I've got so much respect for this man. I can listen to him speak for hours. He makes sense, he's realistic and not swept up in the media narrative which is now making kids close to suicidal. Not even mentioning Greta bloody Thunbgerg's rantings.
I think you're just looking for people who tell you what you want to hear. It is fairly easy to debunk the things he says. Pick a claim and try, do some independent research (but *include* scientific sources of information, NASA etc., not only political or self-promoter junk like Moore.)
@@seanreid6159 No, it doesn't work both ways. Literally the entire point of scientific method is to empirically test between explanations. Everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion about physics. If you pick one of the areas where Moore is saying something different than all of the world's national academies of science etc. and actually dig into it, you'd see this easily. The reason he can keep up his business is that people are very, very unlikely to do this since there is a chance they will hear what they don't want to hear, and Moore is in the business of telling people what they *do* want to hear. And it is a good business.. The fact that you mention CNN just highlights that you are banking on propaganda - 'the mainstream media lies, you can only trust me.' It's a variant of the oldest con games in the world ('listen kid, there's a lot of people out there trying to swindle you, I'll teach you how to see a real deal.') Don't watch CNN or Fox or Moore or any other entertainer. Read textbooks and published scientific papers.
I agree. Same here, he is a breath of fresh air in all this media BS that's being spread around. He is a realist like me too. I don't get brainwashed like these so called enviromentalists.
We were told here in the UK about 20 years ago that wind power would cut our electricity bills , well we all know how that turned out , energy prices set to double maybe triple in the next year , Russia holds the cards when it comes to gas supply , he’s right on most points , but will governments listen , probably not !
Hold on a second. Power market spot prices are determined by gas prices. Offshore wind farms on top of that are still subject to Cfds (Contracts for Difference). So if the spot price is over the price agreed, the wind farm will pay the difference, if it is below the agreed price, the UK government will pay the wind farm the difference. I am against any ideological opposition to any source of energy. We've got to be pragmatic.
Steffen . Hi Steffens. I know you posted this nine years ago but I’ve just discovered him. He’s quickly becoming my hero too. Well one of them anyway. I’ve never thought that humans are totally responsible for this global warming stuff , and listening to Patrick confirms this. 👍👍👍.
I have always said the world exagerates by ecologism!... The only danger for humanity is that of ending up back in the Middle Ages, by throwing away every improvement that came with huge effort and time, centuries, in the name of ecology.
@@alinucalinuc4124 I mean, he's a huge list who says the environment hasn't warmed in 17 years, then ignores the fact that 5 of of the warmest years in record have been in the last seven years .. But if you don't like the truth, you have a spokesman to lie to you!
He said that he would gladly drink weedkiller and that it was safe. He is a paid shill. He does occasionally make ok points but most of the time he tries to convince people that increasing C02 is good for the environment. If you care about the future of life on our planet, I highly encourage you to look at research by people who know and care about what's happening
Yeah he's good. By NOW however he's wrong about solar, wind and *storage* which were way too expensive 12 yrs ago, today the cheapest option most circumstances. Germany gets as much sun as Alaska, solar could be premature there, lol.
As a West Coast logger I visited Winter Harbour twice. I was also a friend of Vancouver's Lyle Thurston. As an idealistic young man in Cambbell River, I 'bricked' my toilet to save water, and the world. When I had kids to feed, I hugged trees with a Husqvarna.
@@longliverocknroll5 actually I have and the sources other use is what needs to be refuted this guy has a phd. in ecology and he is an expert in climate and you people hate him because he is telling truth. all the stuff you people hear that is different then what he saids is all bs science
I'm glad to see that Dr Patrick Moore has changed his views on fossil fuels. I would like to see him talk about that transition from this lecture to his position today.
@@Avidcomp no he isn't. The matter is that from an economic perspective, somethings real relative price measured by real dollars will grow if its really non_renewable. On the other hand oils price has constantly and by competitive measures decreased all the way up to the 70s and then again from the 80s to now. That's the main attitude of the market.
No, Nye is an engineer who is a 'science communicator'. Moore's field was ecology and he shows he doesn't know much about the science of climate change. Or maybe it's just because he's paid to misrepresent science by the fossil fuel industry.
Hahahaha Patric Moore is using real data and real graphs. The IPPC and UN graphs are fraudulent some proven so in courts across the world. If he was working for the fossil fuel industry he would be pushing the climate lie. You see the truth Ciest is that the fossil fuel industry contrary to popular belief supports and pushes the man made climate change agenda. They make more money from carbon trading and pushing up the price of oil than they do under normal production. This fact has been explained by various scientists who have spoken to such companies in a Critical fashion. There is no evidence for CO2 driving temp. Only evidence for it following it. Co2 is the gas of life. More Co2 makes plants grow faster. We need to double or even treble our Co2 production.
@@ceist8552 Ecology is a science of organisms and their physical environment. How that is not relevant, to you, in this matter? You go ad hominem and add an assumption at the end. So I'd say you are a farmer of corn with two daughters, not willing to take your place after you.
Ceist 8 whenever someone doesn’t agree with the climate hysteria they’re always accused of being paid by fossil fuel companies.....laughable. This man is an ecologist and an environmentalist.....actually studied environment....what’s your problem or did you even listen to this video? Ignorance is not becoming.
Dr. Moore makes a lot of sense! People should listen and think for themselves. He suggests a pragmatic common sense approach that is good for people, good for our economy and free of ideological extremism.
What common sense? his claims can easily be disproved, you probably agree with him because he's telling you what you want to hear. No one wants to think we are damaging the planet and that mine and future generations will live in a very different, less hospitable place.
This was then. Check out his new book in 2021 Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom His recent interview with Chris Williamson is worth a listen.
In recent interviews, he sings the praises of carbon for plants and seems to take a very long view of climate change as a set of trends that predate us and will succeed us. More than ever, he's against wind & solar (except in niche energy situations) but doesn't sound the same knell about air pollution. Greening is good, he seems to say now. And so is nuclear.
A real hero. Thanks, Patrick ! Here we are 11 years into Al Gore's plan and he's still living next to the ocean in 2 of his 5 homes while owing 3 private jets. I'll act like climate change is serious, when Al acts like it's serious.
@@wink3319 Try the Heartland Institute along with many other climate change deniers. The Heartland institute also sponsored the tobacco companies when they convinced many people for years that smoking did not cause cancer and was non-addictive despite overwhelming evidence from the medical industry.
@@VOIDSenseMusic For who is he a lobbyist? We know environmentalists lose their sinecure if they posit that AGW does not exist or at least has little effect compared to natural causes.
Patrick gives all this information without a tele prompter .. no notes , he does study and investigate physically , Patrick definitely thinks things through , why are politicians so greedy ? I’d like to hear Patrick tell us after he investigates them .
I have recently listed to Professor William Happer on Utube. He is indeed my hero as he knows so much about climate change. He has calculated that even if the level of Carbon Dioxide we to double to 800 ppm that the temperature increase due to CO2 would only be 0.7 degrees C. So why spend so much money?
He is right, wind and solar are a waste of money. I would stop supporting hydro-electric power , gas and coal and go for uranium/thorium reactors. As for geo-thermal the places are very limited, very few places have them.
Patrick more advocates for more co2 into the atmosphere .since he made this video ,he has gained more knowledge and believes it would be more beneficial to the ecosystem
I think his company has lobbied on behalf of fossil fuel companies; I wish he'd just be honest about that, but I still agree with the guy on the energy scandal that the left has pushed around for a very long time.
scouse roy that’s why we can’t trust no one..how can he change is mind In 10 years ..everyone has is own agenda.. with that said the guy makes more sense than the majority of people talking about climate change
Craig Artzner he isn’t like a 25 year old scientist in the beginning of his career.. by the age when he spoke on this video.. I would think he already had his ideas well clarified ..in that case he can come tomorrow and say again that co2 is bad..
@@buchinha3 hey man...I know A LOT of people his age who have almost no clarification whatsoever when it comes to their ideas! Don't tell me you don't! LOL :D
@@ForbiddTV At this point, if you're still cherry picking the evidence to suit your beliefs, you're wasting everyone's time. The evidence regarding climate change and it's disastrous effects is overwhelming.
