Greenpeace's Ex-President - Is Climate Change Fake? - Patrick Moore | Modern Wisdom Podcast 373

no scientist who actually wanted to retain any credibility would claim that the correlation between rising co2 and rising temperature at this very tiny piece of time is proof of causation correlation is not proof of causation patrick mo welcome to the show nice to be with you chris what is your background how did you come to be involved in the environmental discussion well rather checkered i have to admit uh i grew up on a floating village on the north end of vancouver island with no road to that area it was a west coast inlet so we were like outlanders there and everything was by boat the freight came on a boat once a week uh to a village of about a hundred people and in 1965 when the road came finally a 75 kilometer gravel road from port hardy on the other side of the north island vancouver island is the largest island on the west coast of the americas from alaska to argentina so it's a 300 mile long island and i was born on it and still live on it in a slightly more civilized part now but i have a home on the beach where i grew up so i'm really lucky that way and uh when the road came we thought wow now this place is just going to explode half the people used the road to get out so we learned something of human nature that day and i then ended up being sent to boarding school because the one room school i went to until grade eight only went to grade eight so i was sent to vancouver to st george's school which is modeled after the english public school and uh there i excelled in science and particularly life science i went to the university of british columbia in an honors bachelor of science in biology and forestry which is the industry i grew up in and it's what we have almost on the entire province is trees and much of which is in parks and much of which is in places where you're allowed to cut them and make lumber and paper and so i then discovered the word ecology before it had been in the popular press and realized it was an obscure branch of science going back to the late 1800s which basically dealt initially with soil forming processes and when you un when you understand soil science you understand that all life emanates from soil on the land that is not it not in the ocean of course but uh it it then led me to realize that ecology was about the interrelationships among all the factors on earth especially with relation to life but life is made of rocks and air and water so it includes those too and all those factors that come into effect so it's almost like infinity the number of interrelationships there are and infinity is kind of a spiritual concept because none of us can actually fathom it and so as an agnostic in my family my whole family was not particularly religiously oriented i suddenly discovered religion in a uh non-religious sense in a way in science i i discovered the the wonder of the infinity of life and the universe and realized it was unfathomable at a certain level but that we could know more about it uh by studying it and that's where i got my beginnings and then i learned about while doing my phd i learned about this little group that was beginning to meet in the basement of the unitarian church in vancouver to plan a protest voyage against u.s hydrogen bomb testing in alaska taking on the world's most powerful organization at that time a bunch of hippies and uh but we were actually all professionals of one sort or another just that of course we looked like hippies because it was the hippie era in the early 70s and we sailed on that boat 12 of us and john cormack and his 12 disciples as we called ourselves and we caused quite a ruckus and got on walter cronkite's evening news in the united states and helped change the course of nuclear weapons uh development it was the cusp of the cold war when they stopped increasing the number of nuclear weapons and we stopped those nuclear tests on amchitka island in the aleutians then went on to campaign against french atmospheric nuclear testing france was still detonating hydrogen and atomic bombs in the air in the southern hemisphere in french polynesia and the french people didn't even know this was happening because france controlled all the media including le monde and we got in we got this issue in le mans for the first time in france and the campaign against that began domestically as well as internationally and uh oh just the rest is history we stopped the killing of thirty thousand whales per year in the north pacific when we turned from the nuclear issue having won two major victories uh and then three four years of campaigning against the ocean killing of wales by big factory fleets it took that long but we ended that uh by 1981 uh deep sea whaling was banned in all the oceans of the world by the international whaling commission which is a branch of the un and so we lobbied at the un and we went out on the ocean and got in front of the harpoons so we had footage of people actually trying to save the whale from being killed by a harpoon that's what made made it and that made us famous and then we started making a lot of money and then we hired a lot of people and then we had a payroll to meet and then as time went on the left sort of i guess realized that there was money and power in this new environmental movement that we had helped create along with many other groups but we were the only ones that knew how to go we're talking about greenpeace specifically as the movement here at what point did it become greenpeace it became greenpeace right at the beginning at the hydrogen test when you went up to alaska yes when when one of the people in the church basement meetings said uh as we were breaking up the meeting someone said see you later uh and said peace because peace then meant sort of see you later and uh someone's he said why don't we make it a green piece and so it started there so we named our boat the greenpeace we nicknamed our boat that we went to it was named the phyllis cormack after the captain's wife but we put a big sign saying greenpeace on the front of it on the cabin and uh by the middle of next well early next year the sa in 1972 we changed our name from what it had been the don't make a wave committee to the greenpeace foundation that's much foundation that's much better as it goes yes foundation wasn't because we were wealthy like foundations are it was because of the asimov trilogy uh about the small group of people on the opposite side what star what star wars is fashioned after uh that that took on the empire and we were taking on the empire indeed and succeeded what about your exit my exit was unfortunate but it was caused by the fact that as we became more well-known and powerful and political uh though we were basically hijacked by the left in the end who were more clever at politics than we were as that was their game and uh so i ended up being the only director of greenpeace international during the last six years from 79 when we created greenpeace international and i was instrumental in the negotiations that brought that about uh and until 86 when i left i was the only director with any formal science education and we were now dealing with toxic waste and issues of chemistry and you you don't need to be a phd marine biologist to know to save the whales or you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to want to stop hydrogen bombs but if you're going to get into the issue of toxicology and now where they're calling plastic toxic right and calling carbon dioxide toxic uh which is complete bs uh you've got to know some chemistry and you've got to understand toxicology and because toxicology is not just about something being poisonous it's about how much of it does it take to be poisonous which is known as the poison is in the dose which is basically the first rule of toxicology such like do no harm is in medicine the poison is in the dose is and like for example table salt is one of the best examples it is an essential nutrient sodium chloride right with chlorine in it is an essential nutrient you die without it that's why gandhi made salt at the sea so they didn't have to pay a tax on something that was essential for life well at a certain point it gets to be too much and if you actually ingest four or five tablespoons of of table salt all at once you're likely to die because it becomes toxic at those higher levels and you also have at four or five tablespoons sitting on the counter isn't harmful to you it's only harmful if you're exposed to it so there's a lot of issues in toxicology that just got ignored in the whole thing and then suddenly i find my other five directors in greenpeace agreeing that we should have a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide that would be our next big campaign and it was based on the fact that chlorine was a constituent of dioxins ddt and other chlorinated hydrocarbons chlorinated hydrocarbons are a very common group of elem of molecules because carbon is the basis of life and chlorine is essential as in sodium chloride salt so there's lots of chlorinated hydrocarbons around and not all of them are toxic uh at at low levels and some of them are but banning chlorine specifically uh was such a stupid idea seeing as though it is the most important element for public health adding it to drinking water swimming pools spas as we use bromine also these days there was a time when iodine which is another one of the halogens in that group along with chlorine was the most important thing in your in your medicine cabinet as it was when i was a child if you got a cut you put iodine on it to stop infection and so there's that reason for chlorine the other reason is that 85 percent of our pharmaceuticals are made with chlorine chemistry and 25 of them actually have chlorine in them if you look at the ingredients in your cold or flu medicines just for an example you'll see a little cl after a lot of them that's chlorine so at a purely scientific perspective i couldn't stay in a group that was going to launch a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide but that was just the sharp end of the stick for some years after a long evolution 15 years for me from the beginning of being involved in the beginning of the environmental movement or the modern environmental movement we actually had a fairly strong