Dr. Patrick Moore-- Carbon and Climate Catastrophe 

There's not that many people with Downs Syndrome...

"How does this not have a million views???" Perhaps because it is blatant corporate-funded misinformation. Anyone with a decent knowledge of climate science quickly sees through this propaganda, including the laughable mis-use of that chart around the 13:23 mark.

Because youtube is liberal

People would have to admit the truth....and they could not handle the truth

Easy unswer-will blown up their climate narrative !!!their power will go down with their BS.!!!

For a good laugh.

Yeah! in Afghanistan, haha, that'll really mess with their heads!

Replace drag-queen story time with this video !

Same. However, with that being said The Great Garbage Patch is practically invisible. Think logically and mathematically. There’s an estimated 2.9 sextillion pounds of ocean water. The great garbage patch Ocean Cleanup is working on is an estimated 160 million pounds. That’s something like a 55 pounds of garbage to 10,000,000,000,000 pounds of ocean water relationship, or 0.000000000000055%. For all intents and purposes it’s invisible. I might be off by a zero my calculator was bugging out but even if it’s off by several more zeros, it’s statistically irrelevant. With that being said, I’m sentimentally all for what they are doing, I just think it matters not what they are doing.

@@mitten97 Nice job. I recently read "fake invisible catastrophes and the threat of doom" by one of the founding members of Greenpeace. Everything we know about climate change isn't what it seems. I think we all can agree that conserving and respecting the planet it a good thing, but the climate crazies are out if control. C02 makes up .04% of the earth's atmosphere and human activity makes up a tiny fraction of that. They say thay stopping climate change is to save lives? WTO estimates that 250k people die from "climate change" every year. Yet 8 million people die from smoking. If it's was all about saving lives they would ban smoking which would also good for environment. Haahah. I like c02. Make the planet greener.

As Dr. Moore suggested, not dreaded plastic. Should we do a better job handling our waste? Absolutely! However, let's stop the hysterical lies.

@@michaelr6219 absolutely.

Of course, no one should have a problem w/ cleaning the trash but don’t lie about the Why of it. Don’t litter on land, don’t litter the ocean

You couldn't quote it better!

Fun quote, and I've used it too, but Patrick Moore is not an expert, has no clue what he is talking about, and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans caused all recent global warming, and that global warming, resulting climate disruption, and the excess CO2 (ocean acidification) all pose an urgent threat to the future of life on earth. We have long past the point where it would have been cheaper and better for humans and other species if we were already rapidly de-carbonizing our economy.

Thank you for that but of info

The reality is much worse than they are telling the public.

the climate alarmists and extremist, including politicians, will do more to harm humanity in the next 30 to 50 years with their claims and actions than any climate event over the next 500 years

OK MARGARET...DO YOU KNOW HIM PERSONALLY? lol

I do not know him, the climate disaster is looming it is the volcano, and to boot we are entering a very dusty and dangerous part of the galaxy current sheet and our magnetic field is weak. If our sun sneezes from that (micro nova) and or our poles, which are already on excursion, flip we may yet have a climate disaster which is considerably more action packed than warming a degree or two over the next century or two. Another thing considerably worse than that slight warming and already under way is cold, cold like you cannot fathom unless you been to Yakutsk. We ARE still in an interglacial period in the middle of an ice age. Rendering fears of warming ridiculous and quite insane really. I really hope and pray the the cold deniers are right.

The disaster is the political response

The biggest effects known to earth`s climate are the sun, large volcanic eruptions, and space impacts. The latter two are FAR more common than the population has been told but the terrifying information is there for those who seek it. Two major events were 536 A.D. and The Year Without A Summer. Either of these would cause mass starvation and kill hundreds of millions from extreme cold if they happened right now. And another extreme threat facing everyone are solar radiation events. There is clear evidence in tree rings of solar outbursts 100,000 times more powerful than the Carrington Event and they happen like clockwork. Another horrifying problem facing us all is the coming phase of ZERO SUNSPOT ACTIVITY in the coming years that is expected to last decades and according to NASA will begin in just a few years. Huge volcanic eruptions are expected and our electric grid will likely be completely destroyed. @@jackdeniston59

Mt Etna's burp puts 10.000 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind's entire existence on earth. There are 3000 active volcanoes, soon all of them will go off if the sun releases the electro magnetic fault locks.

Thank you for thinking 🤔

I've been reconsidering and agree with you. (NZ)

Me too and also from NZ. 🙏🏼

Nuclear energy is the clean energy and if we ever get to "fusion"than this will be the best energy without "spent rods",but overall still Nuclear energy is the best in present time

Me too.

It's called "brainwashing". Television advertisers and politicians use it very effectively all the time.