I believe nothing, I research and find facts. You didn't even read my comment correctly. The whole 'climate change' meme is irrelevant to the fact that we are headed for disaster with renewables if it doesn't include nuclear when fossil fuels are phased out.
@@ForbiddTV climate change isn't a "meme" wtf. But thank you for your foresight, it's not like solutions have already been implemented for the transition.
All sounds reasonable to me. I read in comments below that he changed his view on co2 . Also reasonable. Shows he's thinking and studying not just getting an idea in his head and sticking with it even when the data has changed. Like our leaders with covid lockdowns.
@@jackpierce230 He now says carbon dioxide is greening the earth and we need more. A new documentary on netflix called "Kiss The Ground" is also a must watch.
@ 16:30 "it does not make any sense to plug in a coal fired power plant" (or any carbon fuel plant) "its just shifting the pollution from one place to another". Amen to this. I have been preaching this for years but no one that buys an electric car will listen. not to mention the amount of mechanical and thermal losses from generating electricity from hydrocarbons just to put them in a car.
Sweden has not decided to build new nuclear plants, yet. Also our government is stalling the necessary decision about storage of nuclear waste (or rather potential future fuel).
As a plant / crop scientist, I would point out that at current levels of CO2 plants are starved for more. Greenhouses use three times ambient to increase production. There is also body of research showing most plants, including those that produce our food, respond positively to additional carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis is essential for all life on earth.
Sure we disagree, thats a good thing. But my questions ARE making sense, you're just not able to answer them- and that's absolutly okay. Have a nice weekend.
That's not the form of heat pump he talked about. Ground coupled geothermal heat pump. That's what I have and we go through an entire Michigan winter just fine without backup.
I'm not sure about this. Our local community centre was built with a geo-thermal heat pump exchange system and it's too hot to go to the gym in the summer One lady passed out according to the attendant because of the heat. I had to quit going because it's brutal. They installed great big pipes and fans, but it didn't change a thing....😧
Enlightening. I would like to hear what he has to say about Fukushima. I don't mean it as an argument, but just want to ask, what's the damage that meltdowns will do, and is the overall benefit worth it? I suspect it might be.
Lisa Colorado Fukushima purchased older USA based GE Nuclear reactor technology that was not a fail safe design - a system that even the USA was not willing to purchase for their own country. And still the damage was not as severe as the news media seemed to indicate would happen to all. The new SMRs - Small Modular Reactors now actually burn the spent fuel from the older tech reactors producing far less nuclear waste as a result and those "refried beans" are easier to store and of no value anymore for the production of nuclear arms as before.
Patrick Moore is not 100% correct... but very close.....Read "Smelling Land" by David Sanborn Scott.. Professor with a PhD in Engineering. As for some of the other comments below condemning him..... those are from individuals he speaks against including Green Peace so don't let them confuse you because they are wrong! ;)
I can't claim to be an expert climatologist, like Dr. Moore. But when visiting the State of Maine last summer I went swimming. The ocean was very cold. This fact clearly demonstrates that Doctor Moore is right and that adding more CO2 to the air will make this planet a better place for all God's creatures.
You're rather gullible to unquestioningly believe what a paid shill for the fossul fuel industry tells you. Your friend is probably shaking their head thinking you're 'impossible' to talk to.
Sam Potter climate change is so political....today’s political discussions are as impossible as are climate change discussions. The hysteria has become a religion of the left...
Thank you !!!!!!We need to use our heads and science and be realistic we need fossil fuel but not all energy . we need to take this all in moderation and be realistic and live with quality of life and not be extreme in omitting one form of our resources . we need a balance .
Renewable and clean. How about Reliable and Cheap. When it comes to clean, how clean? It may be beneficial to allow for an amount of pollutant if the benefit to human flourishing is vastly improved. However, since this talk I think Dr Moore has revised his views even more regarding accepting not only fossil fuels but recognising the benefits of CO2.
@@fdestcroix Flourish is to grow in a manner that is conducive to a pleasurable experience of life, and to the extent that such a quality improves from each previous generation. Most certainly the basics are covered; to eat well, to be warm with comfortable shelter, and time efficacy that enables wonder and creative interaction with the world meaning not time required to sustain one's life but beyond that. One example is our use of time saving devices such as machines. This extra time and the more of it enables individuals time to innovate thus progressing further future human flourishing.
Lol anybody else remember this guy claiming that drinking a quarter of glyphosate won’t harm you. Then when asked if he wanted some he quickly refused.
a strawman argument based on another strawman argument. Allso attacks the speaker rather than his facts. Come backwith those, and I might consider you someone I might listen to.
@@khalilg9736 Tripped up on using turns of phrase by an interviewer looking to shutdown a conversation he did nor want to hear. Moore is a real deal scientist that knows what he is talking about and has put himself in harms way fot his beliefs.
Climate always changes. Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools. I like what Moore says about the topic and his reasons for lowering fossil fuels... except lowering CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. Modern increases in CO2 have resulted in a greening of the Earth. Plants love the stuff. Climate is not controlled by CO2. A far more likely source of control can be found in the Svensmark study.
Mario Neiman So, you can't prove a claim I merely questioned? Sounds like you're a tad bit disingenuous when you form conclusions of scientific means. I'll ask again, can you provide science that backs that claim? If not, just say you let propaganda inform your opinion.
Well, interesting. But here's a question. What and how, and where do dispose of the spent nuclear fuel? Highly radioactive, the most deadly poison known, and will be as deadly today, and literally just as deadly a thousand years from now. We already have storage and containment problems now. No, Nuclear might be a "quick" fix today, but a major catastrophe going into the future. Wind/ solar, isn't the answer either . At least right now. So, it's actually back to fossil fuels. I think the answer is greater technology towards engine efficiency with fossil fuels and capture of the pollutants. Which, btw, is happening.
Good points. In the U.S., during the 1950s, the federal government began promising to come up with a permanent storage solution for the highly radioactive waste discharged from the nations nuclear power reactors and the highly radioactive waste generated by the nation's vast nuclear weapons production complex. Six decades later there still isn't a deep geological repository for that waste. The same holds true for the other nations that have nuclear power plants. It seems that the power was just too important to hold the producers accountable for dealing with the waste that will remain a potential hazard for about a million years. Nuclear power plant design has always assumed that one the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is removed from the reactors and placed in cooling pools that it will be kept cool for 5-10 years until it is moved to robust storage casks. The assumption has always been that industrial civilization will last a very long time after the plants go into operation. That assumption includes that external power will be supplied to operate the water circulation pumps, that trained nuclear worker will continue to tend to the pools and that equipment replacement supplies will continue to exist while the SNF cools. Due to abrupt climate change the collapse of industrial civilization could happen well before 2030. If that happens the spent nuclear fuel pools, around the world, will lose their cooling water and then the zirconium rods will rupture, releasing particles of fission products into the atmosphere in plumes that will travel downwind of those pools. Based upon this possibility I believe it would be prudent to shut down all nuclear power reactors now and start preparing to eventually move the SNF into the robust storage casks.
les accords de Paris n'ont dangereusement pas pris en compte le principal Gaz à Effet de Serre qui est la vapeur d'eau (60% des effets source GIEC, contre 26% pour le CO2). L'eau de l’atmosphère régule les températures des continents depuis des millions d'années mais cette hypothèse a été écartée dès le début en pensant que les activités humaines n'avaient pas d'impact sur l'eau , or il est maintenant prouvé que la disparition de la couverture végétale des continents (déforestation) coupe le cycle de l'eau et provoque les phénomènes climatiques actuels : inondations, sécheresses, canicules et feux ! Sans EAU le soleil est notre ennemi : La Terre subit des rayonnements solaires très nocifs pour la faune et la flore terrestre, l'eau et la vapeur d'eau de l’atmosphère sont nos meilleurs protections. La couverture végétale des sols assurent une humidité permanente de la troposphère par l'évapotranspiration, la permaculture : couverure permanente des sols est une priorité l'été ! des champs verts et vivants l'été c'est 20°c de moins sur des millions d'hectares, des pluies régulières, une sécurité alimentaire et énergétique !
the "real, most significant" measure of global warming or (ice age) cooling is the amount of cold 4°C ocean bottom water. Which is at present state about 50% or more than 50% of all ocean water! I did a "back the envelope" calculation of this caloric heat capacity: to heat half the ocean from 4°C to 8°C takes about 11*10E24_Joule; that is equal compared to melting all ice in Antarctica. An enormous amount! The question is, does this Cold ocean bottom water_Volume increase (in an ice age) or does it decrease (in a greenhouse "age").
