Dr Patrick Moore - Friday Lunch Session

i know already but uh there's a little bit more to it so i'm gonna have sort of three or four different discussions here different modules and the first one can come up right now and it is oh that's not my slide that's too nice for me that's beautiful there's an artist been involved photography is one of my favorite pursuits it's really a wonderful thing in photography the subject is only the third most important thing most people don't realize that the first most important thing in photography is actually light because it doesn't work very well without it and the second most important thing in in photography is composition and the subject is only the third most important thing because you can make a nice photograph of any subject but you can't make a nice photograph without good light and good composition there i am okay let's go to the first slide because that's just the introduction with the four seasons this is gonna critical thinking has been one of my subjects for all my life well since i was in second year university when as a second year science student the faculty of arts the english faculty created a semester for science students in critical thinking and i joined that course it was an elective and i've never looked back because it's not just about what you're thinking about what are you thinking about there's a good joke about that i'll tell it actually uh the german coast guard on the shore and the english ship was going by and the the ship stuck a rock struck a rock and was sinking and the english went on the sos we are sinking we are sinking and the german coast guard were they got silence the german coast guard comes on what are you thinking about [Music] i told my german friends that i had them cracked up for days so critical thinking is about how we think not just about what we're thinking about it's the way we go about thinking and if you think about it thinking is a fairly important part of life because first you have to think before you talk well we hope you think before you talk the first lesson and and my favorite one and it was the first lesson we were taught uh the the prof gave us an issue of time magazine and we deconstructed that thing from cover to back cover and every story in it and it was really really educational the first rule of critical thinking in my books is never believe a headline or a sentence in the first paragraph usually the first sentence excuse me we've got an emergency i've just honestly i just have to say something is there a fire no there's no fire i was just wondering what you're thinking about well actually john robinson just texted and for those folks that are at home there if you go to the link that we all morning we've been on friday morning and now you have to click another link that's friday noon so i think what happened was the session at home ended with the friday morning session ended but on the on the link to that if you go to the website is this correct david if you go to the website then there's a link that says friday at lunch so you click on that and then it'll pick it up again so uh uh people are coming on okay so people are figuring it out but for anyone who hasn't figured it out yet that's what you have to do so sorry to interrupt you you're back we're back in business you mean my german joke didn't get out to the tell it again i'll tell it once more there's a a german coast guard station on the shore of the north sea and going by is a boat full of brits yeah but the people at home haven't there's boats going by with the brits on board and they strike a rock and they're going down and they go to the sos mayday mayday we are sinking we are sinking and there's silence and then the german coast guard comes back what are you thinking about there i said it again may might or could and for the people at home this is the subject of critical thinking and it's not what you were thinking about or thinking about that matters so much it is how you are thinking about it and that is what this is all about this first section of my presentation may might or could never believe a headline in a newspaper or magazine or anywhere on the news or or the first sentence of the introduction to the story where the words may might or could are used now may might and could it's funny they all mean the same thing all three of them if they're used as the death of baobab trees may be caused by climate change right it should say may or may not might or might not could or could not every time so when you read those words introducing the possibility that something might be caused by something else remember that the reason they're telling you that is because they don't know that that thing is caused by something else there is no evidence for it in the real world in a scientific sense or in a cause-effect sense it's a speculation is what it is speculation is an interesting word isn't it unfounded speculation is a better way to put it always put the word unfounded in front of the word speculation because speculation is never founded it is always unfounded so that is the first rule of critical thinking you will if you don't know that rule yet you're gonna really find that it comes in handy when you're reading the media and the news in in all of it they use this word all the time the first chapter of of my new book fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom gives a perfect example of that the headline is africa's oldest baobob trees are dying at an unprecedented rate that's the headline the subhead is and climate change may be to blame right well you get into this story and you find out that in fact they don't know how many baobob trees there are there is no census of baobab trees so they don't know what the population is how then could they possibly know there was an unprecedented rate of dying going on actually they don't know how many baobab trees died in any given year either you find out from this story the only fact that is given is from a romanian chemist with a last name with more consonants in it than vowels who is apparently the expert on dying baobob trees and