This video is the lies

@@generationfallout5189 At the poles you see large lakes, where the ice has melted. Holes hundreds of meters deep have been found into which water flows. Sea ice is also melting on a large scale in Antarctica. This is impressive, but all the heat comes from below and is localized. The greenhouse effect gives heat from above and is not the cause of this at all because that is not local at the poles, but no effect has been observed. These few facts alone indicate that humanity is greatly cheated with the story of CO2. You have to know the real cause of climate change and that is the oceans. You can then easily understand why the oceans change the climate and people can't change that, so almost everyone lies on a massive scale about the cause, because then there is a lot to earn. There is a reason why 1 billion dollars a day is spent on CO2 . Be very careful who you call a liar, for these are just a few of the many I can name.

@@heinpereboom5521 everyday humanity creates mountains of plastic using it once and throwing it out. All that plastic has to go somewhere. And it definitely has an effect. It doesn’t just disappear because that’s what you would like to believe. Well it’s exactly the same with greenhouse gas. It doesn’t just drift off into space. It has an effect. Everything is about balance here on earth. Too much of anything will hurt you. It’s about looking after the planet. It’s about striving for the right balance. Drowning in waste products isn’t balanced… it does lead to death and destruction. It’s not rocket surgery.

@@generationfallout5189 Oh yes, people are huge perverts everywhere and thunder down everywhere, everyone can see that. Unfortunately, you can't judge what is happening on a global scale if you don't do any research yourself. CO2 is not the greenhouse gas that warms the earth, there is already too much for that in the atmosphere and the effects are now negligible, only then you need to know the real measurements of CO2 and the effect and much more in physics. Let me reassure you, water vapor gives 95% of the greenhouse effect and is caused by evaporation from the oceans and that determines climate. Exactly the same heat that melts large areas at the poles. Maybe never seen that this is local and warmed up from below? Why would a large soup of plastic float in the middle of the ocean? You can't control that? You can if you think about how it should get there. Yes, the climate is changing, but people can do nothing about it and then there is nothing to earn from it. and THAT is also to be checked. If you hear through the media for years how the world is being destroyed by man, you cannot help but believe that this is the case. It is impossible for almost everyone to look for the truth themselves, because it has apparently already been found according to the media. No one is really critical anymore and THAT is the biggest problem. You will now also call me a climate denier and a conspiracy theorist, I'm pretty sure.

Politician's & Top Activist already know this. People on the lower end are younger & as we know its hard to get through to younger people that think they know it all. Eventually those people will grow up & realize theyve been bamboozled but there be another generation theyve already brainwashed. Its why they chose children for lead activist, like Gretta Thornburg & using this young people method they reach adults because most adults are sympathetic to a crying child. This whole "Use the weather to promote government bureaucracy & power" has been going on since the 1960s that I know of. Back them they warned of a coming ice age. Yes I wish people would watch this & I'm sure a lot of grown ups would but to todays youth its a religion the same way white guilt is taught. Patrick Moore is a rare breed & the only other person besides Trump to call it a HOAX. To many people think you should reason with the people claiming this stuff & meet them half way, they call it "Bipartisanship" but you cant negotiate with a LIE.

BTW a good question to ask a believer in man made climate change & C02 being the cause just ask them what comes first when they build & light a Fire, C02 or Heat. The obvious answer is Heat to start the Fire & it proves C02 is a result of heat, not a cause. You cant take C02 & make Fire. Also the fact that everything on Earth is constantly being Recycled & Renewed by Earth its self s a good point for people to ponder. That fact alone bust so many of the modern day environmentalist theory's. One last thing ill mention is I've noticed & I may not be 100% correct but from what I've seen most of the Environmentalist Movements that are really Political in Nature come from regions don't experience many extreme weather events seasonally For example in the South East where you have to have AC & Humidifiers to survive, there's no big Environmentalist Movements. Could it be that the relatively moderate climates keep them from understanding how important Natural Oil is as an energy source. I may be off on that but most of the Enviro movements I know of are from cooler climates which may have the opposite effect on there mentality than you'd think. Its easy to argue against Minerals like Natural Gas & Natural Oil when you rely on it 8-9 months out of the year. One last tidbit, are you aware only 11% of the Earths surface has been explored for Oil & Gas deposits? Claiming Oil is a limited source is like claiming water is a limited source which they do that as well come to think of it. Also Mineral Oil from the Earths Crust isn't the only source of Oil. We create oil out of all types of stuff. I personally believe they marketed Oil as a limited substance to drive the price up & profit. I know Nuclear Power gets demonized for the fact it would put major Energy Company's out of business if Humans took advantage of its capabilities.