humanitarian orientation in the early years we were trying to save civilization from all-out nuclear war and so that must means you care about people as well as the environment which was the green part of greenpeace but the peace part of greenpeace was to end nuclear war or the threat of nuclear war and we did a pretty good job of helping with that and but by the time i had to leave the environmental movement now controlled largely by the political left had basically changed the tune to humans are the enemies of the earth humans are the enemies of nature as if we are the only bad or evil species on the planet and everything else is either benign or good or whatever you want to say but they're not evil right just so this is original sin reinvented for environmentalism as it is in extreme christianity and i suppose other religions i don't know much about other ones but i do know that in christianity there's a wing of it that considers humans to be born with evil in them uh not that they don't have some good in them but i don't believe that one iota i just think we're it's it's not even an uh a relevant thing to discuss why do you think that transition happened from it being about peace to this alex epstein calls it human racism yes it's the same reason why americans now think america is evil uh even though they are americans uh i i it's self-loathing is another way of expressing it um it is a deeply uh destructive mental condition to believe that you are evil even when you're good and so i i that's what it is so why is it why did it happen fear of death i think is at the root of it um that's why doomsday predictions are made throughout history is because people believe that when they die the world will end because they think they're so bloody important or something i don't know what it is but it is it is the fear of owns one own one's own death projected on the universe or or on the world end times apocalypse they keep saying it's going to happen they've been saying it for 10 000 years or more this little guy standing on a street corner with a sign saying the end is near well they used to say the end is nigh but i i think that's an english term that nobody knows what it means anymore but the end is near right and that's what aoc is saying and that's what greta is saying and that's what the ice ipcc is basically saying that's what the world economic forum is saying that's what biden is saying they're all saying the end is near because of climate change now now it used to be because of the devil or witches or something like that but now it's because of climate change that the end is near and i'm sure it's a projection of one's own fear of death one of the reasons i'm sure of that is that i don't think that way and i'm not afraid of my own death i have absolutely no fear of it because there's one thing that you must do in life is not to worry about things you can't do anything about because then you'd be worrying about way too many things and you'd never get anything done and so i only worry about things that i can do something about and as as far as i can see i can't do anything about the fact that i have a short life on this earth short meaning under 100 years or so it definitely does feel like there's a narrative at the moment of human racism of the descriptions of humanity being a scourge on the earth people are made to feel guilty about the cars that they drive or the flights that they take or you know you have greta thunder going back from conferences on a rowing boat and it's taking a six months to get back across the atlantic i don't know i i think i'm unconvinced that all of this can be attributed to the denial of death you know ernest becker might agree but i'm not sure that all of it could be but i don't know where else it could come from it's definitely a you know fear is a very good control mechanism for people so there are other um there are other powers at play there however i don't understand why people would take it and imbibe it themselves and then start to push it back out because if it's something that is that makes you feel uncomfortable i most people tend to to shy away from it but it really does feel like people have become their own torturers with this you know it's almost par for the course that humans are damaging the earth that we're causing harm and that we shouldn't be here you said it uh and i i too don't know if i have the whole picture but i think that's part of it now fear and guilt you see those are the two that when they're combined are so powerful in controlling people the way i put it is you're driving your suv down the road you're afraid that you were killing your grandchildren by putting out the toxic co2 which is actually the main food for all life on earth why they can't get that i don't know but it is it is a fact and it is not toxic etc but there is a fear and then that makes you feel guilty because you're killing your grandchildren right so fear and guilt that's why i call the chapter in my book climate of fear and guilt and uh michael crichton used the word fear in his book on climate change as well i forget the whole title but the word fear climate it might have been climate of fear but uh the the the fear that is put into people about the end times you know and if people would just think straight they would realize that people have been predicting the end times since practically the beginning of time and they have never once been right they are baton zero on end times right so why should we believe the new end times story well because this one's backed up by science and it's got all of these people around the world they all agree with each other there's research there's studies that have been done and you have eighty percent of scientists say that climate change is real well this is because lying has become acceptable to a lot of people bald-faced lying it the the 80 thing or the 97 thing is a lie it's been shown to be a lie in the they you know this one study that said it was 97 percent done by a psychologist from australia not a science not really a scientist that's a a soft science at best and he came up with this 97 percent number when analyzed and this uh christopher moncton was involved in this reanalysis uh along with a couple of other really smart people on numbers and statistics and it turns out to be 0.3 percent not 97 percent who actually in their paper declared that humans will cause a climate disaster basically many of them said humans have a role in climate change but they didn't say it was going to be a disaster so that if you break down what people actually said or even inferred you will not find that many climate scientists who will outright come out and say this is a climate emergency the scientists are hiding behind the politicians who fund them that's where they get all their money they get their money from politicians through bureaucrats in the deep state in this in the united states i don't know what you have as equivalent to the deep state but having watched boris rise to fame i can't fathom what caused that so it must have been some kind of weird political good hairdo that's what that's what yeah right let's not talk about that anymore um is my attitude towards it because i just watched these things somebody came out today and said that polar bears are inbreeding right and that's because there's not enough ice for them to find each other anymore oh yeah right that's so weird is that true that it well first what is inbreeding right is beyond cousins or second cousins anything closer than that genetically that's our definition of it yes but in plant breeding for example and animal breeding inbreeding is commonly used in order to maintain characteristics that are desirable but i've seen i've seen tigers that have got down syndrome from too tight inbreeding yes but inbreeding is absolutely necessary like you're not going to start breeding with snails right so how far out does it go well it needs to be within your own species but not within your own hereditary genetic pool yeah but it should always be someone of another race right because that's the most out breeding you can get right it should never be anybody in your own race because that's inbreeding you see inbreeding and out breeding are flexible terms in that sense there's extreme inbreeding and there's extreme out breeding right if you out breed you water down the genetics if you inbreed you concentrate them a combination of those two things is always essential in species evolution and so therefore they're just using the word inbreeding as a political term rather than a scientific term there because inbreeding is bad period right that's that's how they're getting away with that and the idea that they aren't finding enough of each other the the population of polar bears has grown by four or five times since the treaty do you know about the treaty on polar bears so you do but nobody else does because they never mention it they never mentioned that in 1973 on the advice of wildlife biologists because too many people were now able to go to the arctic in planes and hire inuit guides and get polar bear rugs there were too many people doing that it was had become too easy and rich people were able to easily do that so the polar bear population was declining due to over hunting so the all the nations with polar bears signed a treaty international treaty to end the unrestricted hunting of polar bears in other words there had been no restrictions on killing polar bears up till then because there didn't seem to need to be any because there was lots of polar bears and hardly anybody ever went up there and killed one besides which they're really mean and horrible and they'll kill you if you don't watch out but with a high-powered rifle the odds are turned in your favor so they signed that treaty and since then the polar bear population has grown from somewhere between six to ten thousand to somewhere between thirty and fifty thousand those are the accepted figures by all the people involved in this except for uh fakers which are not scientists right they're polit political activists give me your thoughts on extinction rebellion they're really really stupid and bad elaborate on your thoughts about extinction rebellion well because you you come from right you come from greenpeace co-founder of greenpeace and extinction rebellion there there seems to be