he claims that eight of the 13 oldest baobob trees have died in the last decade eight trees less than one per year there are thousands of baobab trees we know that much so it's just a completely fake story and 150 major media outlets around the world picked it up and ran with it even a fox affiliate went with it because it's such a cool story but what if there was a headline saying the oldest chinese people are dying at an unprecedented rate well the population of china is growing so obviously each year more old people die than did the last year so that would be unprecedented wouldn't it that's the kind of thing i'm talking about here x is linked to why the word linked is used instead of caused by because they can't say caused by so they use this weasel word linked it's not a scientific word they have linked it is what it comes down to by saying it's linked to and so when they say obesity is linked to autism or blindness is linked to some kind of food or whatever they say never believe anything where the word linked is used to imply causation between two factors and the other one is the same this one's really showing up a lot lately a new study suggests when you suggest something it's almost more like asking a question than it is stating a factual piece of knowledge right just think about the word suggest it means it kind of hints at right it sort of indicates something right when you say suggest and science papers peer-reviewed science papers are using this word suggests a new study suggests all the time now so remember linked and suggests are being used to fool you into thinking that there is a causal relationship between two things when in fact it has not been proven and that's why they don't use the word caused even when they do use the word caused take caution assumptions versus conclusions this is a really interesting one because well there's a little thing that says skeptics are people who disagree with your conclusions heretics are persons who disagree with your assumptions because of course conclusions are based on assumptions and if you have a wrong assumption you're going to end up with a wrong conclusion you can't get the right conclusion from an incorrect assumption so always look behind conclusions to try to figure out what the assumptions are that led to that conclusion for example the conclusion that the world is heating up rapidly due to increased co2 emissions from human use of fossil fuels that's a conclusion that's being made but what's the assumption it's based on it's based on the assumption that carbon dioxide will always lead to a warmer climate and that's what should be tested and if you look back in the historical record you can see that there is virtually no evidence of that in the long-term record that's why they want you to believe the earth began in 1850 because that is where the correlation between co2 increasing and temperature increasing started to happen prior to 1850 for the 150 years before that goes back to 1700 which was the coldest period of the little ice age temperature had been increasing all that 150 years but co2 hadn't moved a smidgen because we weren't putting enough fossil fuel co2 into the atmosphere to do that until 1850. so if you look at the temperature graph from central england you will see that since 1700 the temperature has just risen slowly slowly at just exactly the same rate up to today and co2 starting in 1850 has gone up in an exponential curve so if they were in lock-step causal relationship you would expect that temperature would have followed that exponential curve in co2 emissions just at least a little bit but it doesn't even follow it by a smidgen so even since 1850 there isn't very much evidence of any causal relationship but go back before 1850 there was a period between 150 million years ago and 50 million years ago when the temperature in co2 of the earth was so completely out of whack exactly the opposite when co2 went up temperature went down when temperature went up co2 went down and there is no way in creation to think that that could possibly have anything to do with co2 causes temperature that's a 150 million year period i got the number it's 100 million before and 50 million after when they crossed each other because they were going in opposite directions and then they crossed each other going in the other opposite directions it's all done from marine sediment analysis of isotopes which is rather other than by you know biological proxies are i don't i don't necessarily trust them because there's too many factors involved in what creates tree rings for example that's a biological proxy but when you look at oxygen 18 as an isotope in marine sediments and you know why it's going up and down you can be pretty sure that you've got good data and there is very good data actually going back over half a billion years on with marine sediments so computer models comes right after assumptions versus conclusions people are behaving and giving you the impression that a computer model can actually be like a crystal ball can actually be like a fortune teller right can actually be like throwing pero actually giving you an insight into the future the crystal ball is a mythical object it is not a real thing that you can look into and see the future and neither is a computer model the assumptions you put into the computer model automatically give the same conclusion every time if you put the same assumptions in this is why assumptions and conclusions are so important today because with kovid as roger pointed out this british academic just shoving the numbers from italy at the beginning into a computer model came out with hundreds of millions of deaths or whatever it was that's because the assumptions were wrong and if a scientist believes that co2 causes warming they are going to put that in as an assumption in the computer model and guess what the output of the computer model will show that the world is going to warm it's just so obvious if they put an assumption in that said co2 will not cause the temperature to change at all then it won't change due to co2 because that was the assumption that