ELEVEN SEPARATE STUDIES CONFIRM THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. ELEVEN. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LAST YEAR AUDITED THE OVER 88000 CLIMATE STUDIES PUBLISHED FROM 2012-2020 AND TALLIED A 99.9% CONSENSUS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY, NOT NATURE, IS FUELING CLIMATE CHANGE.

@@wandameadows5736 Hawaii is on fire and Beijing is underwater. Our children are much more aware than some of their parents of the danger of listening to liars. Homeowners in many areas can no longer buy insurance for their homes and insurance companies are filing for bankruptcy en masse. Climate change is not only real its here. These type of videos are a joke.

Actually there are many great scientists who are against the climate crisis fraud. Dr. Koonin, Happer, Judith Curry, and many more. I discovered them as I discovered Dr. Patrick Moore.

Wow! Who would have thunk?

In the Netherlands, many billions are spent on the construction of filthy bioplants. Entire shiploads of wood have to be imported for this, because of course we have far too few trees in our small country. Of course they knew that this causes more filth than coal-fired power stations, but they just keep going. That is the result of the environmental mafia and governments that do not care at all about their population and that they bring in a lot of money. This imbecile crime has struck worldwide.

You are right, the so-called renewable energy produced by Drax is a con, a scam, a greenwash. But the politics around burning so called "biofuels" and the stupidity evident in Drax does nothing to disprove the science of global warming as stupidity and global warming are not mutually exclusive. Most ecologists and environmentalists fully understand this and are as strongly critical of the Drax power station.

@@jockmoron Most environmentalists are liars and then there is no turning back for scared people. What most people say should never be confused with the truth. They are parrots and are very easy to indoctrinate and believe anything that seems most likely because they have been scared. Remember: War happens when politics tells you who your enemy is. Revolution happens when you see for yourself who your enemy is. Politics creates the biggest lies, war and a lot of misery in a population. Environmental activists along with the government are telling us all sorts of things. Do you think they do not understand that eg bio-fired power stations are dirtier than coal-fired power stations? Tens of billions are spent in the Netherlands on bio-fired power stations and shiploads full of wood come from South America to burn it in. Do you agree with that ? They clearly have different interests, because cutting down huge amounts of forests can't really be the intention, can they?

There's nothing green about burning carbon-based fuels, whether they be wood or coal. We have to de-carbonize the whole economy.

People need to realize it actually is Political because its only 1 side fighting back against the other side thats promoting it. I know some Politician's in the Republican sphere has flopped & decided to profit off it but the Lefts position on this is 100% in favor of believing the idea that humans are killing the Earth which is nonsense. So if anyone out there knows this is a huge scam & its having huge consequences on your everyday life they need to vote Republican & let it be known why they are doing it. Politician's usually just latch onto what ever the popular issue is on either side & this issue needs to be front & center on the Right. I want to hear more politician's call it an out right HOAX like Trump did. If people don't stand up now it will become accepted truth but an overwhelming majority of the population & when that happens your screwed. Really if people just stand on there Constitutional Rights they couldn't get away with this but thats not happening either. We are headed back to the days of human sacrifice for rain.

bro makes the dumbest arguments I can't believe you actuallyb think he's smart 😂 dude said CO2 is needed because of plants

​@meandmeatmeoverthereif you're properly open to hearing a range of well reasoned arguments, regardless of who the speaker is, then it's up to you, the listener to discern where the truth lies. This is why free speech is vital to enable society to flourish

Phooey. He makes his niche being contrary to data- and gets his support from the oil people

@@eppurse would you apply that same criteria to the multi-billion dollar green energy industry who massively funds, with your tax dollars faked data that justifies their ever increasing confiscation of wealth at the direct expense of the poorest in society? The profiteers like Al Gore himself who lives in his massive mansion paid for by Arab oil money which he sold out to apparently all walk on water band never get called out on the fact that not a single one of their predictions, including Miami FL outdoor be underwater by 2015, or that polar bears are allegedly nearly extinct because of CC when the truth is their population is thriving. Fake data abounds when it comes to CC, but if you aren’t willing to look at the data that was faked on your side of the argument, it’s not very fair to claim that his data is fake…is it? Literally, every single politician and scientist who’s telling us the “sky is falling” because of CO2 has their hand out and is profiteering and digging deep into your back pocket, but you don’t question for a moment their motives? Really?

Pl Plppppp😊😊p😊😊

Are you sure it's the truth?

Patrick Moore though? THe famous liar?

Can you prove Dr. Moore is a liar.