people could see some sort of lineage or progression or connection you know it's an environmentalist movement no there's no lineage or progression we didn't dress up like cult teams of occult movement like all dressed in really stupid looking red uniforms that are somewhere but a cross between the inquisition and a cartoon and spraying blood on buildings and this sort of thing actually i signed off when people started chaining themselves to other people's stuff peace peacefulness pacifism is non-violence right but it doesn't include inciting other people to violence against you that is not pacifism in other words by you making the first blow or you chaining yourself to someone's tractor who is trying to make a living with it that is not peaceful and yet they they were basically saying that anything short of killing the other person is peaceful almost you know it it's not peaceful to interfere with other people's livelihoods in a way that threatens their livelihood that's not peaceful but they think that they think that this is a really important and just worthy cause they need to get attention and people aren't looking so they need to do more so why don't they go with the taliban that would be good then they'd have machine guns and they could kill anybody they wanted and have mass murder uh to destroy the human race you know that's more or less what they're recommending as far as i can see so i think they are i think they are evil there are good people and bad people and people that are sort of in between like actually most people are a little bit good and a little bit bad but these people are evil that's what i think of extinction rebellion what about greta thundberg the other one of the other horsemen of the environmental apocalypse yeah well it's funny that people didn't notice right away that she is a young girl with pigtails because that's what stalin and mao and hitler all used young girls with pigtails in their photographs it's all been well documented i don't know what the pigtails has to do with it but uh dictators all often it seems almost always use children as as a front to make it look as though they're nice i suppose i'm not sure what they're she's danish though is there's someone someone in denmark sending her over is that some totalitarian leader in denmark trying to get greta thumbberg to no the movement is totalitarian right and the movement the movement controls her uh green she's she's she's there's all kinds of photographs of her on trains with the head of greenpeace etc i mean and and of course al gore and the list is endless and her speeches are written for her obviously and she doesn't know anything much about climate change or science so what what is she then she's simply a tool right she is just a tool nothing more she is not a wise person telling us what we should be doing she is being used by hollywood actors and phony politicians like al gore none of none of whom actually have any science what scientist is behind greta thunder toonberg i should say it sounds like you've got a problem with the delivery mechanism especially for extinction rebellion and i can absolutely agree with you there i don't think that going and hammering and chiseling the front door of banks or trying to erect structures in the middle of london bridge i don't think that that's a fantastic way to get people on side simply from a human psychology perspective if you want to compel people to be a part of your cause you need to convince them not terrorize them that being said yeah yeah but i mean gluing your breasts to the street for example has that happened yes gluing it gluing your breasts like so lying face down and and gluing your breast to the concrete so that you can't be moved so that you're blocking the traffic or whatever okay right so that that's the kind of thing they do and i i agree that it's very sensational and everything but it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue whatsoever whatever the issue is i don't even know what their issue is is it that humans are should be exterminated it seems to be that would be basically their issue and so i recommended that a man glue his penis to the top of a of a subway car and somebody did a cartoon of it on twitter as a result of my suggestion right so you can disagree one of the five unacceptable words either no no um you can disagree with their methods but there is an awful lot of well-known people who appear to have credentials saying that we are in a climate emergency which we are aren't we no we are not in a climate emergency i don't know people say to me well all you have to do is look outside to see that it's a climate emergency i i'm looking outside and i see a beautiful green mountain with a glacier on top of it where i live and a whole mountain range right next to me and the whole of vancouver island is as healthy as can be and yet they say it's been strip mined of all its trees no it has not what do you think they mean when they say climate emergency i think they mean the end times are coming it's just another way of saying we're all doomed right because if there was an emergency it means that if you don't do anything about it you're doomed it got upgraded right it was climate crisis and then within the last couple of years it is now climate emergency precisely and i can't imagine what more extreme word they could now invent after they've come from you know crisis to emergency change crisis emergency yeah there isn't you are right there isn't much left but there's there's so many differing critiques around what the impact is that humans have had on the planet so the world's getting too hot for instance increases in the temperature that's something that's happening is it not the world has been warming ever so slightly since about 1700 when the little ice age stopped getting colder and started getting warmer there have been these thousand year cycles for the last 6 000 years of the interglacial period known as the holocene which we are in now which is about 12 000 years long since we emerged from the last major glaciation which peaked 22 000 years ago which was one of 45 major glaciations that have occurred during the pleistocene ice age over the last 2.6 million years which is the first ice age in 250 million years since the previous ice age ended after a hundred million years from 350 million years ago to 250 million years there was another ice age the previous one to this one since the last 250 million years until recently which was 2.5 million years ago it was warmer than it is now at all times it is now colder than it has been even in this interglacial period during this pleisoscene ice age which has gone up and down and up and down and up and down in cycles of 41 000 years for the first 1.6 million years and in cycles of 100 000 years for the last one million years in concert with the two milankovitch cycles related to the tilt of the earth changing and the orbit of the earth changing shape this is caused by the gravitational attraction of jupiter on our earth and so these people want us to think that the world began in 1850 when we started using fossil fuels but for 150 years before that it was also warming and during one of those warming spurts because when the earth warms it just doesn't warm continuously it goes up and then down and then up and then down and then up and then down but net warming net cooling looks like this down and then up down and then up down and then up there's cycles within cycles within cycles we understand very few of these cycles we certainly don't know what causes the onset of an ice age such as the one we are in now and we have no idea when it will end because actually at the bottom level it is still getting colder and until we came along only 150 years ago we started restoring a balance to the global carbon cycle by putting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere that had been taken out by life and drawn down co2 to the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the planet which is 4.6 billion years so when was the lowest 22 million years 22 000 years ago co2 sank to 180 parts per million due to the cooling of the glaciation causing the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere the liquids hold more gas when they're cold and when they're warm air holds more humidity in other words gas when gaseous forms of what can be liquids holds more of it when they're warm like warm air holds more water than cold air does that's why fogs form when the air cools because it condenses so it's the exact opposite water and in particular holds more gas when it's cold so when the earth cools the oceans absorb co2 from the atmosphere and the the total co2 there's nearly 50 times as much co2 in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere today that wasn't always the case because the atmosphere had a lot more co2 in it in the past going back 200 million years it had about 2000 ppm today it's 400 because of our increasing it from when we came along it was 280. so you do agree that we as humans have had an impact on the climate no just producing co2 doesn't mean you're having an impact on the climate the primary impact of increased co2 is more plant growth and that's called the greening of the earth and nassau has verified this with maps on the internet and so has csiro in australia which is the one they're the one that broke it in in 2014 or i think it was when they showed a map showing up to 30 percent increased photosynthesis due to increased co2 in the atmosphere so that is the main known fact from what has happened as a result of more co2 in the atmosphere there is zero evidence that the co2 increase in the atmosphere is the cause of rising temperature none whatsoever because it was already rising as i was about to say during the first 150 years of rising out of 1700 there was a period of over 40 years where the temperature increased more and faster than it has done since 1850 especially since 1950 when we were actually starting to put a significant amount more co2 in the atmosphere post-war and today it's exponential there's a wonderful graph it's in my book which shows the temperature record in central england from 1660 or so when the first thermometer existed so this is this is the longest thermometer record of temperature in the world because they were invented in england and so that shows a very steady continuous