I've never once heard him discuss the conundrum of long-term nuclear waste disposal\storage. That's a major problem. It's not in the news, but we're getting more and more of it every year and its extremely toxic and deadly and it lasts for thousands & thousands & thousands of years.
It’s important to note that just after this talk, record setting global yearly temps were clocked every year from 2012-2018, breaking the previous years record in most cases. Patrick doesn’t smudge data so he would admit this now I’m assuming.
What's so overwhelming about a minute increase of the average temperature of the globe? If anything, animal and plant species thrive in warmer weathers.Let's not give in to irrational hysteria.
This guy is worth listening to. Unlike most environmentalist, he understands how the world works. Think about countries in the Middle East, where nearly their entire economy is built on oil, how many people would you be killing by restricting use of their main natural resource? Their populations aren't reducing.
@@matijabl Well, he meant from under the ice, he's a fast talker.....Geothermal systems can use water from the bottom of a frozen lake to create heat or air conditioning....
I like his talk he seems very sensible. I would like to point out that oil is called fossil fuels but oil is not a fossil. The name is a miss representation of oil. Oil is a fuel that is replenished over time. We have exceeded the rate that oil replenishes itself but it isn't a fossil where once you use it, it will be gone forever.
Yes, several years later he was talking of a dearth carbon dioxide and asserting, very logically, that recent CO2 increases may have saved parts of the planet from plant death. He now wants to see coal cleaned up by the removal of particulates, sulfur, mercury etc. but is not absolutely opposed to it as a energy source - but he prefers the use of gas and oil.
@@gbuz5789 "The data shows that the last five years are collectively the warmest ever recorded, while 18 of the 19 hottest years have taken place since 2001. " pretty alarming isn´t it ?
@MrDurcon Only problem is that he's totally wrong about electric cars. Other than that, it's quite good and reasonable. Energy density of batteries - about 150Wh/kg Energy densiity of diesel - about 13,000Wh/kg Attempts to persuade us that this difference doesn't matter is not gonna work. Even if electric cars were 100% efficient they can't replace gas or diesel because they can't store enough energy. batteries will have to get 30 times better to even start competing with ICEs.
@@LioTun Well not really. Petrol 300+ Miles per tank, (dependant on engine size) Diesel 400+ miles per tank (dependant on engine size) electric 200 miles per charge with much longer fill up times
@@bamboo_craft Its aged just fine. Electric cars are still Welfare Wagons, purchased by the rich as status symbols. If you actually work for a living, it's still all done with ICE. Biden's dementia-induced EV mandate for the Federal fleet is gonna take a baseball bat to the teeth once it goes up against reality. There will be enough exemptions in that to make it little more than a PR stunt. The supposed "breakthroughs" in battery technology that EV con-men continue to pontificate about continue to fail to materialize. Just like they have for the last 100+ years. Turns out you can't BS physics. Who knew? I live in North Dakota and the few EVs that are here are summertime only cars. Nobody dares take an EV out onto the road when it's -20F outside. There's a couple of Chevy Volts in the winter, but they've at least got a gas engine so the occupants don't freeze to death.
@@Crosshair84 yeah... But there are now much more electric cars than before your claim, and if they continue to grow as they have done in another 10 years we will see a complete change in the market... And also do you know about this tiny manufacturer called Tesla, I have certainly seen some of their cars out performing the competition, electric or not...
"have no fear for atomic energy, cos none of them can stop the time" - Bob Marley, Redemption Song. Is this his evidence for Bob Marley supporting nuclear energy? 😂
Solar panels are a good answer to very cheap power and hot water in domestic use. I know as I've had mine for 10 years and they've kept my electricity bills really small. If you also have a battery to collect solar energy then you can live very cheaply indeed. The sun comes up every day, even on a cloudy, rainy day your panels will pick up the sun's rays. The flaw in his argument is that because the sun doesn't shine at night solar panels are no good. WRONG. Most of the night were asleep so don't need to keep the lights on or have the TV on. It's a viable option
@wong, yes but that's at least 4000 ppm because that's the highest level on record I have seen with plants and it was hundreds of years ago. Submariners can go up to 20000 ppm for at least 3 months. Astronauts are much higher and when you exhale you breath is 40000 ppm. More importantly commercial greenhouses pay to get their levels up to between 800 and 1200 ppm as that gets the best growth rate. Higher works but it's diminishing returns on the extra CO2 cost vs the increased growth gained, however I have seen some operating as high as 2000 ppm Plants die at 150 ppm and relatively recently we were close to that . Even now we are much closer to the low problem that the high problem. As for temp one thing that seems to be overlooked is CO2 absorbtion is logarithmic not linear
And did not age well. His "I'll wait and see" comments are funny, except he refuses to admit he's been wrong about most everything. His payers must feel good about it though.
Moore is a PR man. He earns a nice living bending facts and telling people what they would like to hear. This is not necessary the truth. PS. Don't mention Roundup.
@Ian Westby Moore will not engage in open discussion. He always plays to an audience that want to believe what he is saying. He is sponsored by the Heartland Institute that also spent years telling you that tobacco did not cause cancer and was not addictive. Climate change denial follows the same routine. The deniers cannot challenge the science it is far too overwhelming but they always cast doubt on the science by trying to give alternate views.
@Ian Westby The evidence that the planet is warming is overwhelming and no longer in dispute. After every single possible cause for this warming has been eliminated apart from a 50% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels that CO2 and the associated feedbacks has to be blamed, there is nothing else left to blame. Belief that the planet is warming to a dangerous level can m never be classed as a religion because a religion is based on faith alone and there is absolutely no evidence that any god exists. Science relies on proven facts and evidence, not faith. In scientific terms everything is a theory only in mathamatics is anything proven. In scientific terms gravity and your very existence is still a theory. Climat change deniers use the word 'theory' to confuse the unwary. Science considers that gravity , evolution and global warming are acceptable theory's and therefore they are events that cannot be unproven.
There are some problems with geothermal in colder climates. Sorry to say, but burning wood is as bad or worse than coal. It makes perfect sense when you stop to think it's the same thing - the only difference is age. grist.org/news/whats-worse-than-burning-coal-burning-wood/
How much vetting do TEDx do? Google the Canal+ interview on this man where he says that you can drink a whole quart of glyphosate and it wouldn't harm you and then when challenged to drink some by the interviewer, agrees then declines in the same breath by saying 'what do think I am, stupid'. One reality for the masses and another for the likes of Patrick Moore.
Velvet-Starship-NOW and surprise, surprise here he's preaching 'human caused climate change'. Oh dear, the left are in a pickle. Should they love him or loathe him. I swear we're living on Bizarro.
In elementary school we went to the sewage treatment plant. The staff giving the tour took us into the control room to show us how the chemistry worked and poured out a glass of water from a tap and told us it was recycled from the sewage pond. He told us it was safe to drink... but HE wasn't going to drink it. Did it make him a liar? Hardly. So your point about glyphosate is stupid and pointless. There is allot of shit I can say will not harm our bodies, but I wont put them in my mouth.
Pointless to someone who clearly either doesn't know or is dangerously gullible about glyphosate (as well as Monsanto, GMO and Moore's involvement as the go to PR man for the aforementioned), for the rest of us it was priceless.