So many lies and b.s more like

@@generationfallout5189 he provided evidence. You're just spewing your religious beliefs based on what you've been told. Get your head out of the sand and do some actual research yourself. It's really not that hard to find the truth. Or, just keep being an ignorant sheep.

you might this about this as all the government knows that co2 is not pollution ..and with net zero will kill every living plant on earth and below the oceans ..and the government officials know this to be true ..without plants we have no food period ..but before that will happen we will run to low of oxygen because dead plants dont make oxygen ..there is only one future for all of us and every living animal and plant and that is total extinction ..but wont the elite and all government suffocate to death with all of us ???? NO THEY WILL NOT as they have the biggest fall out shelter you could ever image with hydroponic gardens as big as small cities making and the food and fresh oxygen all 500 million of them will ever need ..were do you think all the carbon dioxide is going deep underground to keep it safe from us ..its got to be the hardest job the elite have to keep a straight face watching us kill ourselves while giving them our only life force so we all get to suffocate to death saving the elite what would have been a problem getting rid of us themselves ...now that you truly believe im batshit crazy ..explain whats going on in a more sane way ..not to mention the covid vaccine has polyethylene glycol as one of the main ingredients ..have you tested your car's coolant for the winter ? it should some covid vaccine in it to... we call it antifreeze ..now go real what antifreeze does to your internal organs , and you will fined the covid vaccine giving the same symptoms to people after they take the jabe as drinking antifreeze for your car's radiator ...but what is very alarming 280,000 americans and not one ask what is in the covid vaccine ..THEY ALL HAVE BECOME NO SMARTER THAN LAB RATS

..and yet our insane federal government in Canada is now making tv commercials calling this BS a "climate crisis".

Any person with true intellect doesn't NEED to listen to this. They already know.

@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful The problem is that there are too few with true intellect, but way too many who are easily brainwashed with all the climate change bullshit.

As with anything the dose makes the poison. At 1400 ppm no inc in plant net photosynthate can be expected. But if we drive CO2 levels to 800 ppm kiss your ass goodbye because agric as we experience it today will end. Keep in mind that all living organisms live within a rather narrow range of temps and are adapted to particular climate regimes. If those conditions change radically they die or migrate. Already this has been documented for many species.

To their credit, mainstream media actually fact-checks Moore, which is why they don't put him front and center of the climate debate. The graph at 12:00 minute mark was concocted by coal mining engineer Monte Heib, in an attempt to discredit climate scientists. It has ZERO basis in scientific reality, as you would expect from someone completely untrained in climate science. Moore knows its invalid but continues to use it in his presentations anyway. That's only the tip of the iceberg of his dishonesty. I'd love to show you more.

Exactly ...!

@@AllenBarclayAllen The mainstream media reports the science accurately. The videos and propaganda you watch do not, and that includes Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the energy industry, not a climate scientist.

It will never happen, they have to report the agenda their over lords give them. They don’t do any ACTUAL journalism.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481😂😂 you mean the green energy that is supported by the globalist billionaires? Those guys are not on his side, so he’s definitely not profiting off of this. I’m more concerned with the industries run by the billionaires, like the people who attend the WEF.

Moore is not a climatatologist. His degree is in forest ecology. He dropped out of that field decades ago to work as a paid spokesman for the very industries he and Greenpeace used to fight. That includes the oil industry-funded CO2 Coalition. Not a single scientific institution on earth agrees with him that more CO2 would be a net benefit to us. Just the opposite.

if you are a biologist then you know already that net zero will absolutely cause an extinction of all life on this planet ..and its starting to show is it not ???????? YOU ARE ONE OF THEM ARE YOU NOT ? got you a cozy apartment down stairs do ya ? until the smell goes away after the sheeple all suffocate to death ? i happen to be a botanist

Lol, so what you are saying is that you have always been decided on what you believe about climate science, and have just finally found someone with a title who agrees with you? Well done, a working scientific mind at its finest!

@@knettedwings of You net Zero freaks keep pulling carbon dioxide out of the air there won't be anything to worry about cause there won't be anyone left alive

you might want to ask why we have around 40 active volcanoes going off at the same time and what caused the inner core of the earth to stop spinning last summer as the so called scientist have not got a clue but i do ! the giant red woods in California are 3000 years old but today they are dying from the tops down ..again the so called forest rangers d not have a clue , but i do ! 95% of the kelp forest at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean are dead and gone for ever so is most of the sea weed that was at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean are all dead and washing up on beaches every where.. the world is dying little by little every day right under your noses and you are not smart enough to notice

​@@knettedwings Finally a voice with impact that is allowed to say it out loud you mean. Msm are neck deep in the hoax so you won't hear it there.

Beware of Moore's cherry-picked data, fake climate graphs, verbal sleight of hand and little lies of omission. Moore is the former director of the CO2 Coalition, which has long been funded by the fossil fuel industry to promote the use of more gas and oil. Moore is not a climate scientist. Although his degree is in forest ecology, he's not a forest ecologist either. He's a a long-time spokesman for the energy industry, and has worked on behalf of mining companies and the PVC industry, the very companies he used to fight at Greenpeace.

