Patrick Moore: Environmentalists wrong about Canadian oil (video) 

Glad that someone is actually doubtful of gov.just never ending deceiving for their own selfish $$$. Greed. The end is near fear mongering.If any real science behind claims then reasonable people would insist and continue too,,, science I was taught.not some telling no doubt..ok past history alone alarming. PLEASE FORWARD TO EVERYONE

*alberta

​@@homoemarrawanna2762Have you ever heard of lobbying? Also you ok with corporate greed?

Ok big oil salesmen

It's not too hard to find them. He's with Heartland Institute, google that and his name.

@@suew4609 Thanks 😊

Ok big oil fanboy

Did government kill you grandma

Dzp5

He mostly contradicts himself anyway.

They are projecting. It's the greenies who get the money from big oil.

You MAGA or something?

Moore is NOT a climatologist, but you are clearly a brainwashed right-winger. He exploited his association with Greenpeace to start his own business to be the mouthpeace for fossil fuel, coal, chemical, and plastics corporations! He has a 100% financial interest in everything he says. And, for anybody with half a brain and the powers of observation, he is DEAD wrong! Shame, shame, shame on his lies!

@@lauriefrancisco1084 , what is your qualification? Are you a climatologist ?

​@@Randolph1233 Dr. Moore is!

@@Randolph1233do you only have the right to tlks about a subject if you have a degree in it ? I know one thing, I’ve have learned nothing in school and all the garbage high schools and universities. Experience makes you what you are, not any kind of degree you obtained when you were young.

Ok emo kid

That post proves you are as big a liar as Moore. Moore is a liar. For starters he was not a founder or even co-founder of Greenpeace. He joined an organisation which subsequently changed its name from Don't Make a Wave Committee to Greenpeace He lied when he claimed Greenpeace wanted a global ban on chlorine, the reason he gave for leaving. He lies about CO2 not being mainly responsible for AGW & ACC. He lies about the current elevated CO2 being beneficial for plants etc. It is isn't. He lied about the destruction of the Sumatran rainforest. He cited the already debunked “Oregon Petition” to dismiss the scientific consensus on AGW & ACC. He lied about models being wrong and inaccurate. He lied about there being no scientific proof that man is contributing to climate change. And so on,

"Dr. Patrick Moore, former leader and co-founder of Greenpeace". Two lies to start with, doesn't bode well for the rest, does it? "The Fraser Institute is an independent, non-partisan research and educational organization." Seems you are independent of honesty and reality and very, very partisan. That you do no proper research and your purpose is not to educate but to distort facts for your masters in the fossil fuel industries.

​@@boffeycn You have no idea what you are talking about, and are just mindlessly repeating talking points you can't be bothered to think for yourself about. CO2 is not responsible for global warming or climate change. There is no evidence that it is, and very strong evidence that it isn't. For example the 1st half the 20th century was significantly warmer than today. Most of the Holocene was even warmer than that. In both those periods human CO2 emissions very low or non-existent. Elevated CO2 is amazing for plants, try find a single green house operator in the world that doesn't bump up CO2 concentrations in to the thousands. NASA even published satellite images showing the greening effect of CO2. The models are nowhere near observations. The models come nowhere near the satellite record, and are off by 50% of the surface record. From a computer science perspective, this is like having the answers to the exam in front of you and still failing the exam, the IPCC models are an embarrassment to human intellect. There is no scientific proof that man is contributing to climate change. The only argument ever put forward by the IPPC are their invalidated computer models, which are not evidence, much less proof. The Oregon Petition is not debunked. Over 31,000 scientists in the US alone were given a document to read and study in the way they are trained to do as scientists, and if they agreed with the document they were free to sign the petition. If you want to see a debunked consensus (because that's how we do "science" nowadays), look up Legates et al 2013

@@topturkey278 "You have no idea what you are talking about, and are just mindlessly repeating talking points you can't be bothered to think for yourself about." Rather a good self description there. "The Oregon Petition is not debunked." Lie. Tell us about Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and Star Wars having been shown on that list, not to mention IC Ewe repeat names, corporations etc? Legates? Really? The man who claims polar bear numbers are increasing. Exactly how does he know that? The man who states about AGW & ACC "It's not happening" when not a single relevant scientist agrees with him. He claimed “Models have too much sensitivity to climate change, particular with relation to the greenhouse effect, because there’s just too much water in the atmosphere.” But failed to point out that the models have been extremely accurate. He totally agrees and publishes papers with Willie Soon, all of whose claims have been totally debunked, and both he and Soon have been disowned by their Universities.

​@@topturkey278 The atmosphere is not a greenhouse but CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When CO2 is added to greenhouses so are large quantities of water and artificial nutrients. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere large quantities of water and artificial nutrients are not available. That Moore is apparently unaware of those facts doesn't say much as to his nous, does it, or yours.