was put in the computer model so computer models for both the prediction of the future climate of the world and for the prediction of disease epidemics are useless and they've spent billions of dollars on them billions all to fuel their conclusion that they have reached independently of computer models that the reason the earth is warming in the modern warm period as opposed to the roman warm period and the medieval warm period when there wasn't any co2 emissions from co2 this warming period is apparently caused by our co2 emissions and that is their assumption and it creates that conclusion climate deniers everybody who sees this phrase or hears it said should viciously attack the person who said it verbally that is because it is one of the most dirtiest nastiest slurs that has ever been invented by humans it's basically the same as calling a person a heretic in the spanish inquisition it's basically the same as calling you a nazi because the word denier up until it was used for climate science deniers or climate change deniers or just plain climate deniers it was only used for holocaust deniers in that sort of context prior and that's exactly why they chose it to associate those of us who are skeptical of the science of catastrophic human-caused climate change not of human-caused climate change our agriculture probably has a slight effect at least regionally on climate and even globally because it has changed the whole terrestrial ecosystem in some continents a great deal and i would i would personally believe that that is the biggest change we've made to the surface of the planet is the our agricultural activity and we should stop doing that immediately and put it back to nature right now danny pull those carrots out or whatever you're growing over there and you know put some native vegetation back in there so there you go i mean really if you're worried about human-caused climate change the best thing that's happened since the little ice age is it's got warmer the best thing that's happened to the global climate and one of my favorite lines and i know it to be true is that absolutely nothing in today's weather which for some reason they told us not to use uh as a symptom of climate change because that wasn't climate change that's just weather that's what they told us just 10 years ago and all of a sudden all they ever talk about is weather because the climate hasn't changed so there you go they just keep moving the goal posts all the time but absolutely nothing in today's weather is out of the ordinary in the slightest with the last 10 000 years of this holocene interglacial period that we have been in since the dawn of human civilization coming out of that last glaciation when agriculture and and and and tools mechanical tools and iron and bronze and all those things came into being that has all happened in the last 10 000 years to any extent we were primitive still kind of like an ape until not that long ago the other really important fact about the climate subject and then i'll move on to my next points is that human beings the species homo sapiens our species is a tropical species deep tropical species that is where homo sapiens evolved it did not evolve anywhere else it has not evolved much since it evolved there in evolutionary genetic terms that is why we are in a warm room wearing clothing with a fire going on somewhere fire shelter clothing that is why a tropical species came out of africa that's how they came out humans could not come out of africa or even go to high elevations in africa like the top of mount kilimanjaro where they would have died without fire shelter and clothing subtropical climates like we have a home in southern baja it's so wonderful and warm there we go there in the winter when there isn't a cove pandemic and it's so beautiful and warm there you can swim in the ocean in december and it's 75 fahrenheit 20 2 3 4 celsius it's just so fantastic that's because we're a tropical species we like that but a human being without fire shelter and clothing could not even live in southern baja because it goes down to 35 40 degrees sometimes fahrenheit in other words above freezing still but it goes down to the temperature where a naked person would die at night from hypothermia hypothermia kills the person naked in the shade at about 18 celsius takes a little while but you die of hypothermia if you don't have sunlight or air warmth higher than 18 degrees celsius that's pretty warm the average temperature of the earth today is slightly less than 15 degrees celsius of course that includes the north and south pole and everything but that's the average temperature of the earth the average temperature of the earth is cold enough to kill us naked in the shade we are a tropical species okay let's go on to some more interesting stuff here anybody know what this is paradise california in paradise california 86 people died alive being burnt alive and many others were badly burned too but they lived they built this suburb i think there was like just 20 000 people there or something a lot of people there they built this suburb in a coniferous forest without removing the coniferous trees first this is lack of understanding of forest ecology because the greens in the united states are now in charge of running the land outside the cities even though that's where they live in the cities in australia it's the same the urban greens have got control of forest land management and range management and management of the interlands away from the people who understand the science and those people go back in australia 60 000 years the aboriginal people learned in the eucalyptus forest which is one of the few broad-leafed genuses of families of trees which have a lot of pitch in them most broadleaf trees like oaks and maples they're they're pretty resistant to fire and what they should have done here in this mostly pines really pitchy in their needles and bark so they just go like a candle and if the wind blows you can't run fast enough to get away from the crown fire they left these trees here what they should have done is cut down nearly all the coniferous