rise in temperature of a little over one degree celsius in 320 years it's not a big deal certainly compared to previous like they they keep saying it's never gone this fast it's never risen this fast that is a lie it has risen this fast many times in the even recent past especially from about 1690 to about 1730 it rose faster and longer than it ever has done since it's all in the record now they'll say oh that's just a local measurement well all measurements are local measurements but not if you aggregate them across multiple right no that's called the climate if you aggregate them across global except global is really badly skewed by there being by far the most measuring centers in north america and europe and hardly any in many other places especially africa so it even that is skewed badly in terms of localism but never mind that the fact of the matter is is climate is a 30-year average of each weather event right whether it's hurricanes or tornadoes tornadoes are almost non-existent in the united states this year compared to previous years for some reason the conditions just didn't happen because the united states has 90 percent of the world's tornadoes there's a reason for that it's geographic it's because from the arctic to the gulf of mexico there are no mountains in the way because that was an inland sea the prairies in other words of the united states were and of canada that was that was the sea bottom at one point and so it's a straight shot for arctic air to come all the way down to the gulf of mexico and for hot gulf of mexico air to come all the way up and they combine and boom and that's how hurricanes are formed too is the convergence of cold and warm air masses and that's why when the earth warms the tropics hardly changes when the earth warms the warming is is what's there not inadvertently is greater anyways the warming is always greater towards the poles when the earth warms it wasn't that long ago when all the arctic islands of canada were covered in forest and there was giant camels roaming there five million years ago that's not very long ago that that's five million years is like an eternity to these people they don't even know what it means right so if we have most of the effects of global warming or of any warming that occurs at the poles presumably that is going to increase the melting of those ice caps is there a concern whether it is man-made or otherwise cyclical in nature or simply a trend over time should we be concerned about increased warming rising sea levels we have a lot of coastal cities we have people who live there who may not be able to move very easily is that a danger people who can't move very easily do you have some of those are they in wheelchairs or what you have people who may i say i say two things about this number one you won't have to run right this is happening very very slowly and always will happen very very slowly it doesn't happen quickly number two hire the dutch right 25 percent of holland is below sea level and they're growing most of their food there on this land that is below sea level it is not difficult to build dikes around pieces of land especially if the land is steep sorry especially if the land is flat you can save a lot of land by building a foot of dyke or two if the land is steep you have to decide whether it's worth it or not to build a wall because you're only going to lose a small amount of land if it's coming steep out of the water so those are the basic situations the sea level has always been rising and falling we should not weep because we happen to be victims to this eternal factor in the earth's climate and sea level right the earth sea level has been 40 meters higher than it is today in the past and it's been a hundred meters lower so it goes up and down but if you look at the islands at the equator in indonesia which are made of limestone from ancient coral reefs they're all undercut sometimes up to 12 feet undercut they've got this angle undercut they look like mushrooms right you may have seen them in photographs vietnam has them too they're all through that part of the world where the islands are made of limestone which is more erodible than granite by waves now if if the sea was constantly rising for the last 10 000 years or whatever because it stopped rising pretty much around 7 000 years ago when the glaciers melted coming out of the last glaciation the most recent glaciation it's not necessarily the final one as people think the last glaciation means the final glaciation it just means the most yes the most recent one of 45 that have occurred in the pleistocene so we have no guarantee that anything is going to change another one should be here in 80 000 years according to the last million years of cycles all which is thoroughly documented by ice cores from antarctica so this sea level rise and up and down has been happening forever and people in the last 10 000 years have adjusted to it it's not going to like they they're they're making it seem as though it will be a flood like an inundation right that's the climate emergency scenario that all of a sudden our houses will be under water it's not going to work that way and that's why obama is perfectly happy to buy a 14 million dollar house right on the ocean in cape cod because he also knows this that he's safe there there's some inland harbors in the uk isn't there under some ruins of of roman shipping places that are actually miles in land from when the sea level was higher precisely and that was 2000 years ago when the romans built docks on all across the south of britain and louis you know where lewis is no well it's one of those castle towns on a river that flows south it's way inland it was on the sea also there's a place in france called something sirlomaire it's like many many kilometers from the sea today it used to be a harbor so it appears as though the sea level is lower today and that would be worldwide than it was 2 000 years ago and that is because the world was warmer 2000 years ago during the roman war period that's why they have a name for it because it was the roman war period and in the roman war period two thousand years ago it was warmer than it is today in addition during the medieval warm period one thousand years ago interestingly a thousand years a thousand years a thousand years this has been the trend there was also a thing called the minoan warm period before the roman war period the earth has been cooling for 6 000 years net cooling we are in a slight upward tick now it's just an upward tick in a downward movement do you think that we've got further to go down yes 80 thousand years further the milankovitch cycle so thousand years so you think that realistically we are seeing this upward tick what has happened is it has coincided with an increase of releasing carbon dioxide which has led some scientists to associate the increasing temperature with the increase in carbon dioxide which justifies blaming it on humans but that if you were to roll it forward by another 500 years you are going to see the crest of that thousand year cycle actually diminish and we're going to start to cool again and then cool again to a lower level than we would have seen previously at the previous low you got it if things continue on the same pattern they have for the last six thousand years which is typical of an interglacial period through the antarctic ice cores we have a really good picture of the last eight hundred thousand years and now they're starting to go back more than a million years into the times when there was a forty one thousand year cycle right now we only have really good information for the hundred thousand year cycles especially going back through four of them they all have names the previous one was the eemian i'm forgetting the other two right now but they have names on a chart and they were a hundred thousand years apart in quite perfect synchronization we know the co2 levels and the temperature at the antarctic during those cycles because we can measure proxy measurements of isotopes and actually the co2 is measured directly from bubbles in the ice down 400 000 years in ice and so we've got that and we know that the interglacial periods come out in 10 000 years whereas and then there's a 10 000 year this these are not all equal exactly right but approximately 10 000 year interglacial period where the temperature remains higher for a period of time and then a gradual 80 000 year decline into the next major glaciation so it appears as though and the and and the interglacial periods are virtually always warmer at the very beginning of them in other words as you come out of the previous glaciation it goes up to what we call the holocene climatic optimum meaning it was warmer than for the first six thousand years of the holocene interglacial period and since then it has been cooling this is well documented the graphs are in my book they're from iceland and antarctic ice cores and they're also from marine sediments marine sediments can take you back half a billion years because stuff has been falling on the bottom of the sea from all the life in the ocean and the st and the sediments flowing into the ocean in addition so the life that dies falls to the bottom and is embedded in the sediments that come from the land and that record is in layers and we can date all of that with radioactive techniques so we've got that what do people mean when they say that we've got 50 harvests left is that like 50 years of crops currently yeah i think so i don't know why they wouldn't just say 50 years of crops as opposed to 50 harvests because that's just confused me but yeah let's call it 50 years of crops left what do they mean is that something you can do with soil microbiomy stuff or biomass stuff environment stuff no it's it's simply a cult doomsday prediction is what it is they have absolutely no reason to say that there's no oil degradation none of this oh yeah topsoil degradation it's happening everywhere no we're our farming methods are so improved now that soil conservation is so improved now that we're not losing soil like they say we are and yes soil gets washed into the sea by rivers right new soil is created it's not as if soil creation has ended and people think that trees use dirt to make themselves and therefore if you take the trees away over and over and over again by harvesting them the