You should actually research topics instead of watching youtube videos. They fed it to dogs and mice and none died. Very sad pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
Moore is famous for his assertion that "there's no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature." He then shows a graph which looks pretty damned convincing. Where and who did the graph come? Coal mining engineer and climate denier Monte Heib took historical CO2 data and historical temperature data and slapped them together in a hand-drawn graph and assumed this was an accurate depiction of earth's climate history. It wasn’t. But deniers and skeptics have posted and re-posted his famous graph (a favorite of Moore’s) thousands of times across the internet. It has ZERO scientific validity, as you would expect from someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. The data he used was in time steps of ten million years, too long to determine correlations between CO2 and temps. (Climate scientists today use time steps of 500,000 years.) He also neglected to add the effects of a sun that increases its output as it evolves over hundreds of millions of years. Climate scientists regard the Monte Heib graph the same way they would regard their kindergartner's first attempt at "art." Unlike a child's first efforts, there is nothing funny or endearing about an amateur's attempt at deception and it certainly won't ever end up taped to their refrigerators. ;) Moore most certainly has been told about the fake graph yet he continues to use it in his presentations. What does that say about him?
@Manuel Dumont Yes, I saw it. He argues multi millennia of data, not a few hundred years. Ice and sediment cores beat slogans and “it’s the worst I've ever seen” proof.
Climate scientists who differ do not debate, they bully, intimidate and obfuscate. They refute facts with hyperbole and word salad. What IS a meaningful use of your time is researching their claims yourself and FEEL what resonates with you. Does your gut tell you it is reasonable to confiscate trillions of dollars based on fear narratives without a solid plan for solutions. Just saying “renewables” us not a plan. Are wind blades that are not recyclable or degradable really a solution? Are solar panels that create toxic waste in their production better than fossil fuels? Do Barack Obama, John Kerry and other climate preachers believe their own predictions when they buy mansions on the beach? Climate was recognized as the vehicle to get to world government many decades ago. Only time will tell who is right. So far innovation has stated ahead of the apocalypse. My money is on ingenuity without authoritarianism.
He sounds good, but Patrick Moore is a nuclear industry public relations consultant (through his firm Greenspirit Strategies) who denies that humans cause climate change. Moore has consulted for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defense of biotechnology.
What is your expertise and who pays you? Can you prove that humans cause Climate Change or that a warmer and more productive planet Earth is somehow a negative?
@@boffeycn Thankfully we have entered an era where there is a genuine discussion. The Alarmists had a monopoly on the issue for a couple of decades but people with common sense are asking questions. I refuse to be one of the lemmings who responds to the Chicken Littles.
Its monopolizing the markets for drinking water in different countrys.(sorry if I didn't make that clear enough)India for example: It's taking huge amounts of water from the watersources they bought or buy in from communal wells. That depletion leads to a lack of drinking water in the near villages and farms all over the country. What do you think do this people have to do to get drinking water? But if you don't believe me look for yourself-fly to india like I did...and then tell me its not true
I've got so much respect for this man. I can listen to him speak for hours. He makes sense, he's realistic and not swept up in the media narrative which is now making kids close to suicidal. Not even mentioning Greta bloody Thunbgerg's rantings.
I think you're just looking for people who tell you what you want to hear. It is fairly easy to debunk the things he says. Pick a claim and try, do some independent research (but *include* scientific sources of information, NASA etc., not only political or self-promoter junk like Moore.)
@@gmprice that works both ways but hey continue to watch CNN etc and believe in their agenda which has obviously warped your opinion on reality
@@seanreid6159 No, it doesn't work both ways.
Literally the entire point of scientific method is to empirically test between explanations. Everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion about physics.
If you pick one of the areas where Moore is saying something different than all of the world's national academies of science etc. and actually dig into it, you'd see this easily. The reason he can keep up his business is that people are very, very unlikely to do this since there is a chance they will hear what they don't want to hear, and Moore is in the business of telling people what they *do* want to hear. And it is a good business..
The fact that you mention CNN just highlights that you are banking on propaganda - 'the mainstream media lies, you can only trust me.' It's a variant of the oldest con games in the world ('listen kid, there's a lot of people out there trying to swindle you, I'll teach you how to see a real deal.')
Don't watch CNN or Fox or Moore or any other entertainer. Read textbooks and published scientific papers.
I agree. Same here, he is a breath of fresh air in all this media BS that's being spread around. He is a realist like me too. I don't get brainwashed like these so called enviromentalists.
@@MrBooojangles Sure you don't.
We were told here in the UK about 20 years ago that wind power would cut our electricity bills , well we all know how that turned out , energy prices set to double maybe triple in the next year , Russia holds the cards when it comes to gas supply , he’s right on most points , but will governments listen , probably not !
Hold on a second. Power market spot prices are determined by gas prices. Offshore wind farms on top of that are still subject to Cfds (Contracts for Difference). So if the spot price is over the price agreed, the wind farm will pay the difference, if it is below the agreed price, the UK government will pay the wind farm the difference. I am against any ideological opposition to any source of energy. We've got to be pragmatic.
08:25 Here we are 12 years later, Patrick Moore predicted the geopolitical instability of Europe depending on Russian gas.
True
This guy is my hero!
He is environmentally conscious, but not an extremist.
Ya you bet the same guy that said round up was safe to drink! LOL!
He is a turncoat and a money monger
Steffen . Hi Steffens. I know you posted this nine years ago but I’ve just discovered him. He’s quickly becoming my hero too. Well one of them anyway. I’ve never thought that humans are totally responsible for this global warming stuff , and listening to Patrick confirms this. 👍👍👍.
he's your hero for advocating for dangerous pesticides?
No. He is a proven liar.
I'm positively surprised TED allowed this man to speak.
Me as well!!
TED isn't really associated with TEDx that much. Organizers of TEDx events are not part of TED, they're just licensing the name and the format.
That was long ago when there were people around that were allowed to think.
I guess because this was published 11 years ago
what? afraid of facts and truth about the climate?
15 years later, just as relevant today as when he first spoke these words.
This guy is the most rational person I have ever heard on climate change.
I have always said the world exagerates by ecologism!... The only danger for humanity is that of ending up back in the Middle Ages, by throwing away every improvement that came with huge effort and time, centuries, in the name of ecology.
@@alinucalinuc4124 Agreed..
@@alinucalinuc4124 I mean, he's a huge list who says the environment hasn't warmed in 17 years, then ignores the fact that 5 of of the warmest years in record have been in the last seven years ..
But if you don't like the truth, you have a spokesman to lie to you!
He said that he would gladly drink weedkiller and that it was safe. He is a paid shill. He does occasionally make ok points but most of the time he tries to convince people that increasing C02 is good for the environment. If you care about the future of life on our planet, I highly encourage you to look at research by people who know and care about what's happening
Yeah he's good. By NOW however he's wrong about solar, wind and *storage* which were way too expensive 12 yrs ago, today the cheapest option most circumstances. Germany gets as much sun as Alaska, solar could be premature there, lol.
As a West Coast logger I visited Winter Harbour twice. I was also a friend of Vancouver's Lyle Thurston. As an idealistic young man in Cambbell River, I 'bricked' my toilet to save water, and the world. When I had kids to feed, I hugged trees with a Husqvarna.
The 40 year old spruce and pine that covers most of BC? Great! 800 year-old Sitka spruce? Not so great.
Strange. I see A Lot of personal attacks on Patrick Moore. What I don't see anyone actually refuting what he says.
Have you read the sources he cites? Because most of the sources he cites will do the refuting for us.
they can't because he is a Scientist and he debunks the far left
If you check out the lengthy list of links that I just posted above you will find a large numbers of examples that clash with his presentation.
@@longliverocknroll5 actually I have and the sources other use is what needs to be refuted this guy has a phd. in ecology and he is an expert in climate and you people hate him because he is telling truth. all the stuff you people hear that is different then what he saids is all bs science
@@vernonbrechin4207 yes but that don't make them right they all have an agenda he dosen't he isn't paid bye far left nutjobs like sorros or greens.
Almost 15 years later, he was so right !
I'm glad to see that Dr Patrick Moore has changed his views on fossil fuels. I would like to see him talk about that transition from this lecture to his position today.
Check out Chris Williamson's interview with this man.
@@phillipcooley83 Agreed ! It's over an hour in length, however Dr. Moore's presentation very compelling for all to watch !