Now am older I think and know different...

I used to be a uber-liberal Democrat and even believed in Paul Erlich's Population Bomb. But I couldn't vote for the Arkansas Rapists so I began to question my assumptions.

Not in 2010 he wasn't.

Overpopulation is a myth! I'm sure you've probably heard that all of the people in the world could fit in the state of Texas and have about 1,000 square feet each. That just shows how big this world really is! There is an enormous amount of empty land. I don't worry about such things,I let the good Lord take care of it!

Did you go to school?

Unfortunately there was a Sir Patrick Moore, the famous amateur astronomer & broadcaster who is now dead.

Ok oil simp

look at some of his other speeches on RU-vid, they have the graphs

🤣 good luck mate

You MAGA or something?

You don't 'reject' scientific consensus. You question it. There used to be expert 'consensus' that the earth was the center of the known universe. How'd that turn out? Science is FACT, not consensus. Science used to welcome a robust challenging of theory...now fools like you wish it to be unquestioned dogma, more akin to a religion than a science. Since politicians listen to idiots like you and deny funding to the people who cause the bleating of the sheeple to be the loudest, the only funding available is from that of The Heartland Institute etc.

@@trlltrllenheimer9270 no, Heartland Institute works in favor of big oil companies to confuse the public of the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting man-made climate change. You are the manipulated sheeple and your grandchildren will pay for it.

If it can be questioned, it is science. If it CANNOT be questioned, it is a cult. There is no such thing as scientific "consensus". See, I'm wondering how changing the CO2 concentration from .039% of total gases in the atmosphere, to .04% or even .05% is going to "destroy the planet", as some have claimed. CO2 is not the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that would be water vapor> I have seen how water vapor affects local weather. In winter, at night, when there are clouds, the temperature doesn't drop as much as it does when there are clear skies. Does man affect the climate? Sure, but how MUCH? As much as the sun? Volcanoes? Ocean currents and wind currents? I doubt man can really affect the planet as much as you believe (short of total global thermonuclear war, which WOULD destroy our planet- or our ability to survive on what's left).

@@clubberdang3955 OK, great. Can you refute the science he's bringing to the table? Any of it? You are attacking his character, not his science. The mans a PHD Ecologist after all......who are you exactly?

@@texastinman7639 Welcome rational human

Yes he is a paid shill , makes so many false claims says 10 years ago the plastic that fish , birds ect ingest just gets pooped out , human babies born today have 84630 + TOXINS locked into their bodies on a micro level when born and this guy says toxins in our food is fine ... karm is coming for this guy

@@macalister8881 Cheers. Given all the other lies he makes that doesn't surprise me. Interview with WUWT. I will reference those in future posts. I also note the liars are still referring to him as Greenpeace co-founder.

@@boffeycn it is the agenda of the day , a carbon tax that only god knows where that money really go,s , sickness is our biggest industry , to eat drink and breathe clean is so exspensive , but it feels wonderfull to feel wonderfull , it,s a crazy world we live in , you have a great day

There are a lot of stupid people who believe blatant lies

@@macalister8881 o

So what you're saying is that you have no cogent reply. Typical.

@@DaJesta088 Patrick is a doubt merchant for environmentally problematic industries. He is not a scientist. Calling himself an ecologist is questionable at best. He is quite convincing, unless he is speaking to an informed, unbiased group; which he avoids.

@@eveihlone2192 Again. Nothing but ad hominem attacks. Refute his words or go away.

@@DaJesta088 So you believe everything he says? So you are denying the facts posted here about his lies are not true?

@@DaJesta088 Pat's naive and simplistic claim that more CO2 is a good thing is wrong. He is so lacking in scientific understanding that he has no business commenting on the subject.

Fun fact: current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 410 parts per million (ppm).....look it up! For optimum growth, plants need much higher levels of CO2 .....look that up! Google says...... (Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth) AND ( For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000-1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800-1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production.Nov 24, 2020). Bottom line wong ....... at the current levels of CO2 in the world's atmosphere ( 410 ppm), plants are on a starvation diet and yet, climate scientists claim CO2 levels are too high....which is bullshit. The opposite is actually true. BTW.....CARBON DIOXIDE is just one of many greenhouse gases. Why is it the villain? Dr. Moore is one smart cookie. Is it because many do not have the educational background or mental capacity to understand exactly what Dr. Moore says in lectures....hence they default to calling certain of his points.....lies (YOU) as well as making attempts to discredit him by putting a spin on everything that has to do with anything he says or does! The guy has a PhD in Ecology as well as a background in biochemistry and biology. What are your credentials wong?

Apart from your other miss-statements, warmer air can hold a lot more water vapor because relative humidity decreases as temperature increase. Please do your basic fact checking before making idiotic comments

#wong

​@@MrTrdawho's Wong?

@@railfandepotproductions 👆that guy