soil will eventually go away right no the soil is made by the bloody trees that's how soil gets there if there was no trees that would be rocks there no soil soil doesn't just happen by itself it happens because of the leaves falling and the branches falling on the ground and decaying and some of it turns into soil soil forming processes was the beginning of ecology in the steps in the ukraine studying the grasslands of the ukraine which are very productive deep churnazem soils have been created by grass doesn't it's not just trees that make dirt it's all plants make dirt and when you look at a tree and you see this huge say at a big mature tree you see this huge solid thing it's hard to believe that it's 99 made from air and water right the carbon and the hydrogen and the oxygen in that tree which is over 99 of that tree's biomass came from carbon dioxide and h2o water that's what made it trees are basically carbohydrates so are we except for our bones and so the the the knowledge of of life is so poor science has progressed so far and yet the average person's knowledge of science has degraded because they're being told all these lies that carbon dioxide is poison when in fact it is the primary food for all life and there isn't enough of it right now and there certainly wasn't enough of it when we first started putting some back it's important to note that all the carbon that we are releasing was made by life in the form of fossil fuels and much more importantly in the form of carbonaceous rocks now have you heard of carbonaceous rocks i have not of course you have it's called limestone and limestone is what we make cement with and limestone is calcium carbonate it is a carbonaceous rock the carbon in limestone came from co2 in the ocean and the co2 in the ocean came from the air so as the shelled creatures evolved what we call the marine calcifying species all life in the sea was microscopic invisible and unicellular until about 600 570 600 million years ago then the cambrian explosion occurred which was the advent of multi-cellular life in the sea and large creatures this big came into being if you read steven uh ghoul's book a wonderful life you will see the history of early life as discovered through the burgess shale which is a fossil deposit in the rocky mountains at yoho national park in canada the chinese have a parallel one where soft bodied organisms were preserved because most fossils are bones or shells because they were hard parts and they could be preserved more easily soft parts would normally decay but because of mudslides which immediately ended oxygen exposure ancient creatures that were only soft like jellyfish were preserved as fossils so there's a record of these species evolution in the early times of the cambrian at a certain point many different species somehow from a common thread develop the ability to combine calcium and carbon dioxide calcium like sodium and potassium is in the salts in the seed and combine calcium with carbon dioxide to make calcium carbonate to form shells armor plating around their soft bodies like oysters and mussels and crabs and barnacles and shrimp and tiny coccolithophores which are a plant phytoplankton and a little bit larger foraminifera which are but they're an animal they're about the size of a very tiny grain of sand and they are all marine calcifying species coral reefs are actually the predominant one which is about 50 of all the calcification going on in the world and was much more before when coral reefs were much more widely spread when the earth was warmer they've been reduced to basically small places where the ocean is still warm enough for the high biodiversity of corals the particularly indonesian coral triangle and so today we have a situation where these coral species and other calcifying species are still using the carbon dioxide out of the ocean and it's raining down on the bottom as dead shells right as shells from dead creatures and that has built up and formed all of the car all of the limestone in the world over the years and that's where most of the carbon dioxide has gone ninety percent approximately only about ten percent of it has gone into fossil fuels now the fossil fuels are also the result of forest being buried and turned into coal of species sinking to the bottom the the soft parts of species turning into oil and gas in and now we find them on the land in places like texas which was once a sea bottom and and the fracking deposits all were at one time a sea bottom whereas the coal deposits were a terrestrial environment where forests but all of the fossil fuels were made with photosynthesis they were all created by solar energy they were all created by carbon dioxide being drawn out of the atmosphere and locked away for hundreds of millions of years where the plants on the land and in the sea could no longer use it because it was gone into these locked up sediments they call it sequestration or sequestered carbon it is out of the cycle that's why co2 came down to such a low level at the glass glaciation when the oceans cooled and pulled it out of the atmosphere to 180 which is 30 parts per million above the death of plants plants don't just need co2 just like us they need a certain level of co2 just like we need a certain level of oxygen if you have an atmosphere with five percent oxygen you die actually you die at 10 oxygen i think it's even higher than that whereas oxygen is around 20 in the atmosphere but you go up to the top of mount everest and you've got to be a sherpa who's been doing it for their whole life before you can breathe up there and successfully live so these are true truisms about life that they need a certain level of their essential nutrients and carbon dioxide being the key essential nutrient for all plants they need it at one 130 150 and they start to die and it is believed that during some of the last major glaciations because of ash layers that are associated with the peak of those glaciations that high altitude plants did all die and burn because they were dried out and that would be because when you ru when the higher you go the thinner the air gets so even though co2 is still at the same parts per million compared to the other gases it's more dispersed and therefore more difficult for plants to obtain that everything i'm saying is thoroughly documented on the internet the and and the most important point is that no scientist who actually wanted to retain any credibility would claim that the correlation between rising co2 and rising temperature at this very tiny piece of time is proof of causation right correlation is not proof of causation correlation just means two things are going in the same direction and very often the reason they are is because of a third common factor and let me give you an example the relationship between ice cream consumption and shark attacks they are perfectly correlated when ice cream consumption goes up shark attacks go up ice cream consumption goes down shark attacks go down it's a perfect annual cycle do ice cream consumptions cause shark attacks no do shark attacks cause ice cream consumption no this is a correlation which is not an example of causation because temperature a third factor is the cause of both of them going in the same cycle when the temperature gets warm people go to the beach eat an ice cream and go swimming and some of them get attacked by a shark in the winter neither happens so this is correlation is far more common than causation and there's a a website called something correlations spurious correlations yeah that one yeah yeah like nicolas cage correlated with the number of people that die by being caught up in their bedding every year there's a statistically significant all right so what's the third what do you think is the third factor in that case is there something that oh there doesn't have to be one there doesn't have to it's just that they're both right there could be a a separate factor causing temperature to change and a separate factor of powerful conditions yeah causing co2 to change and the fact that they're both going up at this time but they're not going up in sync if you look at there's one graph in in my book that shows that in this interglacial period we came before humans started emitting we came to a point where co2 was at 280 and temperature was at a certain point i don't know what exact celsius it was and then suddenly co2 just shoots up off the chart if you put it in a hundred thousand years graph this little bit of time right now 150 years and really only the last 60 or 70 where it's been substantial 60 years of inc of radical increase in co2 i won't you know say that's wrong it is a radical increase we don't need to do it this quickly and that is why in my book i make it very clear that reducing fossil fuel consumption would be an excellent strategy if you had something reliable cost effective to replace it with right and that is nuclear energy with nuclear energy we could easily take out half the fossil fuels being used today not because of climate change but because they're precious and should be conserved because they're non-renewable they don't they're not being made as quickly as we're using them by orders of magnitude right so we should be conserving fossil fuels for the essential things like flying airplanes it's not easy to fly an airplane with anything else besides a liquid fuel and liquid fuels are hard to come by as are gaseous ones like methane natural gas so electricity is mostly being made by fossil fuels today not just in china it's only in france that more than 50 percent of the electricity is being made by nuclear energy and they they dis france for this and they hold up germany as a shining example of green when in fact germany is emitting nearly two times the co2 per capita of france and their only reason france is emitting less co2 is because of nuclear energy why is the world so averse to nuclear energy because they're idiots and they're they're brainwashed and whatever else right i have nothing but contempt for people who just reject nuclear energy when almost no one has ever been killed by it except chernobyl which was a stupid reactor design that the russians made from their plutonium production reactors to make nuclear weapons they just cookie cuttered the same cheap reactor all across the former soviet union all of which have been shut down