I think it is you that is "pretty simple really" and demonstrate a "complete failure to understand the carbon cycle". What you say about "climate science fail[ing] to recognise the current carbon drought or discuss the critical interplay between atmospheric and geological forms of carbon" is simply incorrect. Atmospheric CO2 is currently c.415ppmv c.50% ABOVE the level it was before 1750 (c.277ppmv), when the industrial revolution started. The most ambitious aim of the reduction in CO2 emissions (and carbon sequestration) is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 350ppmv, which is 80ppmv more than any pre-industrial amount for several thousand years and 50ppmv above any level for at least a million years. To pretend that we are in peril of entering a "mass extinction scenario" by REDUCING CO2 is complete nonsense. The truth is the exact opposite. WE are now adding to atmospheric CO2 at a rate FASTER than at any time in Earth's history (except for the immediate aftermath of the end-Cretaceous asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs). Previous times of rapid CO2 increase HAVE led to mass extinction events.

@@Tengooda Your comment is laughably irrelevant. You are referring to minimal variations in C02 in geological timescales bearing in mind levels have been as much as 8000 ppm and were substantially higher than now at the time of formation of coil and oil deposits due to extremely vigorous plant growth. You are ill-informed if you don't understand the concept of photosynthesis and how it is adversely affected by low levels of atmospheric C02. Humans have added 1 molecule of C02 per 10 000 molecules of air. It is pointless you commenting when operating from such a low knowledge base.

@@mrradman2986 Oh dear. I see that I am corresponding with someone suffering from a rather extreme form of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I presented you with a number of facts about the amount and rate of human caused changes in atmospheric CO2, none of which you are able to refute and all of which are very relevant to our present predicament. In response you state, "Humans have added 1 molecule of C02 per 10 000 molecules of air." Actually, of course, it is presently around 1.38 molecules of C02 per 10,000 molecules of air that humans have added (415 - 277 = 138). Apparently, you think that that is such a tiny amount that it makes little or no difference. It obviously hasn't occurred to you that if instead humans had REMOVED 1.38 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 (ie changed the CO2 concentration from 277ppmv in 1750 to 139ppmv now) then the atmosphere would be BELOW the estimated level (150ppmv) at which most plants can continue photosynthesis and thus survive and we would indeed be in severe danger both of starvation and of freezing to death, as a new glaciation would certainly be on the way. But you can't have it both ways: what is sauce for the cooling, CO2 starved, goose is sauce for the warming and sea level rising gander. What is really irrelevant to our present predicament is the fact that past atmospheres of much higher CO2 were associated with flourishing plant and animal life, since it is also the RATE OF CHANGE of atmospheric CO2 that stresses ecosystems and also cause stratification of the oceans ie the surface layer becomes much warmer and therefore less dense and, as a result, ocean circulation, which presently takes oxygen rich waters to the depths, ceases and ocean acidification, anoxia and euxinia take hold - complex life in the oceans dies and sulphur bacteria proliferate producing toxic hydrogen sulphide which eventually escapes into the atmosphere, poisoning terrestrial life and destroying the ozone layer, thus allowing UV light to penetrate to the Earth's surface. That is what has happened before, most notably at the end-Permian Great Dying, when up to 95% of species became extinct. It is also the case, of course, is that such times of high atmospheric CO2 were also, as a consequence, times with NO permanent ice at the poles. Were we to return to such an atmosphere, sea level would eventually rise by 70 metres. There are other errors in what you have written thus far, which I have not commented on. I am prepared to answer your questions and explain matters further, subject to a pronounced change in the tone of your writing.

@@Tengooda Evidence free tautology. You have not provided any physical justification regarding the 'rate of change' assertion which is an argument you have to resort to given that there is no evidence that the actual amount of the trace gas C02 currently in the atmosphere is harmful to life. It is undeniable that an analysis of climate models reveals that all overestimate the effect of C02 forcing. As ever the science is not settled but still being done. Scientific method relies on and welcomes sceptical challenge, consensus is merely politics.