trees maybe left a few nice ones made made lumber and paper out of them and plant broadleaf trees in patches with large areas of open space like say central park should look like that right here and then this would never have happened about the same number of people 86 died here as having the entire history of the nuclear energy industry which is like 60 years odd more and that only place that happened was chernobyl carnival was the only nuclear accident that caused the death of people from the actual nuclear accident two engineers died from the tsunami coming ashore at fukushima they were the only casualties of death at fukushima and nobody was given enough radiation from the accident at fukushima to expect that they will ever have any problem in later life even though they evacuated a whole bunch of intensive care wards into gymnasiums where many people died but that's what they should have done there and that is the result of of of just plain bad knowledge and of what should be done if you're going to build a suburb boat in the middle of nowhere in california where most the trees are of the pine family so the aboriginal people that came to australia 60 000 years ago learned to use the fire stick they would burn the previous years or the previous two or three years fuel load grasses and branches and dead things on the ground they would burn them in the spring when the ground was still moist and even the wood was a little moist and it was cooler and the wind was down they'd pick the right time and they'd burn off all of this litter in the forest and in the grasslands they opened up australia actually australia when europeans came to australia there was far less forest cover than there had been before the aboriginal people came over the land during a glaciation when the sea level was so much lower they came through what's now in indonesia and down through the islands what are now islands which was actual land then the same with the first nations american indians who came to north america 16 000 years ago over the bering land bridge they learned to do that same thing and they did it for thousands of years especially in the dry forests of the southwest of the us but it works in all kinds of environments and they probably could have hardened fort mcmurray murray a lot better to the fire that happened there if they hadn't used these kinds of techniques it's not rocket science most foresters understand it very well and so we only having been here for 500 years the various immigrants that have come from asia and europe and all over the world have not taken that lesson from the first peoples who came to both these continents australia and north america you very seldom hear of huge wildfires in europe spain has some in the wilderness areas because they have very dry forests too and you can't stop wildfires altogether but you can mitigate them and make them far less severe and far less frequent by managing the forest properly but the chapter in my book is climate change causes forest fires because that's what they're saying they're saying that the fires in australia and california are caused by climate change like co2 right no they are not they're being caused by inappropriate management of the forests especially where people live in the middle of them next one so now i'm going to talk about one of the chapters in my book in a little bit more detail some of you have probably seen my presentation i don't know but i just want to reiterate because a lot of conservatives are also worried about plastic this has become a kind of universal concern because of the incredible bombardment in the media that plastic is bad plastic is toxic plastics in the oceans the great pacific garbage patch look at the size of it it's almost as big as the united states lower 48 states of course this is just a photoshop job that's not a real photograph but these are all over the internet showing this great pacific garbage patch far enough offshore that nobody can actually see it with a pair of binoculars right but there it is destroying the ocean next there's another one this is an actual aerial photograph composite because what they do is they take a picture every day all year and then they put it together so that there's no clouds anywhere because always there's clouds somewhere but they can but all but but sometimes there's clouds no clouds everywhere if you see what i mean so they do this and there is this huge pacific garbage patch right there and that is also photoshopped it's nearly as big as the half and half of half as big as south america so i i challenge people on this in audiences of of lay people and general audiences and quite often at the end these angry people come up to me and say how dare you say the pacific garbage patch doesn't exist the only reason you can't see it from space is because it's all a clear plastic i've had that honestly someone told me that in a meeting but more plausibly slightly more plausibly they say but it's just under the surface that's why you can't see it from a satellite it's just below the surface like as if every piece of plastic has a buoyancy compensation device on it right and of course it's not just plastic that's in the great pacific garbage patch it's all all the driftwood and whatever else i don't know in the end it sort of seems like they're saying it's nearly 100 plastic though this great pacific garbage patch next slide there is an actual composite photograph of the entire pacific ocean and and even at the back you can probably see the hawaiian islands there you can see the big island at least of hawaii cnn says the great pacific garbage patch twice the size of texas three times the size of france is growing much faster than we thought right of course they would have to add that on to the end of it right that this is definitely a doomsday scenario it's coming up on your beaches any day but there is no great pacific garbage patch it is fake because when you get down to it they say well it's actually microplastics in the water column and i'm going oh you mean it's invisible and it's not on the surface but it's microplastics how is