in any of the former satellites they still have 10 running eight or 10 running in in russia but they have modified them so that can't happen again they should have done that in the first place because they had a negative void coefficient or a positive void coefficient i never get them right but one is good and the other is bad and their reactor was a design that could theoretically go critical in other words become a nuclear bomb and that slow one that was a slow nuclear bomb that explosion they happen faster in real nuclear bombs and do more damage than that one did but it blew a 2 000 ton lid off itself a concrete lid and then burned because they had a huge carbon moderator in there that was 2 000 tons or something uh too i mean there's big numbers involved in chernobyl and that burnt for 10 days while firefighters tried to put it out spewing more and more radiation into the atmosphere the whole time whereas three mile island wasn't even worth talking about it was a bad accident accord a core meltdown but it didn't cause any damage to anything or anyone and no one died in fukushima from radiation and no one will because no one received a sufficient dose to cause any harm and this is confirmed by the radioactive effects research foundation in hiroshima and nagasaki formed after the second world war by macarthur and the japanese to study the life history of people who were exposed to the radiation and survived aren't there some tuna or some fish in the sea who are showing higher levels of radiation and ten eyes two yes ten eyes imagine that no there are not there's higher levels means infinitesimal higher levels if that's what they mean they did have a ban on fishing in the region because a lot of liquid was going into the water that was contaminated as they say had radioactive substances in it there are radioactive substances in you and me potassium 40 in particular if you eat a banana which is radioactive we have radiation stuff wasn't from a banana was it that was from something much more dangerous well what do you mean what was more nuclear reactors are not inherently dangerous they are if you eat them yeah but we we don't eat them and nobody ate anything from fukushima because they stopped taking crops from the land nearby i mean they took the fukushima was one of the stupidest accidents that ever occurred in the world and the japanese are so insular in their culture that they did not take the the lessons that were learned from other accidents that occurred they just didn't and the the difference in culture can be explained this way in the united states or britain when a reactor has a problem the operator phones the prime minister and tells him what the problem is and what he's doing to try to fix it in japan the operator phones the president and asks the president what he should do right because he's the president and he doesn't know what the heck to do so those three explosions that happened one day after another i think approximately at fukushima could all have easily been prevented even after the meltdowns occurred because they were hydrogen explosions people think those were explosions in the reactor they weren't they were explosions of hydrogen gas that was not released as it should have been to prevent it from becoming concentrated at eight percent hydrogen almost spontaneously ignites with any spark and causes a huge explosion so and then they evacuated to all the people even though they were not subject to sufficient radiation to require evacuation and over 2 000 people died from the evacuation because they evacuated five intensive care wards into gymnasiums in other communities where they did not have the facilities to keep them alive so that that's the kind of overreaction that happened to in fukushima which was a bad accident it was a huge industrial accident but it did not cause death what caused death of almost 20 000 people was the tsunami and i saw on cnn a headline written across the screen during the fukushima disaster which said nuclear crisis deepens as bodies wash ashore that's what it said and that was to me the beginning of fake news all the way when they started showing smog and calling it carbon dioxide basically and showing backlit chimneys of factories with black smoke coming out of them supposedly but no it was water vapor and that's what water vapor looks like when you backlight it so the the and you know and the same with the inbreeding polar bears i mean they are just making up one story after another now and floating it in the media and it all comes back to the fact that the politicians are funding the scientists to give them what they want which is something that they can instill fear and guilt into the population about in order to have power and then the media and the activists are the bull horn right the megaphone that puts that into just a giant global story and nothing else matters the truth doesn't matter one bit anymore in this discussion what about the people that say we're seeing the beginning of the next big extinction event it's so stupid we're not seeing the beginning of the next big extinction event okay if a big extinction event was happening and it was being documented i could get it but read the chapter in my book on extinction where i appeared before a committee of the u.s house of congress with three people there claiming to be united nations scientists saying that yes we only know of 1.7 plus million species which have been identified named photographed written up etc but there are very likely 8.7 million species that's what they said there's probably 8.7 million species and this is our best estimate where did they get that estimate thin air there's no way you can turn one point 1.7 into 8.7 without having any actual observation of any real thing so they were saying there's about seven million unreal species that we don't know about and then they say and a million of those will go extinct in the next few decades right how many of you how many of the observed creatures have they seen go extinct an ever decreasing number as humans in around 1920 when the passenger pigeon became extinct suddenly the general population took an interest in the issue of extinction prior to that which wasn't very long ago 100 years nobody cared about extinction they thought it was a normal thing except a few naturalists who bemoaned the extinction of the dodo bird or other species that went extinct as a result of human activity and most people don't realize that the main cause of species extinction is not hunting right it it is actually agriculture and the changing of habitats so that is why most species recovery programs are based on habitat and making sure that there's a place for these species to exist that's key but we have not like overrun 90 of the world's habitat and much of the area that we are using especially for forestry is perfectly suitable for most of the species that always lived in the forest agriculture is different agriculture creates a monoculture on purpose and that's pretty hard to get away from people who preach that you should have 17 different species of plants growing on the same plot of land i'd like to see them do it successfully it's not possible so they the farmer wants to get rid of every insect every animal you know everything other than every other plant all other all other plants are weeds in this case and so agriculture is is where you have to really look at what you're doing in the landscape and make sure that in that landscape and it usually happens naturally if you fly across the uh whole agricultural area of the united states you see lots of forest interspersed among the agricultural land because and europe too i mean most people don't realize that 200 years ago 250 years ago less than 10 percent of europe remained forested because the trees were being used for everything to do with fuel they were being used to heat all the buildings to smelt all the iron and copper to do the glass works and steam engines everything was fueled by wood and all the building of everything so forth started to disappear in central europe initially and then spreading out over the whole of europe the first time in the history of humans where forests were disappearing we were cutting them faster than they were growing back that's why agriculture was invented 10 000 years ago and forestry wasn't invented until about 1750 in central europe because they realized they had to start planting some trees and then silviculture otherwise known as as forestry scientific forestry came into being and now there's 43 percent forest cover in europe well speaking of trees i thought i thought the amazon rainforest was wrecked ten percent of it has been modified that's great that could be quite a bit it's a fair big forest isn't it it's a huge forest and it's not in any way endangered the the problem with the you know my book is titled fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom for a reason i put the word invisible in there because to most people the amazon is invisible they show you a picture of a fire that takes up the whole screen right it might be about 10 feet of the you know of the amazon which is almost as big as the continental united states brazil itself is almost as big as the continental united states and amazon is a huge part of brazil and there are parts of the amazon that have been developed but most of it is intact and even where it's been developed it is only small areas if you just look at a satellite photograph of it you can see it i've flown over it in an airplane at fairly low elevation and you go for five hours and you hardly see any people it's called a human desert by people but even you know the the leader of brazil now is under attack over the amazon from the left and one of the reasons you can get away with that is almost no one in brazil has ever been to the amazon even though it's in their own country people don't go there what would you do there it's got manos which is basically a manufacturing hub for electronics so it's a sort of a tax-free zone of some kind you've got balaam at the mouth of the river which is i've been to that city it's not very interesting it's just a city at the mouth of the amazon and there's not much else to do there you can go on a boat up and down the river and then you see all you see is trees the whole way and the amazon is 300 miles wide during the flood