You'd probably like to watch his new interview with Chris Williamson, though, he'd probably surprise you as he's totally for CO2 emissions.
@@арефнар Good. I'm for CO2 emissions. As a by product of energy production for example. Totally fine with that.
@@Avidcomp no he isn't. The matter is that from an economic perspective, somethings real relative price measured by real dollars will grow if its really non_renewable. On the other hand oils price has constantly and by competitive measures decreased all the way up to the 70s and then again from the 80s to now. That's the main attitude of the market.
All the people who disagree with him also think Bill Nye is an actual scientist...
No, Nye is an engineer who is a 'science communicator'. Moore's field was ecology and he shows he doesn't know much about the science of climate change. Or maybe it's just because he's paid to misrepresent science by the fossil fuel industry.
Hahahaha Patric Moore is using real data and real graphs. The IPPC and UN graphs are fraudulent some proven so in courts across the world. If he was working for the fossil fuel industry he would be pushing the climate lie. You see the truth Ciest is that the fossil fuel industry contrary to popular belief supports and pushes the man made climate change agenda. They make more money from carbon trading and pushing up the price of oil than they do under normal production. This fact has been explained by various scientists who have spoken to such companies in a Critical fashion. There is no evidence for CO2 driving temp. Only evidence for it following it. Co2 is the gas of life. More Co2 makes plants grow faster. We need to double or even treble our Co2 production.
@@ceist8552 Ecology is a science of organisms and their physical environment. How that is not relevant, to you, in this matter? You go ad hominem and add an assumption at the end. So I'd say you are a farmer of corn with two daughters, not willing to take your place after you.
Ceist 8 whenever someone doesn’t agree with the climate hysteria they’re always accused of being paid by fossil fuel companies.....laughable. This man is an ecologist and an environmentalist.....actually studied environment....what’s your problem or did you even listen to this video? Ignorance is not becoming.
@@ceist8552 unlike those paid by universities,IPCC, and massive conservation bodies to prove it.
Dr. Moore makes a lot of sense! People should listen and think for themselves. He suggests a pragmatic common sense approach that is good for people, good for our economy and free of ideological extremism.
What common sense? his claims can easily be disproved, you probably agree with him because he's telling you what you want to hear. No one wants to think we are damaging the planet and that mine and future generations will live in a very different, less hospitable place.
This was then. Check out his new book in 2021 Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
His recent interview with Chris Williamson is worth a listen.
Yeah I just finished watching that, recommend it to everyone.
@@арефнар
I loved his degree of detail. All researchable. Not slogans which are emotionally manipulative but impossible to confirm.
@@divergentsenior the receiver of the message is the matter not the conveyer.
My husband has just bought this book and I’m reading it after
@@cosmic-creepers9207
Just finished it. I’ll take detail over word salad any day.
In recent interviews, he sings the praises of carbon for plants and seems to take a very long view of climate change as a set of trends that predate us and will succeed us. More than ever, he's against wind & solar (except in niche energy situations) but doesn't sound the same knell about air pollution. Greening is good, he seems to say now. And so is nuclear.
He's a sellout.
A real hero. Thanks, Patrick ! Here we are 11 years into Al Gore's plan and he's still living next to the ocean in 2 of his 5 homes while owing 3 private jets. I'll act like climate change is serious, when Al acts like it's serious.
Al gore hasn't been relevant for 20 years, so why are you bringing him up?
@@rattslayer - Because she started this brainwashing of the idiots. That's why.
@@rattslayer His Inconvenient Truth and vocal advocation catalyzed a lot of the groundless fervor we see today.
Only just discovered Patrick Moore. I think he’s woke me up.
I’m awake, not woke.
Ha Ha Ha. Sorry. I fully agree with you on that one. 👍👍😀😀 🇬🇧
What to? His lies?
@ijk240695 Thanks for confirming you are an infantile troll.
wong No mate. His knowledge.
'Interesting to see the expressions on the faces of some of those who don't like what they're hearing...
That's because herd mentality and groupthink is just as prevalent among the 'elite' who think they are our betters.
Watch his newer talks, he makes even more sense now.
Thank you for sharing your expertise. Very helpful for me and my family.❤⚘
This guy knows his stuff we need to learn from level headed people like this that don’t have an agenda
Patrick Moore is a lobbyist. His entire job is to literally have an agenda.
@@VOIDSenseMusic Who is he lobbying for? Who is employing him as a lobbyist?
@@wink3319 Try the Heartland Institute along with many other climate change deniers. The Heartland institute also sponsored the tobacco companies when they convinced many people for years that smoking did not cause cancer and was non-addictive despite overwhelming evidence from the medical industry.
Funny how anything you don't agree with is an "agenda"
@@VOIDSenseMusic For who is he a lobbyist?
We know environmentalists lose their sinecure if they posit that AGW does not exist or at least has little effect compared to natural causes.
Patrick gives all this information without a tele prompter .. no notes , he does study and investigate physically , Patrick definitely thinks things through , why are politicians so greedy ? I’d like to hear Patrick tell us after he investigates them .
I have recently listed to Professor William Happer on Utube. He is indeed my hero as he knows so much about climate change. He has calculated that even if the level of Carbon Dioxide we to double to 800 ppm that the temperature increase due to CO2 would only be 0.7 degrees C. So why spend so much money?
He is right, wind and solar are a waste of money. I would stop supporting hydro-electric power , gas and coal and go for uranium/thorium reactors. As for geo-thermal the places are very limited, very few places have them.
He is so correct about solar.. It's not at all cost effective.
Patrick more advocates for more co2 into the atmosphere .since he made this video ,he has gained more knowledge and believes it would be more beneficial to the ecosystem
I think his company has lobbied on behalf of fossil fuel companies; I wish he'd just be honest about that, but I still agree with the guy on the energy scandal that the left has pushed around for a very long time.
scouse roy that’s why we can’t trust no one..how can he change is mind In 10 years ..everyone has is own agenda.. with that said the guy makes more sense than the majority of people talking about climate change
@@buchinha3 how can he change his mind in ten years? I dunno...sounds like he discovered more evidence that forced him to.
Craig Artzner he isn’t like a 25 year old scientist in the beginning of his career.. by the age when he spoke on this video.. I would think he already had his ideas well clarified ..in that case he can come tomorrow and say again that co2 is bad..
@@buchinha3 hey man...I know A LOT of people his age who have almost no clarification whatsoever when it comes to their ideas! Don't tell me you don't! LOL :D
Half of his statements can easily be disproved, yet people in the comments are praising him because he's saying what they want to hear.
He might be wrong about some of his climate change memes, but I challenge you to show where he is wrong about the rest.
@@ForbiddTV At this point, if you're still cherry picking the evidence to suit your beliefs, you're wasting everyone's time. The evidence regarding climate change and it's disastrous effects is overwhelming.
I believe nothing, I research and find facts. You didn't even read my comment correctly. The whole 'climate change' meme is irrelevant to the fact that we are headed for disaster with renewables if it doesn't include nuclear when fossil fuels are phased out.
@@ForbiddTV climate change isn't a "meme" wtf. But thank you for your foresight, it's not like solutions have already been implemented for the transition.
@@potpu You obviously never looked up the definition of meme. Pathetic.
All sounds reasonable to me. I read in comments below that he changed his view on co2 . Also reasonable. Shows he's thinking and studying not just getting an idea in his head and sticking with it even when the data has changed. Like our leaders with covid lockdowns.
Do you know his current position
@@jackpierce230 He now says carbon dioxide is greening the earth and we need more. A new documentary on netflix called "Kiss The Ground" is also a must watch.
Battery production equates to kicking the can down the road!! The reality is...We are stuck here until it all runs out!
Adding true facts make fake facts more believable. He is good at it.
can you explain exactly what you mean? not quite sure what to believe
@ 16:30 "it does not make any sense to plug in a coal fired power plant" (or any carbon fuel plant) "its just shifting the pollution from one place to another". Amen to this. I have been preaching this for years but no one that buys an electric car will listen. not to mention the amount of mechanical and thermal losses from generating electricity from hydrocarbons just to put them in a car.