​@@mrradman2986 1. Tautology: don't be absurd. 2. Rate of change? See Geological Society of London, Lyell Collection, Journal of the Geological Society, 2020: "the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past." 3. Evidence of current harm? See: “A2 The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.” and “A3 Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5.” (IPCC AR6 WG1 SMP 2021) 4. Evidence of rapid rates of change causing mass extinctions in the past? See copious research into past mass extinction events, eg i) Clarkson et al, Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction, Science, 2015 "The first phase of extinction was coincident with a slow injection of carbon into the atmosphere, and ocean pH remained stable. During the second extinction pulse, however, a rapid and large injection of carbon caused an abrupt acidification event that drove the preferential loss of heavily calcified marine biota." ii) Knoll et al, Paleophysiology and end-Permian mass extinction, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 256, 2007 "Physiological research aimed at understanding current global change provides a basis for evaluating selective survivorship associated with Permo-Triassic mass extinction. Comparative physiology links paleontological and paleoenvironmental observations, supporting the hypothesis that an end-Permian trigger, most likely Siberian Trap volcanism, touched off a set of physically-linked perturbations that acted synergistically to disrupt the metabolisms of latest Permian organisms. Global warming, anoxia, and toxic sulfide probably all contributed to end-Permian mass mortality, but hypercapnia (physiological effects of elevated PCO2) best accounts for the selective survival of marine invertebrates." iii) Kump, Ocean Anoxia:The end-Permian Mass Extinction, Eos, 2007 "the world's oceans became anoxic at both low and high paleolatitudes in the Late Permian." 5. Analysis of climate models ... refutes your assertion. See: "analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming" by Carbonbrief 6. "consensus is merely politics." Well, you started with absurdity, and I see you have ended with it as well.

Actually, it's blatant misinformation: There's a mountain of great scientific evidence proving humans caused all recent warming, that warming is already hurting people, ecosystems, and nations, and that failing to stop further man-made global warming threatens our future.

Dementia more like.

Yeah, just like how he said Glyphosate was safe to drink but then refused to even take a sip

And scientific proof!

No climate scientist has said the world is "going to end" from CO2. Bjorn is also greatly debunked in the scientific literature.

😂😂 Those that say the science is settled are doubly bad people. First, science is never settled. Einstein said the science of today will all be replaced in the future except for maybe the second law of thermo. Second the climate scientists know that their subject is inherently mathematically chaotic. Which means you cannot predict anything for certain.

To show what scientific misinformation looks like? Yes, absolutely.

​. Just because something disagrees with Trudeau. Doesn't make it misinformation. This guy is very capable, as much as anyone, and well experienced. He knows his stuff. I believe he is being truthful.

​@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I noticed you had no scientific rebuttal. It turns out reality has determined the misinformation and pseudoscience is the climate hysteria narrative.

Yeah but the subject is conspiracy theory. I mean everyone knows that the heartland institute is powered by George Sorrows and Bill Gates and friends...

Unfortunately, they will never dare !!

Because it is misinformation.

Because he is wrong and stupid

@@generationfallout5189 doubt it...we have been fed a bill of goods from the climate alarmists and fed gross disinformation/misinformation from the likes of the non-scientists...did you even listen and process what Dr. Moore is aying?

Because the power is hold by his enemies. Our enemies!

Soil themselves indeed.

I hope not. He's an energy spokesman, not a climate scientist, and he has been widely debunked in the scientific literature.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 "He's an energy spokesman, not a climate scientist, and he has been widely debunked in the scientific literature." Serious claims there. Any evidence to support them?

@@terryboyer1342 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. Morever, 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? See more of his fact-checks here: thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic/ See also RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S 'WHAT THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMAE CHANGE"

​@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481pull your head out of your ass.

Forward this to all your friends and relatives so they will also know. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

Also everything on Earth is constantly being recycled.

Freeman Dyson had ties to the Mercer Family Foundation whos tax returns since 2005 show some $22 million has gone to groups pushing climate science denial. Across the board, the groups funded by the Mercers have misrepresented climate science, promoted fossil fuels and denigrated renewable energy.

I agree. We don’t have enough nuclear. We have a supply of oil and gas that’s replenishing itself. Almost unlimited.

And nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build, and take forever to be approved.

And no insurance company will ensure a nuclear power plant unless the risk is under-written by the taxpayer/government.

Not natgas, it's still a finite resource. Ultimately the nearly limitless energy resource is water, which when reacted in a Tokamak, or thermonuclear reactor will provide thousands of years of power for humanity. There are teams working on tokamaks in several locations around the world right now. At least one has already reached "breakeven" net energy production. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are still cheaper than all other forms of electrical power production, and that is slowing the development of alternative energy sources. That's a major reason politicians use global warming scare tactics to justify subsidies from taxpayers. I say let the free market pick the winners and losers, not governments. Remember Obama and the Solyndra debacle? Follow the money. Solyndra went broke, but a lot of investors, law firms, and contractors cleaned up on the deal. When politicians whip up fear to ram through projects at taxpayer expense, watch your wallet!

You are bewitched.

@@brucedressel8873 Better than being brainwashed…

His central idea is that Co2 and global temperature don't track together. I'm not a scientist but I check several websites (NASA, ACS, and EIS) and he seems to be alone in believing Co2 and temperature aren't closely related.