period it will never have a bridge over it it doesn't have a road anymore because the road the plants grew up through the pavement and destroyed the road within 10 years when they did build one to minnows i'm gonna guess that if we continue to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide that's just going to happen quicker yes the amazon is is growing faster but interestingly it's the drier places that benefit most from increased co2 because increased co2 has two effects one more co2 for growth like i'll give you the second one in a minute but first i digress to say that i used to laugh at people who said their plants grew better when they talk to them as if plants have ears and can hear you and are empathetic or whatever and so i sort of chuckled at that then i realized that when you're talking to your plants you're breathing 40 000 parts per million co2 on them that's our breath is a hundred times the level it is in the air so you're basically breathing super concentrated fertilizer onto your plants when you're talking to them and they do grow better because of that because they would like to have more co2 than exists in the natural world today the second thing that increased co2 does is it makes most plants more efficient with water because now it's easier for them to get the carbon dioxide they need because it's more concentrated in the atmosphere and therefore they don't need to make as many holes in the bottom of their leaves they're called stomata it's where they take in the air with the co2 in it but it's also where they lose water through transpiration so the fewer of those holes there are the less water they lose therefore the more efficient they become with water and gives them ability to survive in places that have less water than they could before that's why trees are marching out onto grasslands in many parts of the world the south west of the u.s for example and australia the very eastern part of sorry the very western part of australia western australia as it's known is the driest part of australia the nullabar desert is there too which doesn't have much of anything growing on it because it's so dry but in the in the west like around perth and down to albany the the trees are growing much faster now and so are the crops because they you know if if you're a farmer today and you are giving your plants all the water and all the fertilizer they need the mineral food the limiting factor to the plants growth is carbon dioxide because of how low it is in the atmosphere even today and the proof is in the pudding here because all commercial greenhouse growers in the world inject carbon dioxide into their greenhouses because they have an enclosed space where they can increase the level of co2 and they generally go up to between 800 and 1200 ppm which even above that the plants grow faster but there's a curve because economics is involved they have to buy the co2 so at this level at right somewhere in the curve they say okay 1200 is optimum for us because above that buying more co2 has an ever decreasing increase in yield and so 1200 works really well in greenhouses that's four times sorry three times what it is today in the global atmosphere and that is we should not even be concerned until co2 gets up to 20 000 ppm because that's what submariners survive in for three months underwater and the the the people who uh had the trouble on apollo 13 where the co2 was building up it went up to at least 20 000 in there see our breath is 40 000. we have 40 000 ppm co2 in our lungs just before we breathe out i don't want to be breathing that in though yes you do what the same air that i breathed out well in that case you could no no just once just once yeah yeah but you don't want to be a closed system of breathing that backing when you put your mask on you are breathing a significant portion of the air you just breathed out back in again so we we can survive at a whole different bunch of levels of co2 just fine and plants are happy with it at 10 000 ppm or they wouldn't be here because that's what it was back 500 million years ago one of the things that i decided to fact check you on or internet check you on was photos of the great pacific garbage patch and photos of birds with plastic inside of their stomachs i'd seen these floating around on the internet and when i was reading your book and listening to you i found that you'd said try and find me a photo of a big patch of garbage that doesn't have mountains in the background because in the middle of the pacific there aren't any mountains that are nearby so if someone was to take a photo of it something that's supposed to be didn't someone say it was nearly the size of texas or something like what's the size of texas and growing faster than anyone ever predicted yes um and i thought well if this thing's so big that seems ridiculous i'd seen photos of big clumps of plastic floating together bottles and and stuff in the middle of the ocean so i did a search and i kept on looking in the background and people have re-cropped numbers of different photos and twisted them so that they look like they're at different angles i thought oh that's that's kind of interesting because i thought i was pretty sure that that was there and then the other thing that you mentioned was birds that birds don't have teeth so the way that they digest their food is actually by putting little stones or nuts into their stomach and their gillett and then they use that to grind up the food and then they eject the little bits of plastic back out so i thought well i'll have a bit of a read about that and i'll have a look and i'd seen a photo sort of a carcass of an albatross and it's laid on the floor and it's really just sort of bones and some feathers and it's got like a thimble like a full reel of string inside of it and other stuff and you'd mentioned that a lot of these might be staged and i thought yeah no no not a lot of them not a lot of them chris all of them okay i looked and i thought were the skeptical i was like yeah i mean that that one does look a bit ridiculous and then a few of the other ones do and i read an article from i want to say it was that bbc one of david attenborough's documentaries about life or something and it's one of the right ups that's a partner to one of the episodes in the episode you see one of the birds eating plastic and i was like okay well maybe they're doing this thing maybe no you don't not in his episodes you don't see a bird eating plastic oh it might have been it's definitely a documentary on the bbc um yeah he's holding up a plastic bag next to a chick in a nest okay and saying adult birds are feeding plastic to their chicks there's no pic i've i've searched the internet thoroughly he's actually removed one sequence that sequence where he's holding up the plastic bag it no longer is available on the internet i don't know what this thing yeah it what did you say the first time if about a year ago if sir before i wrote my book i i think he's on to me uh and he he's he's an absolute liar in many many cases and i've made three of them in the book one of them is that albatross adults are feeding plastic to their young mistaking it for food greenpeace says the same thing the smithsonian institute in the united states is saying the same thing they are pushing this lie that albatross can't tell plastic from food sir david attenborough never mentions the word gizzard anywhere he wrote the bloody secret life of bird's book he did a 10-part series on bbc on birds right and he doesn't know that birds all have gizzards that need to have solid objects in them to grind their food because they have no teeth and therefore have two stomachs all birds every bird in the world that's why all land birds take pebbles into their stomach and when their chicks are in the nest and can't go and get pebbles for themselves they put pebbles in their chick so if you have a more convenient pebble that is made of plastic and it's able to do the same job then no the land birds do not feed bits of plastic to their chicks as far as i know because there's plenty of pebbles but out in the ocean where birds are actual marine animals that nest on rocky islands barren rocky islands where all there is is a bit of grass right there's no pebbles there either so traditionally their favorite well naturally they feed their chick squid little squid in those squid is a beak that beak is retained in the gizzard as part of the digestive aids right it's like a ball mill in mining where they put steel balls into a mill to grind the ore it's exactly the same concept in many ways but in the in the gizzard it's a muscular motion where they go like this with their gizzard and grind the food with these solid objects in there to help with it and so the other thing they'll take is pumice which is volcanic lava from undersea volcanoes and because it's spongy it floats it's got air in it or gases in it so it floats so little bits of pumice will come to the surface sometimes in huge layers when a undersea volcano goes off but they're not it's not always there so they have to resort them to hard bits of wood and nuts that have dropped off a plant in a river or by the seashore and come out in the ocean so it they have to work really hard to find enough digestive aids that are suitable in size and and hardness it's not easy for them and when plastic started showing up in the ocean 60 years ago they started choosing pieces of the right size not plastic bags not cigarette lighters not spools of yarn that's all staged they don't feed them those kind of things and they're actually they're not feeding the plastic bits they're giving it to them to ingest so they can put it in their gizzard that's where it goes they know how to decide which goes in which stomach so the story that i read had this lady explaining about the situation and that the parents she'd used the word feed she'd parents had come back and given their chicks these plastic pebbles and i can't remember the word that they used uh to describe what happens as they're just about to fly the nest some bird wood the bowlers maybe that they cough up most of the hard objects in there because the reason they have so much in their gizzard is because they will digest their food even faster then and the parents won't have to feed them for the rest of their lives right so they want them out of the nest