that going to hurt anything even if they're there well the fish are eating it and it'll it's like as if there's this huge blob of microplastics in their kidneys or something you know we do not take stuff into our bodies from our digestive system unless we can digest it if you eat sand it doesn't go into your bloodstream right it goes right out the other end of you speaking of the other end of you nature or god or whoever was responsible for the design of the animal the kingdom of animals are almost all tubes sponges are one of the earliest animals and they are they just have one hole in them they take stuff in here and put it out here somehow but very soon after the evolution of the animal kingdom nature figured out that a tube was the best design you take food in at one end of the tube and you put the waste out at the other end so they don't get mixed up and stuff like that and in its great wisdom nature made the outhou bigger than the in-hole in other words if you look in the medical dictionaries online all the best ones you will not see any example of a bowel obstruction which is a category of medical diagnosis of course no bowel obstruction has ever been caused by something someone swallowed according to the medical dictionaries it's all because of things growths inside your colon or in your stomach or wherever obstructing your waste passage it's not from swallowing things because if you try to swallow something that's too big to go out of you at the other end you will choke to death or spit it out get it you know with the heimlich maneuver so there you go that's uh the great pacific garbage patch next this is a boat that went to sea for 48 days non-stop picking up plastic garbage in the ocean what does most of it consist of discarded fishing gear this is where the focus should be very sharp focus on fishing boats throwing away damaged nets and ropes but especially nets ropes so what they're not going to hurt anything but nets are meant to catch things it's not because it's plastic it's because it's a net they should be encouraged somehow through with money or i don't know what somehow they should be encouraged to bring their damaged nets back to the dock where they can be disposed of or used for waste to energy or recycled into single-use medical devices or whatever and there is there is the catch this boat sailed around from california to hawaii for 48 days and that's all it could find right there is no great pacific garbage patch next now this is tragic a whale has swallowed all this plastic and and when it's come ashore it's finally coughed it out right but students in the philippines made this whale out of whatever and then shoveled all this plastic into its mouth and then they say in the story that whales are digesting all this plastic into themselves and blocking their intestines and dying and coming on the beach i didn't show you the beached whales but there's in in the same article there's a photograph of two beached sperm whales which were two of 13 in fact whales have been beaching themselves since whales began they've been beaching themselves for 50 million years nobody knows why and i think that's really good that we don't know why they are beaching themselves what if a whale was swimming under a big bridge and some human being leapt off the bridge to their death would the whale know why that person jumped off the bridge no and would never figure it out in a million years and we don't know why the whales are stranding themselves which i think is a good idea i think it's good that we don't know some things as a matter of fact in the terms of climate going back in history there's so much more that we don't know than we do know that it's ridiculous for them to pretend that they know enough to predict the future next this is from a greenpeace publication where they say a crab in a plastic cup quote a crab was this was trapped inside a discarded milk tea cup in the verde islands no it's using the cup as habitat it is using it for shelter it is not trapped that's why when i i was on the greenpeace voyages my fellow greenpeacers who weren't educated in ecology quite so much were just aghast at the fact that i would throw glass bottles overboard and glass things various things that would sink to the bottom because someone would make a home in there so let's think about plastic for a minute you have to make the difference between pollution and litter pollution is poisonous litter is unsightly we don't like the looks of it when we see a beach covered in driftwood and they're scattered in amongst the driftwood a bunch of plastic colorful plastic things we dislike the plastic that is an aesthetic issue has nothing to do with the plastic being bad for the beach or for the ocean it was floating in before it came onto the beach as a matter of fact a piece of plastic in the ocean is no different than a piece of driftwood in the ocean except plastic comes in shapes that can be used as habitat better than pieces not too many pieces of wood are in the shape of a cup or something you can go in and get shelter from so plastic actually has a more diverse use uses for hundreds of species of marine life next slide there's an example i took this picture on beach up at winter harbor on vancouver island this is the most common species to take advantage of floating wood and plastic in the sea the pelagic barnacle and these when when this was in the sea there would be all kinds of little fish around it it would be it creates it's a whole ecosystem when i salvaged a huge japanese glass ball in six thousand feet of water by jumping off our greenpeace boat and swimming out to get it it's really fun to to swim in six thousand feet of water because it it doesn't matter if it's 12 feet or 6 feet right if you can't stand on the bottom and keep your head out of the water doesn't matter how deep it is and that's such a cool feeling to know there's 6 000 feet of water underneath you but there was this big japanese glass ball but it still had the net on it with with stuff hanging down because it had ripped away from its mother net obviously and that was an ecosystem you would