@@jeffmoore9487 Indeed. And the graph of CO2 and temperature he presented was not only inaccurate, but it took no account of the changes in the sun's output, which over that vast timescale was very significant. No-one with any knowledge of climate science would expect a correlation between temperature and CO2 at that scale without taking the sun's changes (and also, at times, major changes in albedo) into account. When that is done the correlation is obvious. Patrick Moore is just presenting a straw-man argument. Potholer has debunked that kind of argument here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OJ6Z04VJDco.html at 5min40sec ff.

@@Tengooda Brilliant. Consider it stolen. That kind of presentation is priceless. I've found old travel documents of people roaming around Palestine very useful for those who've been told Palestine never existed. We live in a weird moment of "facts". Thanks.

Neither man is a climate scientist, and it shows.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I have been studying climate since 1959, and have my opinions based on them. What is your background to tell me you know more than these gentlemen?

@@gianfrancobenetti-longhini8192 I've been a science writer since the 1970s, published worldwide, in multiple languages, and I work with climate data every day. Every Friday I receive the links to anyhwhere from 80 to 200 new studies on climate from around the world. Let me give you a quick fact-check on Moore to invesigate and verify on your own. .. Moore is famous for his assertion that "over the Earth's history there's no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature." In his presentations he often shows a graph which looks pretty damned convincing. The alarming thing about the graph, though, is that no one in his audience questions its provenance. 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 hundreds 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 Heib 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. Moore has been told by now that the graph has no scientific validity, yet he continues to use it in presentations anyway. What does that say about him? Do ask yourself why 99.9% of publishing climate scientists disagree with his point of view. Then ask why TEN separate studies have confirmed a 97% or higher consensus and why 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions endorse the consensus findings. Is it the world's PhD-level climate scientists who are wrong, or Patrick Moore, who is a forest ecologist and energy spokesman, not a climate scientist, and who has been widely debunked in the literature?

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Up to now all the so called experts' predictions have not occurred. I do not believe CO2 is a problem. So what do you say on the following .... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1-gHWcrCK7w.html

It was good in a way because, although the area is radioactive the plants and animals have adapted and are flourishing ( all the humans are gone ). This shows that life can easily survive radiation at those levels. We all die but life itself won’t. If we blew up all the nukes, life would go on , probably would look like one of David Bowie’s album covers

Well said, I call it the Malthusian climate cult, they want maximum suffering of mankind. I believe it's a case of what Chesterton said, When people stop believing in God they don't believe nothing, they believe anything.

​@@xqt39a I saw a documentary on that, the descendants of the pets left behind, along with bears etc.

Did you watch the Attenborough film to which Patrick refers? Patrick's depiction is NOT accurate. There are things he's claiming that film said that it did NOT.

@@Je-Lia I watched it. Attenborough has been spreading lies for years. He’s not an expert on the subject. He’s a narrator. You should learn to tell the difference between real science and propaganda

@@Je-Lia Attenbourgh like his brother is a professional actor he is just narrating. It is well produced propaganda but still propaganda.

@@dmanliberty3136 Agreed Attenbourgh like his brother is a professional actor he is just narrating.

@@Je-Lia Attenborough is a puppet for the globalists. He has a degree in economics which is why he promotes their propaganda. Climategate is a politically driven campaign based on profit and power. There's no science behind it. All profit driven pseudoscience BS.

Agree. And so more need to help spread the word ... I am trying myself ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DNeujL1IoCA.html

Zero chance he'll get coverage, his truth bombs just don't fit the BBC's alarmist narrative

@@richardmacey3619 Then we'll just have to help spread the word ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DNeujL1IoCA.html

I just mentioned his name on some Tucker vs bill nye.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ovKw6YjqSfM.html

Also The Guardian newspaper that is heavily funded by Bill Gates.

Yeah I think we got the analogy ;)

Everyone should realize it starts in your mind and then manifest

Do ask yourself why 99.9% of publishing climate scientists disagree with his point of view. Then ask why ELEVEN separate studies have confirmed a 97% or higher consensus and why 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions endorse the consensus findings. Is it the world's PhD-level climate scientists who are wrong, or Patrick Moore, who is a forest ecologist and energy spokesman, not a climate scientist, and who has been widely debunked in the literature?

He's a prisoner like the rest of them. Ozone layer depletion is the issue. The only reason for the devastating forest fires around the globe these days. He knows all about it, and, like the rest of them, he says nothing.

California and London get wildfires but your relieved to hear "rational" rebuttal that doesn't address what's happening?