as soon as possible so they put a lot of plastic which weighs a lot plastic and but plastic is never a majority of what's in a young bird's gizzard never like it's shown in those stage photos it's like all plastic what this lady said was just as they were about to leave i saw them eject the the the plastic back up and throw it back up just because they were about to leave the nest and yeah it's not just the plastic not just the plastic but all the other items they have in there to do the same job and it's all plastic is always a minority of it and she's got all these plastic bags and big plastic plastic cloths and things that's all staged yeah well that's not going in it's not going to fit in a small bird is it no it well they're not they're actually quite big because albatrosses are big but it's not going to it's not going to work they only if you see the photo in my book the only photo i know of of a adult albatross giving plastic to its chick you can see it in its beak going into the chick's mouth and it's all nice little pieces of colored plastic that are just the right shape and size it's not plastic bags it's not cigarette lighters like they show in the staged pictures but when you read that when you read that article what you see is if you didn't know that the birds needed the plastic to break up food in the stomach if you didn't know that that was something that aids them with that digestion and that it is common for them to throw up the plastic plus presumably all of the other stuff that's been in there helping them to break up their food you would read that article and it is it is accurate what she says is correct but the things that have been purposefully omitted and the understanding about why some of the inclusions have been put in there and why biologically that might still be natural that creates a situation and that was the moment i was reading it and i thought this really is this really is quite sinister it does feel like it's quite a manipulative way to tell people what has happened but frame it in such a manner that makes us again hate our own existence you could say evil as a synonym of sinister and i believe it is because sir david attenborough also lied about the walruses committing suicide due to a lack of ice that's the final chapter in my book they committed suicide was this a harry carry thing yes they jumped off a cliff to their death in order to avoid an attack by 20 polar bears oh he didn't mention that part and that is well documented there are photographs of the bears the people who live in a nearby town know that the reason the the walruses left off a cliff was because they were being about to be attacked and eaten by polar bears what was the proposed reason not enough ice as if you can put those two things together it's sort of like polar bears are inbreeding because there isn't enough ice as if those two things are connected somehow right and he made it seem as though it was connected that there was because he said the reason the polar bears have come on the land and got to a place where they could jump off they did because there was no ice for them in the sea below which is always the case on the north shore of russia the ice recedes in the summer and funny enough he says that the he says the ice is their home no the sea is their home that's where the walrus lives and fishes they don't fish actually they dig clams on the bottom and when the ice recedes away from the coast and they are coming out of the water to haul out they come on the land there's a reason why it is an officially designated walrus sanctuary this piece of land and he implies that it's unnatural that they are coming on the land because there's not enough ice for them to get onto when in fact they cannot exist they are a coastal species they cannot exist deep sea so if the ice recedes to where it's 600 feet deep or 1000 feet deep it's no good to them because they are bottom feeders and as i say in my book they are bottom feeders much like sir david attenborough and his tv crew on the planet earth or whatever our planet right there they too are bottom feeders in this case and they are lying because the reason the walruses left to their death fell to their death they didn't walruses can't actually leap but they plummeted to their death because a pack of polar bears was going to eat them and instead the polar bears just walked down to where all the dead walruses were and ate them while they're dead and i'm sure the walruses would rather be eaten while they were dead than while they were alive so that's the deal there and he is bald-faced lying to the whole world about this and he continues to do it he had people in davos in tears recently telling this story even though he now knows that i have busted him and so has susan crockford the polar bear expert who's also an expert in all arctic animals has busted him publicly and he sticks to this story because bbc lets him right patrick moore ladies and gentlemen fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom will be available on amazon in the links of the show notes below if people want to keep up to date with all of the other stuff that you're doing where should they go you will perish in flames that's what i have to say about that there's a little man on the front who's the little man who's the guy who's he's supposed to be made-up guy made-up guru right but you will perish in flames is i i stole it from the ghostbusters i don't know if you remember the scene where uh the the short guy maranus approaches the horse and buggy in central park and first goes up to the horse and says are you the key master or something like that right to the horse and then runs off with his eyes blazing screaming at the driver you will perish in flames so uh that's that little guy how many people have got how many people have got donald trump quote quoted on the back of their book talking about oh no no he's not quoted he's quoting me yeah yeah but it's he that's him on the back of your book talking about your work there's not many people that must have had that uh i was very pleased that he recognized that i was telling the truth about carbon dioxide being the primary element for all life etc and that there was no climate emergency or crisis as it may have been called at that time pretty impressive that was an appearance on tucker carlson uh yeah what have you got a website do you have a twitter or anything like that yeah i got a twitter it's ecosensenow uh and it's it's i got nearly 100 000 followers they dropped back about 10 000 when a lot of people quit twitter uh and but i've stayed on and i just recently i said i'm quitting twitter finally because the taliban is on it and they're kicking all these other people off who aren't the taliban and uh people i had about a thousand people come back and say stay man stay so because we need you here and so it's very difficult these days to know when you should like with the the uh vaccine issue uh i i know that in law and in medicine informed consent has always been the rule that nobody is required to consent to any medical treatment surgery needles uh pills right without their own consent everybody has a right as an individual to refuse treatment in other words and they're trying to turn that on its head by threatening people with their livelihoods and with their ability to be a normal person they might as well stamp a brand on their forehead right and make them second class citizens is what they're doing and so people are saying to me well why did you get vaccinated then and et cetera well because i want to be but i respect the right of other people not to want to be and actually on gutfeld he had trump on the last two nights and trump made that same point because his wife doesn't want to be vaccinated and gutfeld and trump came to the conclusion that that was perfectly her right that is the truth if we don't if we allow society to force us into medical treatments maybe next they'll want our skin to make lampshades you know so you that this is a fundamental principle in medicine is informed consent and in law and they're trying to bust it down so that they can have control over everybody to say what they should have to have injected into their bodies and personally i believe the vaccines are efficacious i also had kovit was in the hospital for six days really sick after i had my first vaccination it had not yet taken effect or i was one of those people who gets it anyways but it's normal after two vaccinations at least you're 95 percent immune and now i'm must be close to 100 immune because i survive covet but they don't take that into account so the fact that they're not taking covet survivors as equivalent to vaccinated people is also another travesty in this whole thing so i i it's like climate it's like the climate issue in some ways um but it's even more bizarre from a political control point of view because they're really pulling the levers here you know and trying to make it so that all all of their subjects are are subject to their whims and we got to fight that and so people are blaming me for not fighting it because i'm got it vaccinated so it's really complicated that way from an intellectual point of view as to should i join even though i've been vaccinated should i join the anti-vaxxers in a march you know no i'm not anti-vaxxer right and neither is trump he's vaccinated uh well he brought us the product apparently maybe a conversation for another time patrick thanks so much for today thank you very much chris nice to be with you thank you very much for tuning in if you enjoyed that then press here for a selection of the best clips from the podcast over the last few months and don't forget to subscribe makes me very happy indeed peace

Channel: Chris Williamson

Views: 525,271

Rating: 4.826375 out of 5

Keywords: modern wisdom, podcast, chris williamson, climate change 2021, climate change documentary, climate change debate, climate change explained, climate change news, global warming 2021, global warming short film, global warming explained, global warming documentary, climate change, science, climate, environment, global warming, news

Id: E5K5i5Wv7jQ

Length: 96min 19sec (5779 seconds)

Published: Sat Sep 18 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/chriswillx]

Really enjoyed speaking to Patrick, he's a tough guy to control in an interview tho 😅