect as increase in the atmosphere. I am talking only about the extra CO2 from fossil fuels. The difference is the extra absorption by trees/vegetation/etc because of the increase in atmospheric concentration so far. The absorption rate depends on atmosphere concentration.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

The CO2 concentration was already stable, across the holocene, without us injecting more of it. When we inject 2 units of CO2, 1 unit will be absorbed by the oceans and the vegetation. 1 unit will stay in the atmosphere. What do you think will happen if we inject only 1 unit ? My logic says 0.5 unit goes to the oceans and 0.5 unit goes to the atmosphere. Bottom line, it keeps increasing.

[@scottrankine2674]

This presentation won’t age well. Lap dog for the fossil fuel lobby

[@SchantaKlaus]

Solar and wind are unsustainable, expensive, harmful to the planet, and are not aging well already. Fossil fuels are renewable (not fossil fuel), reliable, readily available, and cheap by comparison. Far more sustainable all-round.

[@KMC544]

😂😂😂😂 lemming

[@johnwenzen4143]

Watch

[@louishennick6883]

This lecture assumes there are no balances or limits to climate stabilities. Very unscientific.

[@martinarnott4058]

At last someone who explains it all properly

[@stevewilson4321]

He doesnt know it " properly "

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Moore is not a climate scientist and is debunked by those who are.

[@jimvinson6046]

​@stevewils...on4321 :- "....and you do???😂😂😂😂

[@victorbenitez5685]

My gut feeling is that Dr. Patrick Moore is lying. I prefer to follow scientific measurable science on climate. Perhaps, one day, Dr. Moore will experience a bit of cognitive dissonance but it is hard to say, that he would, if he's influenced preponderantly by mega industries.

[@sbresni]

Steamboat institute production, …say no more.

Brilliant piece, Dr Moore. Many thanks.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Yes, a brilliant piece of fossil fuel industry propaganda. It should be used as an exemplar of how big industry hoodwinks the public with a sincere-sounding, greenwashing PR spokesman.

[@alfredadrianjr.4702]

Doc! Did evolution stand still? Are the genomes and adaptations of organisms today the same as those 150 million yrs ago? What's wrong with you?

[@danieltudor6165]

This monologue is more a comedy bit than information or objective reality, lots of rambling and absurd conclusions peppered between vague truths, he is ignoring all the real problems, quoting scandalous articles from newspapers and not showing sources for the main graphs, complete waste of time

[@boessle2963]

A pertinant: RETHINK!