not believe the amount of fish that were around that and the barnacles growing on it and the the algae growing on it and and it was it was just an amazing sight and i had to cut that net off and let it sink to get the glass ball which i prayed for all the species that i had nice there some of them will find new things to ground because there's lots of stuff floating around in the ocean but uh did i thought was that an ecological crime i'm not quite sure but uh i did it anyways because i wanted the glass ball really badly and it's still in my home that was many years ago so you can see that a little plastic float which is completely harmless you see plastic is not toxic if it was we wouldn't wrap our meat in it if it was we wouldn't package nearly all our food in it for sale in stores the reason they use plastic is because it's non-toxic because it is completely and 100 percent inert and has nothing on it or in it that could possibly harm any living thing it goes beyond that though next slide this is an albatross chick hopefully it died naturally but sir david attenborough on his uh series planet of the earth or whatever shows things like this and it's all over the internet this is supposedly showing the amount of plastic that the mother and father albatross fed to their chick mistaking it for food the smithsonian says it greenpeace says it sir david attenborough on the bbc says it feeding plastic to their chick mistaking it for food do you really think albatross are that stupid no they are not but sir david attenborough goes one step further into his lying tirade he holds up a plastic bag a thin plastic bag not even as thick as a baggie you know like the really thin plastic bag and says this was from a chick's stomach fed by the mother no photograph or film is shown of a mother albatross feeding plastic bags to its chick no photograph of a chick cut open with a plastic bag in it is shown just sir david holding a plastic bag near an albatross nest next picture these are staged by the way here's another one this is from the smithsonian where they have a whole slew of them the smithsonian institute is perpetrating this myth that albatross are feeding plastic to their chicks mistaking it for food do you know why they are feeding plastic to their chicks birds have no teeth therefore they must swallow their food whole only raptors like eagles and hawks and owls are able to rip their prey into small enough pieces but they still swallow them whole because they can't chew them because they got no teeth like mammals do and fish do so they swallow their stuff whole in the birds there are two stomachs apparently sir david attenborough doesn't know that even though he wrote the secret life of birds and has studied albatross a great deal one stomach is like ours it has acid in it and it breaks the food down same as ours does the other stomach is called the gizzard i think some people call it the crop i think those are synonymous but they're not okay then it's the gizzard what's the crop oh okay it's leading to the gizzard then the gizzard is a muscular stomach in which hard objects are fed to the chick and then the adult continually eats or swallows they're not using it for food they swallow them all their life land birds use pebbles sea birds have a hard time finding pebbles in the sea so they use preferentially pumice from undersea volcanoes which floats because it's like styrofoam but it's a floating rock so they give their chicks that if it's available which it always isn't available their next step back is to use bits of wood hard bits of wood then they'll use nuts that are floating in the sea coming from an island somewhere then they feed whole squid to their chicks the beaks of the squid are retained in the gizzard to help with the grinding process so these are digestive aids next slide here is a mother albatross or father albatross i think they both participate in this one stays at the nest while the other one goes out to get stuff see the bits of plastic it's hard bits of plastic it's not plastic bags it's little pieces of hard plastic for the last 60 years since plastic started floating in the sea people who study these birds have noticed that they're using plastic in their gizzard 30 years of research was done on this because they were concerned that plastic would be detrimental to the birds there is zero evidence that the plastic is detrimental to the birds but today sir david attenborough greenpeace and the smithsonian among three of hundreds of sources will tell you they're feeding this plastic to their chicks mistaking it for food and that it's killing their chicks no they're doing it for a dang good reason and from what i've told you you can see that plastic in the sea is virtually 100 beneficial now it's that's different than people throwing it in a river in indonesia along with all the waste food because the market stalls are usually along a river and because they don't eat pigs in muslim countries they have a lot more rotten food being thrown into rivers instead of being fed to pigs which is what people who have pigs use it for so it's a double whammy kind of thing plus the non unawareness of what they're doing where down at the mouth of the river there's this massive pile of crap including all the plastic they've thrown in the river that obviously that should be corrected and is being corrected as we speak in these countries but that's where most of the plastic in the sea that is not discarded fishing gear has been coming from for the last while but on the other hand if there was a sea with no wood and no plastic the laisan albatross would not have grown exponentially in its population to where now it's leveling off a bit it hasn't leveled off yet but feather hunting the feather hunting industry destroyed almost all the seabird islands of their populations of birds in the in the 19th and into the 20th century it was until in the early 1900s that it was finally ended mostly for ladies hats and that that decimated the population of seabirds but nest on islands and they have come back miraculously in their literature greenpeace says that albatross