Yes and no small cars being built just big ones
At least someone is trying. What? You walk or ride a bike?
Brown coal is 2.4 cents euro 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour, nuclear is 2.5 cents, gas is 3 cents, wind is 10 cents, and solar is 57 cents.
Sweden has not decided to build new nuclear plants, yet. Also our government is stalling the necessary decision about storage of nuclear waste (or rather potential future fuel).
As a plant / crop scientist, I would point out that at current levels of CO2 plants are starved for more. Greenhouses use three times ambient to increase production. There is also body of research showing most plants, including those that produce our food, respond positively to additional carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis is essential for all life on earth.
I bet he left his audience confused? They have been spoon fed the opposite since birth?
Have you got to believe that the audience was confused to make your world view hold together? Really?
What?
Thank God! I have found a grown up!
Absolutely reading my mail! Brilliant! Thank you, Sir.
Sure we disagree, thats a good thing. But my questions ARE making sense, you're just not able to answer them- and that's absolutly okay. Have a nice weekend.
Still relevant! Great talk!
I have friends with heat pumps and none of their homes are without some other form of heat that they rely on all winter long. NONE!
That's not the form of heat pump he talked about. Ground coupled geothermal heat pump. That's what I have and we go through an entire Michigan winter just fine without backup.
Frank Smith-for the same reason we had a warm Roman and Medieval Warm period.Which incidentally occurred with Lower CO2 levels.
I'm not sure about this. Our local community centre was built with a geo-thermal heat pump exchange system and it's too hot to go to the gym in the summer One lady passed out according to the attendant because of the heat. I had to quit going because it's brutal. They installed great big pipes and fans, but it didn't change a thing....😧
Sounds like it was a poor design of that facility. Ground coupled heat pumps do work for cooling as well as heating.
Enlightening. I would like to hear what he has to say about Fukushima. I don't mean it as an argument, but just want to ask, what's the damage that meltdowns will do, and is the overall benefit worth it? I suspect it might be.
Talks about it on Sun news, TH-cam it.
Lisa Colorado Fukushima purchased older USA based GE Nuclear reactor technology that was not a fail safe design - a system that even the USA was not willing to purchase for their own country. And still the damage was not as severe as the news media seemed to indicate would happen to all. The new SMRs - Small Modular Reactors now actually burn the spent fuel from the older tech reactors producing far less nuclear waste as a result and those "refried beans" are easier to store and of no value anymore for the production of nuclear arms as before.
How can one accident mean that nuclear is not beneficial? There are accidents, plusses and minuses in every form of energy production.
Patrick Moore is not 100% correct... but very close.....Read "Smelling Land" by David Sanborn Scott.. Professor with a PhD in Engineering. As for some of the other comments below condemning him..... those are from individuals he speaks against including Green Peace so don't let them confuse you because they are wrong! ;)
I can't claim to be an expert climatologist, like Dr. Moore.
But when visiting the State of Maine last summer I went swimming. The ocean was very cold. This fact clearly demonstrates that Doctor Moore is right and that adding more CO2 to the air will make this planet a better place for all God's creatures.
Great stuff thank you so much Dr Moore! I just attempted to discuss this with a friend (who is a global warming believer) and it was impossible.
Was this person a school teacher that votes NDP?
You're rather gullible to unquestioningly believe what a paid shill for the fossul fuel industry tells you. Your friend is probably shaking their head thinking you're 'impossible' to talk to.
its hard to accept you have been lied to, specially if its a young person who grew up brainwashed in school
Sam Potter climate change is so political....today’s political discussions are as impossible as are climate change discussions. The hysteria has become a religion of the left...
Thank you !!!!!!We need to use our heads and science and be realistic we need fossil fuel but not all energy . we need to take this all in moderation and be realistic and live with quality of life and not be extreme in omitting one form of our resources . we need a balance .
Renewable and clean. How about Reliable and Cheap. When it comes to clean, how clean? It may be beneficial to allow for an amount of pollutant if the benefit to human flourishing is vastly improved. However, since this talk I think Dr Moore has revised his views even more regarding accepting not only fossil fuels but recognising the benefits of CO2.
No, he is lying as usual.
Define "human flourishing"
@@fdestcroix Flourish is to grow in a manner that is conducive to a pleasurable experience of life, and to the extent that such a quality improves from each previous generation. Most certainly the basics are covered; to eat well, to be warm with comfortable shelter, and time efficacy that enables wonder and creative interaction with the world meaning not time required to sustain one's life but beyond that. One example is our use of time saving devices such as machines.
This extra time and the more of it enables individuals time to innovate thus progressing further future human flourishing.
I have solar since years and it works perfect on rainy days in winter with good batteries
Lol anybody else remember this guy claiming that drinking a quarter of glyphosate won’t harm you. Then when asked if he wanted some he quickly refused.
a strawman argument based on another strawman argument. Allso attacks the speaker rather than his facts. Come backwith those, and I might consider you someone I might listen to.
@@watchthe1369 I will actually try and read up on him. Brb.
@@khalilg9736 Tripped up on using turns of phrase by an interviewer looking to shutdown a conversation he did nor want to hear. Moore is a real deal scientist that knows what he is talking about and has put himself in harms way fot his beliefs.
Yes, you are right... That was priceless, thank you for reminding me. I had to go and laugh at it again....
I don't suppose Moore's critics even know what ad hominem means.
*"Personally I think that a carbon neutral world is feasible."* 7:55
@@truthsayer6414 He said "Personally I do not think a carbon neutral world is feasible."
Maybe not but you just made one, well done, a personal attack on a collective.
@@Margarinetaylorgrease Care to comment about the subject. I have a PhD from Harvard; what are your qualifications?
@@clarkeslemon1312 I went to PragerU, checkmate, mate
A true scientist on climate change
Ham and Dr. Timboll as well as Dr. Roy Spencer are all scientists Bill Nye Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio are not scientist by any definition.
Climate always changes. Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools. I like what Moore says about the topic and his reasons for lowering fossil fuels... except lowering CO2.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Modern increases in CO2 have resulted in a greening of the Earth. Plants love the stuff.
Climate is not controlled by CO2. A far more likely source of control can be found in the Svensmark study.
"Climate is not controlled by CO2. "
Do source this claim with valid research.
@@longliverocknroll5 If you affirm it does, then YOU have the burden to prove it, not the other way around. Got it!
Mario Neiman So, you can't prove a claim I merely questioned? Sounds like you're a tad bit disingenuous when you form conclusions of scientific means.
I'll ask again, can you provide science that backs that claim? If not, just say you let propaganda inform your opinion.
OK. great speech but do you know how much oil is in the ground. . The Alberta Oil sands is a small one. Wind and solar is not bio degradable
But it is recycled
Well, interesting. But here's a question. What and how, and where do dispose of the spent nuclear fuel? Highly radioactive, the most deadly poison known, and will be as deadly today, and literally just as deadly a thousand years from now. We already have storage and containment problems now. No, Nuclear might be a "quick" fix today, but a major catastrophe going into the future. Wind/ solar, isn't the answer either . At least right now. So, it's actually back to fossil fuels. I think the answer is greater technology towards engine efficiency with fossil fuels and capture of the pollutants. Which, btw, is happening.
North Korea?
Good points. In the U.S., during the 1950s, the federal government began promising to come up with a permanent storage solution for the highly radioactive waste discharged from the nations nuclear power reactors and the highly radioactive waste generated by the nation's vast nuclear weapons production complex. Six decades later there still isn't a deep geological repository for that waste. The same holds true for the other nations that have nuclear power plants. It seems that the power was just too important to hold the producers accountable for dealing with the waste that will remain a potential hazard for about a million years.
Nuclear power plant design has always assumed that one the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is removed from the reactors and placed in cooling pools that it will be kept cool for 5-10 years until it is moved to robust storage casks. The assumption has always been that industrial civilization will last a very long time after the plants go into operation. That assumption includes that external power will be supplied to operate the water circulation pumps, that trained nuclear worker will continue to tend to the pools and that equipment replacement supplies will continue to exist while the SNF cools.