@@jeffmoore9487 Here's some "rational" rebuttal burn data for U... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oSknDKxZaEg.html

@@jeffmoore9487 you ever thought that environmental mismanagement such as water control, destruction of natural habitats and species, and a lack of pollution control have an effect. Or are we just going to blame it on an "overabundance" of a naturally occurring gas? When the truth is pulled over your eyes, will you recognize that your being lied to or will you double down on the lies you've been led to believe? Will you be the change you wish to see, or go along with the status quo, one designed to subvert your attention from real issues we face?

@@xxRamD3yruxx You must have misread my post.

Actually, he has little clue what he is talking about and has for years made a living by saying unscientific things that make dangerous products look safer than they are. Rapid man-made global warming, climate disruption, and ocean acidification actually DO pose an urgent threat to the future of life on Earth, and there's a mountain of science proving that.

And Michael Mann, who is a Lysenkoist, is not the man, perhaps not even a man at all.

@@michaelw3927 "And Michael Mann, who is a Lysenkoist". ??? Over two dozen climate reconstruction studies have confirmed the general hockey stick shape of past global temps. In short, the best scientific research has repeatedly proven Michael Mann was right. Just read the science.

@@karlwheatley1244 the models are mostly bunk I’d argue . There’s a few modelers that worked on some talk about and some from the climate gate papers essentially fudging data massaging it . I’ll see if I can find his name again . I’d suggest listening to him talk to lindzen and other top scientists talk about it

The guy in this video has only proven his early onset dementia… and that he received a large donation from fossil fuel companies.

Might as well join the ranks of the "conspiracy freaks" as we are often called. Truth be told, we are right...in the majority of our thinking. If if looks like, acts like and smells like a conspiracy...isn't that enough?

My tilt came years ago. I fell over and snapped back to reality.

Conspiracy theorists are right about most things. The term was invented to discredit dissent

Conspiracy theorist is an accolade these days, after they scored around 55 to 0 against the covid narrative lies 😉

Sez the man who eats his own boogers.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ovKw6YjqSfM.html

Imagine a (western) world where THAT would happen.

@Nancy Rocks Time for an administrative change.

No more Greta thornbergs to mislead our children but an actual climate scientist with truth

He spent most of his life raising baby monsters, then he became shocked that they grew up to be monsters. Not exactly a great guy imo.

Climate Mass formation?

@@chuckdimuro4561 A climate mass formation is a cloud or the great barrier reef?

His central idea is that Co2 and global temperature don't track together. I'm not a scientist but I check several websites (NASA, ACS, and EIS) and he seems to be alone in believing Co2 and temperature aren't closely related.

@@jeffmoore9487 well that clears that right up. Thought sure he was trying to say mass formation psychosis induced through psychological warfare techniques perpetrated by sociopaths with suitcases full of money

Want to learn about another lie? Look up the truth on recycling. It’s a huge lie.

First in the 70s mr spock told i was going to freeze to death. Second in the 80s i was told i'm living in a greenhouse heating up to death. In there i was told there's a hole in the ozone layer right above australia. But all of that was directional and too specific to predict. How about we hedge our bets and just say, the climate is changing. yeah they're right. I believe in climate change. Day is warmer than night.

Follow IPCC. Not industrialists.

@@nix_0333 IPCC fabricated data, and that’s proven.

@@nix_0333 How credible is the IPCC if they have to constantly change their models and refuse to admit that the feedback formula has been incorrectly used by them to calculate climate change? They don't give normal messages, but only alarmist messages, that scares people, especially when a lot of forest is on fire again, which is 90% caused by humans. There are plenty of people who believe that wood burns at 80 degrees Celsius. I can assure you that this is about 350 degrees, it has not yet become that hot because of the sun. When it gets warmer, it's drier and then it burns quickly when you play with fire. The climate just changes, just like it always did, but nobody looks up that data and what is presented is almost always a lie. Pseudo science rules.

@@nix_0333 What kind of world do you live in?

Perhaps you will understand that if you first take a good look at your own world.

You are just believing what you want to believe instead of what is. You are too weak to handle the harsh truth.

You should try looking at some actual science.

@@RichardRoy2 You mean computer model predictions?🤡

@@martinsanders5418 No, I mean established peer reviewed science on the effects of CO2 on temperature. Not the nonsense from Mr Moore. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9XIpTqbLR5Y.html

@@RichardRoy2 If that political b/s is enough to convince you of impending doom, well, good luck to you, you obviously have a need for it.

Nah you need education. Its desperately missing. You just listened to a 'famous liar' who got evennnn covered by 'Hbomberguy'. Whan an honor

@slevinchannel7589 brainwashed idiots like you who would rather take the word of a few greasy politicians and the corrupt WEF instead of listening to actual scientific proof. Who are all these experts that know so much and have proven facts that you listen too?

Because the Globalist created this hoax and control our politicians