are threatened with extinction from plastic pollution threatened with extinction when their population has grown exponentially to where there's hundreds of thousands and millions of them now and there's many species of seabirds because we never see them they don't come in sight of big pieces of land they stay out in the ocean or on little islands all their lives on the on the far eastern islands of hawaii there's tons of of them but nobody goes there because they're usually wildlife sanctuaries but they let sir david attenborough in to tell his lies so next okay now the politics of my presentation i don't know how many of you have made a study of this but there are a hundred i'm not saying you should join the united nations by the way i'm just using it as an example but maybe you should so you could have some influence there there are 193 member states of the united nations alberta has a population of 4.3 million 69 member states of the un have a smaller population than alberta 69 therefore 36 percent of un member states have fewer citizens than alberta if saskatchewan and manitoba joined alberta the new country would be larger than 46 percent of un member states in population in other words nearly right in the middle okay next alberta's gdp 335 billion with population of 4.3 million cuba's gdp is less than a third of that with more than twice as many people nearly three times as many people ethiopia's gdp is 272 billion with 112 million people and bangladesh's gdp is 302 billion with 161 million people which is how many times the size of canada uh six times the population of canada just to put into perspective the idea that it would be silly for such a small place as alberta to become a country it's not silly at all but my real question to all of you and to all of albertans is why would you want to belong to a country who doesn't like you why not only doesn't like you but hates you so much that they won't buy your oil over foreign oil that's how much they hate you it is a hate it is not just a dislike or an unfriendly gesture there is simply no doubt about that they are landlocking you on purpose and they're conspiring with the united states and its agents in the rockefeller brothers foundation 750 million dollars to front groups composed of first nations and community groups in canada to make it look like they're legitimate that's what they're doing to you i won't say get a backbone say it i did already once that was enough and i don't mean it if you crowd of course but to alberta i say it get a backbone realize the situation you're in is not going to change anytime soon canada is being picked on not just by the united states but by the whole oil community because we have privately owned oil like the united states does almost all the other oil is owned by states those states see canada as a real easy picking to get rid of or at least to minimize canada could be far wealthier if it would start buying alberta oil that's all they have to do is just buy the damn oil right and use it instead of using oil from saudi arabia north sea venezuela nigeria whatever other corrupt countries they can find this is my message not just that you should throw glass bottles overboard when you're at sea so something has a place to live next slide is there one yes these are beginning with panama kuwait croatia georgia eritrea uruguay bosnia-herzegovia these are all countries that have lower populations than alberta not counting saskatchewan and manitoba next slide a continuation of that list down to liechtenstein with 400 is it 40 000 people i don't know 0.4 million what's that hundred thousand thank you i'm i'm pretty good at arithmetic but that one stumped me um and and there you go next slide there's the bottom the tuvalu tulum with point one 100 000 people is a country in the united nations next slide these are the countries that have joined the united nations since 1980 there are 35 of them 34 sorry you would be 35 if you decided to join which i would recommend actually even though we know what a pile of poo that is but you got to belong right if you want to have any influence look at the countries by far the majority of the countries that have joined the united nations in the last 30 years are the result of the breakup of existing countries three of them yugoslavia czechoslovakia and the soviet union almost all of the countries that have become countries not never mind whether they join the u.n but all the countries that have become countries in the last 35 years have become countries by breaking up with the countries that were in or agreeing with each other like czech republic and slovakia did a mutual agreement to separate from each other because they had different priorities it was a practical arrangement and it should not be looked upon as an insurrection or a revolution or anything negative or bad against canada it's for alberta that you need to do this if you do it for alberta it's it's a clear-cut case of self-preservation and that's all there is to it and i don't think there's any oh yes this is your options i think i've shown this before your options are one save canada quit paris build pipelines so canada has to agree to that if you are to stay in canada the second option save alberta quit canada build pipelines there you go [Applause] we have time for one question and then we'll we actually have more question time as the weekend goes on we have time for one question right now for those that are watching at home that just figured it out when you go to the website there's a morning session a noon session and an afternoon session and some people when the morning session ended did oops maybe i should have the microphone okay thank you the uh for those who are watching at home uh there's a morning session noon session afternoon session we're just about done the uh the noon session and if you're just clicking on now i'm sure you missed it and we'll be putting uh patrick's speech on the website as quickly as we can in any event we'll soon be starting the noon session or the afternoon session and again you have to go to the website and click on that to start on