Due to abrupt climate change the collapse of industrial civilization could happen well before 2030. If that happens the spent nuclear fuel pools, around the world, will lose their cooling water and then the zirconium rods will rupture, releasing particles of fission products into the atmosphere in plumes that will travel downwind of those pools. Based upon this possibility I believe it would be prudent to shut down all nuclear power reactors now and start preparing to eventually move the SNF into the robust storage casks.
les accords de Paris n'ont dangereusement pas pris en compte le principal Gaz à Effet de Serre qui est la vapeur d'eau (60% des effets source GIEC, contre 26% pour le CO2). L'eau de l’atmosphère régule les températures des continents depuis des millions d'années mais cette hypothèse a été écartée dès le début en pensant que les activités humaines n'avaient pas d'impact sur l'eau , or il est maintenant prouvé que la disparition de la couverture végétale des continents (déforestation) coupe le cycle de l'eau et provoque les phénomènes climatiques actuels : inondations, sécheresses, canicules et feux ! Sans EAU le soleil est notre ennemi : La Terre subit des rayonnements solaires très nocifs pour la faune et la flore terrestre, l'eau et la vapeur d'eau de l’atmosphère sont nos meilleurs protections. La couverture végétale des sols assurent une humidité permanente de la troposphère par l'évapotranspiration, la permaculture : couverure permanente des sols est une priorité l'été ! des champs verts et vivants l'été c'est 20°c de moins sur des millions d'hectares, des pluies régulières, une sécurité alimentaire et énergétique !
the "real, most significant" measure of global warming or (ice age) cooling is the amount of cold 4°C ocean bottom water. Which is at present state about 50% or more than 50% of all ocean water! I did a "back the envelope" calculation of this caloric heat capacity:
to heat half the ocean from 4°C to 8°C takes about 11*10E24_Joule; that is equal compared to melting all ice in Antarctica. An enormous amount!
The question is, does this Cold ocean bottom water_Volume increase (in an ice age) or does it decrease (in a greenhouse "age").
Great talk, unbiased, not pushing any agenda. Hey, does anyone else suddenly want to buy a nuclear power station?
I've never once heard him discuss the conundrum of long-term nuclear waste disposal\storage. That's a major problem. It's not in the news, but we're getting more and more of it every year and its extremely toxic and deadly and it lasts for thousands & thousands & thousands of years.
It’s important to note that just after this talk, record setting global yearly temps were clocked every year from 2012-2018, breaking the previous years record in most cases. Patrick doesn’t smudge data so he would admit this now I’m assuming.
What's so overwhelming about a minute increase of the average temperature of the globe? If anything, animal and plant species thrive in warmer weathers.Let's not give in to irrational hysteria.
This guy is worth listening to. Unlike most environmentalist, he understands how the world works. Think about countries in the Middle East, where nearly their entire economy is built on oil, how many people would you be killing by restricting use of their main natural resource? Their populations aren't reducing.
So why does he tell so many lies?
@@boffeycn shut up your a liar
7.40 Al Gore says "in ten years we won't use carbon fuels at all". Well, it's 2021 now.....and we still use carbon fuel.
Al gore has a mansion on the beach,as has obummer,fly their own private jets to their conferences to tell us how to live,screw them!
He was so correct on millions of cars with batteries in 15-20 years.
@Patrick Moore What About California University Sea Water Desalination Energy?
This man is a true hero.
Ur so naive
This guy is a Souless Shill
in 1875, it was reported that the north sea oil would only last 5 years.
Maybe if you get rid of 2nd and 3rd shift.
I don't think corporations are just going to let you plug your car in.
Ya gotta love someone who can pronounce "species" correctly.
And "nukular"
@@j3ffn4v4rr0 Would you happen to be related to one of the former presidents of the United States ?
@@freddyfriesen I'm happy to say, not at all!
Semantics
Isn't 'Dr.' Patrick the guy that told us drinking a quart of RoundUp is perfectly healthy? now more CO2 is a good thing?
Source please? I’d like to read that. Thx.
@@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763 serach his name + herbicide
@@woah5333 Did that. Read several articles and understand the hyperbole. Apparently others do not.
Spencer Glendon of Probable Futures is the Claire Patterson of lead in Gasoline fame. Go SG.
Mixed feelings about this guy since he said glyphosate is safe to drink but would not drink it when invited to.
Cheers!
*Raises Monsanto RoundUp glass*
*What a delicious weed killer.*
@@nazarenomilohanich4883 Sounds like you know what Moore is really about i.e. he claims Roundup is safe to drink - then refuses a glass !
17:40 ...extract heat from the ice and heat your house... how does that work?
Geothermal heating, works great !!!
@@goudrelle1 He said 'from the ice', mind you!
@@matijabl Well, he meant from under the ice, he's a fast talker.....Geothermal systems can use water from the bottom of a frozen lake to create heat or air conditioning....
@ijk240695 Yes, but it is very, very limited and therefore a non-starter.
I like his talk he seems very sensible.
I would like to point out that oil is called fossil fuels but oil is not a fossil. The name is a miss representation of oil. Oil is a fuel that is replenished over time. We have exceeded the rate that oil replenishes itself but it isn't a fossil where once you use it, it will be gone forever.
11:41 that stare down tho 😂
I know 😍
Basically, wind and solar ain't cutting it yet.
And never will.
This is an old video I think Dr. Moore is more anti-climate change now, which is good.
I think he understood his audience and had a different message.
Yes, several years later he was talking of a dearth carbon dioxide and asserting, very logically, that recent CO2 increases may have saved parts of the planet from plant death. He now wants to see coal cleaned up by the removal of particulates, sulfur, mercury etc. but is not absolutely opposed to it as a energy source - but he prefers the use of gas and oil.
@@ZigZagHockey People like him make logical and typically real measured data based arguments as opposed to the emotional arguments from the alarmists.
@@gbuz5789 "The data shows that the last five years are collectively the warmest ever recorded, while 18 of the 19 hottest years have taken place since 2001. " pretty alarming isn´t it ?
@@gbuz5789 Please, show me his real data.
@MrDurcon
Only problem is that he's totally wrong about electric cars. Other than that, it's quite good and reasonable.
Energy density of batteries - about 150Wh/kg
Energy densiity of diesel - about 13,000Wh/kg
Attempts to persuade us that this difference doesn't matter is not gonna work. Even if electric cars were 100% efficient they can't replace gas or diesel because they can't store enough energy. batteries will have to get 30 times better to even start competing with ICEs.
Electric cars now have a range similar to a petrol tank
@@LioTun Well not really.
Petrol 300+ Miles per tank, (dependant on engine size)
Diesel 400+ miles per tank (dependant on engine size)
electric 200 miles per charge with much longer fill up times
This didn't age well
@@bamboo_craft Its aged just fine. Electric cars are still Welfare Wagons, purchased by the rich as status symbols. If you actually work for a living, it's still all done with ICE. Biden's dementia-induced EV mandate for the Federal fleet is gonna take a baseball bat to the teeth once it goes up against reality. There will be enough exemptions in that to make it little more than a PR stunt.
The supposed "breakthroughs" in battery technology that EV con-men continue to pontificate about continue to fail to materialize. Just like they have for the last 100+ years. Turns out you can't BS physics. Who knew?
I live in North Dakota and the few EVs that are here are summertime only cars. Nobody dares take an EV out onto the road when it's -20F outside. There's a couple of Chevy Volts in the winter, but they've at least got a gas engine so the occupants don't freeze to death.
@@Crosshair84 yeah... But there are now much more electric cars than before your claim, and if they continue to grow as they have done in another 10 years we will see a complete change in the market... And also do you know about this tiny manufacturer called Tesla, I have certainly seen some of their cars out performing the competition, electric or not...
The fact is that CO2 is not driving Climate
"have no fear for atomic energy, cos none of them can stop the time" - Bob Marley, Redemption Song. Is this his evidence for Bob Marley supporting nuclear energy? 😂
And energi is not renewable
What about Geo thermal Mr. Moore is that a viable option for heat and energy
Not really but it can play a part..