the next section so one question does somebody have a question yes doug go ahead okay i just want to say one thing before i get the question please buy my book fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom it's getting all five star except for the cranks on amazon.c it's number one environment book on amazon.com which blows my mind it's number two environment book after only four or five weeks out it explains all these issues not just climate it's all these issues that are part of the fake invisible remote and futuristic predictions none of which can be observed by the average person in their daily life so they can say whatever they want the reason none of the scare stories are about things that you can see is because they would be easily nullified because you could see that they were bs but you can't see that invisible and remote and future things are wrong because you can't see it so please and when you've read this book you will know you should give it to your high school children and children who are older than that if you have some because they should read it too and you i know you will recommend it to your friends and neighbors if you read it please read it thank you thank you go ahead doug when i debate people on the topic of uh global warming and carbon dioxide as a driver i'm almost invariably beset with the with the position that the science is overwhelmingly in favor of the carbon dioxide side of the argument now i i don't think that's correct i think that all these catastrophic predictions are based on modeling and my contention is that modeling is not science would you agree with that am i alive yeah there of course i agree with that doug um the the the the fir if if someone comes on with their first point being there's an overwhelming consensus among scientists just change the subject because if if that's what they're basing their thinking on consensus is not a scientific word it's a political and social word it's about what democracy is about it's about when a majority of people agree or even a vast majority of people agree you call that a consensus amongst the population consensus is reserved for political decisions and policy decisions at the social level as well as the purely political level so it's a socio-political word in science consensus means nothing it isn't the correct beginning of an argument to use consensus i'll give you four examples galileo astronomy mendel genetics darwin evolution einstein physics were all individuals they were not a consensus as a matter of fact the prevailing consensus in all four cases was against them some of them died before their position was recognized universally einstein said as a patent clerk when he published his theory of relativity and was faced by a journalist who said what do you think of this dr einstein 100 scientists have written a book against you titled 100 scientists against einstein what do you think of this he thought for a minute he said but it would only take one scientist to dispute him if he was correct if the other scientist was correct if he was incorrect would only take one that's how science works that's why people get nobel prizes in science they don't give it to committees sometimes they give it to two people because they just happen to discover the same thing at the same time independently that has happened it's very seldom three i don't think i know of an example of when three people discovered something independently at the same time the ipcc is a political organ of the united nations it hires scientists under contract to work for it and the ipc's remit is to study the human effect on the environment that is its only remit therefore it is fundamentally conflicted from the beginning because if it said that humans were not the main cause of global warming or climate change then it would have no reason to exist so it has to side with apocalypse and catastrophe in order for it to be considered a useful appendage of the united nations if you will notice the the ipcc is a partnership of two u.n organizations the entirely political united states united nations environment program and the much more scientific meteor world meteorological organization when the head of the world meteorological organization was quoted in a in a translation of a paper from his country which is an african country i believe as saying it's not a catastrophe basically he was forced to stand in front of the united nations flag a week or two later and recant and take back what he said otherwise he wouldn't have been the head of the world meteorological organization anymore that's the way that works thank you thank you very much i i saw a mug once and it was it said you know you're irish if you have absolutely no idea how to make a long story short i think so anyway that's the end of this session but patrick's going to be around we're going to have a question and answer here in a little bit yeah turn up the applause machine for uh dr patrick moore thank you patrick thank you we'll have a 15-minute break and then we'll get back to work and uh john keeps texting me say we're supposed to be framing your question sorry go ahead right the viewers at home need to click on the afternoon session now and uh john has wanted to craft the question but i think uh i think the question that patrick is actually posing for the referendum is is uh to our government basically get canada out of the paris agreement or get albert out of canada so we'll work on that question we'll have it ready on slido in a little bit we're going to start at some slidell questions in a bit are we or how are we making note with slide maybe we'll get to that later will we well you know let's why don't we put up when do you open up slido put the slider there so anybody that's home can uh click on slide on if they want to ask some questions we can start looking at them so folks we're going to have a real quick coffee break we'd like to get back to work at 10 o'clock so 10 o'clock 2 o'clock thank you very much

Channel: Freedom Talk

Views: 41,327

Keywords:

Id: Ladoo2fYLkw

Length: 63min 38sec (3818 seconds)

Published: Mon Mar 08 2021