Solar panels are a good answer to very cheap power and hot water in domestic use. I know as I've had mine for 10 years and they've kept my electricity bills really small. If you also have a battery to collect solar energy then you can live very cheaply indeed. The sun comes up every day, even on a cloudy, rainy day your panels will pick up the sun's rays. The flaw in his argument is that because the sun doesn't shine at night solar panels are no good. WRONG. Most of the night were asleep so don't need to keep the lights on or have the TV on. It's a viable option
I guess Patrick never left the green movement CO2 is food for letuce.
But toom uch CO2 is bad. OK.
@wong, yes but that's at least 4000 ppm because that's the highest level on record I have seen with plants and it was hundreds of years ago. Submariners can go up to 20000 ppm for at least 3 months. Astronauts are much higher and when you exhale you breath is 40000 ppm. More importantly commercial greenhouses pay to get their levels up to between 800 and 1200 ppm as that gets the best growth rate. Higher works but it's diminishing returns on the extra CO2 cost vs the increased growth gained, however I have seen some operating as high as 2000 ppm
Plants die at 150 ppm and relatively recently we were close to that . Even now we are much closer to the low problem that the high problem.
As for temp one thing that seems to be overlooked is CO2 absorbtion is logarithmic not linear
32 people think they know better without ever researching the topic.
No, 32 people know who pays him, and know what the actual research papers say (spoiler alert: they don't agree with his claims)
This was 11 years ago too
And did not age well. His "I'll wait and see" comments are funny, except he refuses to admit he's been wrong about most everything. His payers must feel good about it though.
Moore is a PR man. He earns a nice living bending facts and telling people what they would like to hear. This is not necessary the truth.
PS. Don't mention Roundup.
@Ian Westby Moore will not engage in open discussion. He always plays to an audience that want to believe what he is saying.
He is sponsored by the Heartland Institute that also spent years telling you that tobacco did not cause cancer and was not addictive.
Climate change denial follows the same routine. The deniers cannot challenge the science it is far too overwhelming but they always cast doubt on the science by trying to give alternate views.
@Ian Westby The evidence that the planet is warming is overwhelming and no longer in dispute.
After every single possible cause for this warming has been eliminated apart from a 50% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels that CO2 and the associated feedbacks has to be blamed, there is nothing else left to blame.
Belief that the planet is warming to a dangerous level can m never be classed as a religion because a religion is based on faith alone and there is absolutely no evidence that any god exists. Science relies on proven facts and evidence, not faith.
In scientific terms everything is a theory only in mathamatics is anything proven. In scientific terms gravity and your very existence is still a theory. Climat change deniers use the word 'theory' to confuse the unwary. Science considers that gravity , evolution and global warming are acceptable theory's and therefore they are events that cannot be unproven.
I got scammed on these. My pair did not work at all. Perhaps I got a bad set but I just trashed them.
These fuils are not fossile and they are endless
There are some problems with geothermal in colder climates. Sorry to say, but burning wood is as bad or worse than coal. It makes perfect sense when you stop to think it's the same thing - the only difference is age. grist.org/news/whats-worse-than-burning-coal-burning-wood/
How much vetting do TEDx do? Google the Canal+ interview on this man where he says that you can drink a whole quart of glyphosate and it wouldn't harm you and then when challenged to drink some by the interviewer, agrees then declines in the same breath by saying 'what do think I am, stupid'. One reality for the masses and another for the likes of Patrick Moore.
***** Ha ha! That's what brought me here
Velvet-Starship-NOW
and surprise, surprise here he's preaching 'human caused climate change'. Oh dear, the left are in a pickle. Should they love him or loathe him. I swear we're living on Bizarro.
In elementary school we went to the sewage treatment plant. The staff giving the tour took us into the control room to show us how the chemistry worked and poured out a glass of water from a tap and told us it was recycled from the sewage pond. He told us it was safe to drink... but HE wasn't going to drink it. Did it make him a liar? Hardly. So your point about glyphosate is stupid and pointless. There is allot of shit I can say will not harm our bodies, but I wont put them in my mouth.
Pointless to someone who clearly either doesn't know or is dangerously gullible about glyphosate (as well as Monsanto, GMO and Moore's involvement as the go to PR man for the aforementioned), for the rest of us it was priceless.
You should actually research topics instead of watching youtube videos. They fed it to dogs and mice and none died. Very sad pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
Moore is famous for his assertion that "there's no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature." He then shows a graph which looks pretty damned convincing. Where and who did the graph come?
Coal mining engineer and climate denier Monte Heib took historical CO2 data and historical temperature data and slapped them together in a hand-drawn graph and assumed this was an accurate depiction of earth's climate history. It wasn’t. But deniers and skeptics have posted and re-posted his famous graph (a favorite of Moore’s) thousands of times across the internet. It has ZERO scientific validity, as you would expect from someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing.
The data he used was in time steps of ten million years, too long to determine correlations between CO2 and temps. (Climate scientists today use time steps of 500,000 years.) He also neglected to add the effects of a sun that increases its output as it evolves over hundreds of millions of years.
Climate scientists regard the Monte Heib graph the same way they would regard their kindergartner's first attempt at "art." Unlike a child's first efforts, there is nothing funny or endearing about an amateur's attempt at deception and it certainly won't ever end up taped to their refrigerators. ;) Moore most certainly has been told about the fake graph yet he continues to use it in his presentations. What does that say about him?
Sad to see he isn't playing a Xylophone
I'm interested to know if this man has changed his opinion over the last 10 years.
Yes, he got even more "radical"....
@lee
Checkout his interview with Chris Williamson - is climate change fake.
Over an hour but worth it
It appears governments want to target the cheapest renewables. Solar and wind are a fraction the price of hydro or nuclear.
Why can I not find this man debating a climate scientist who feels different? This is what I feel would be a far more educational watch.
Would they debate him?
@Manuel Dumont
Yes, I saw it. He argues multi millennia of data, not a few hundred years.
Ice and sediment cores beat slogans and “it’s the worst I've ever seen” proof.
@@lufe8773 That's an opinion. I watch debates on all sorts of controversial subjects.
How much common sense do you want,some people just cannot face facts,and that is actually something you will have to do to survive!
Climate scientists who differ do not debate, they bully, intimidate and obfuscate.
They refute facts with hyperbole and word salad.
What IS a meaningful use of your time is researching their claims yourself and FEEL what resonates with you.
Does your gut tell you it is reasonable to confiscate trillions of dollars based on fear narratives without a solid plan for solutions.
Just saying “renewables” us not a plan. Are wind blades that are not recyclable or degradable really a solution? Are solar panels that create toxic waste in their production better than fossil fuels? Do Barack Obama, John Kerry and other climate preachers believe their own predictions when they buy mansions on the beach?
Climate was recognized as the vehicle to get to world government many decades ago.
Only time will tell who is right. So far innovation has stated ahead of the apocalypse. My money is on ingenuity without authoritarianism.
He sounds good, but Patrick Moore is a nuclear industry public relations consultant (through his firm Greenspirit Strategies) who denies that humans cause climate change. Moore has consulted for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defense of biotechnology.
What is your expertise and who pays you? Can you prove that humans cause Climate Change or that a warmer and more productive planet Earth is somehow a negative?
@@johannesswillery7855 What an ill informed post. As usual.
@@boffeycn As usual you have no pertinent information.
@@johannesswillery7855 I do, and you have been given it so stop lying. Or should that be stop trolling?
@@boffeycn Thankfully we have entered an era where there is a genuine discussion. The Alarmists had a monopoly on the issue for a couple of decades but people with common sense are asking questions. I refuse to be one of the lemmings who responds to the Chicken Littles.
Its monopolizing the markets for drinking water in different countrys.(sorry if I didn't make that clear enough)India for example: It's taking huge amounts of water from the watersources they bought or buy in from communal wells. That depletion leads to a lack of drinking water in the near villages and farms all over the country. What do you think do this people have to do to get drinking water? But if you don't believe me look for yourself-fly to india like I did...and then tell me its not true
For my fellow Americans 10 C is 50 F
Talk about inconvenient truths!! :) Eat this Al!!
i worked for his father W.D moore logging co winter harbour 1981 fall to spring par ah dice