17 votes

What's the Deal with Global Warming and Climate Change? I Speak with GreenPeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore.

In this episode of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, I welcome in co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore! Dr. Moore describes how he first became interested in the science of ecology, and how his concern with environmental destruction led him to co-found Greenpeace. I discuss with Dr. Moore just why he left Greenpeace, and he gets into some of the ideological issues he has with many aspects of the environmental movement today. Dr. Moore goes on to explain the problems he sees with the hysteria surrounding global warming and climate change, and how he sees the future of energy unfolding.

For past episodes, check out the Lions of Liberty Podcast Archive!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Global climate changes

is Mother Nature breathing.

Wait till she has had enough of the fleas that are called modern humans!!!

NOSHEEPLE

"Global warmers" are the "science deniers."

The "global warming crowd" has been around saying this crap since the 70's or so. And they have based all of their rhetoric on their "prediction models."

And those "prediction models" have failed to match reality even closely.

So these "global warmers" are "denying science, denying the scientific method, and falsely claiming SCIENCE as their source of ideas."

They are a disgrace to "science."

BTW: Keep them coming Marc.

4000 year old wood found under Swiss glacier

Yeah, I'ma newbie, didn't know quite where else to put this, and your comment seemed as good a place as any...

Larry Bell
Newsmax
Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:05 CDT

Dr. Christian Schlüchter's discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with "a wild landscape and wide flowing river."

Full story at
http://www.sott.net/article/280759-Receding-Swiss-glaciers-r...

dumber than micro-organisms

Given an organism in an environment one can state that the most adaptive will, by definition, be the most likely to survive. In order to adapt to an environment, an organism must understand it. One could say that the ability to understand ones environment is perhaps the best measure of intelligence that exists. As far as evolution is concerned it is the only measure that counts. Being able to do math and calculate a trajectory does not count, but being able to dodge a predator definitely does count. If two organisms share about the same abilities to react to a given situation then the organism that can read the situation the most accurately is the one most likely to survive.

Now consider Global warming. A search of the internet will quickly demonstrate that the vast majority of species on the planet are moving to the poles, or are moving, if they can, to higher elevations. In addition to that, the timing of migration patterns are changing. If this data is not accurate then not only are all climate scientists part of this climate gate conspiracy, but so are all botanists, ethologists, marine biologists, and microbiologists, entomologists and probably some others. So there is the first bit of information: If you do not believe that the climate is warming on a global scale then in terms of evolution you are less knowledgable about your environment (less intelligent) then the great majority of animals, plants, insects, and even ocean dwelling single celled organisms like plankton. Yep, you are dumber than a plant or an insect.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/animals-migra...

The pattern of GW denial sort of follows that of, and is similar to the arguments used to deny the correlation between smoking and cancer and a host of other diseases. You had actual scientists looking at the best avaialbe evidence on one side, and then you had paid charlatans with degrees in science working for corporations whose interests were threatened on the other. That was not 100% mind you, but it was pretty much how the advocates of the two positions lined up.

Now in this case on one side we have not only actual scientists doing their best to explain available information in light of best understood inplications of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, black body radiation etc. but you have almost all other life forms on the planet. By other forms of life, I mean almost every entity on the planet living in all but the most except extreme areas.

Now if we accept GW, the next question is: what causes it? Trust me, it is not the sun which for the past 50 years has remained fairly constant or produced less radiation over that time while temperatures have risen. It has not changed much in the past 2000 years. Neither has known cosmic ray counts. This leaves galactic unicorn farts and CO2. We know about CO2, and how it would work, and the most likely results. We have no evidence of unicorn farts, but we do know about bloviation sources from hot air producers.

Another red herring from AGW people are the failure of computer models and the testability of theories. If the prediction of a theory fails then the theory is false. Well folks, then I guess that the germ theory of disease is false. Clearly, many people exposed to "so called germs" never get sick. On the other hand people get sick who have never been exposed to these "so called germs" But wait, they are not really germs, they are viruses. See --- those scientists keep changing their story. Because they are in the pay of big pharma who just want to sell us drugs to make us sick so that they can make us more sick. And space that is another hoax. You know that the sun goes around the earth, just go outside and look for yourself. What? You believe the so called scientists?

And speaking of hot air producers. This is a standard equation in statistics, the gausian integral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral. If you can not follow the proof, then you do not have a basic understanding of one of the most basic equations in statistics, which means that you do not understand statistics, which means that you are as competent to argue a point of view on AGW as you are to advocate competing forms of cancer treatment without ever having had a course in biology.

But since AGW deniers accutely suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect, they will continue to bloviate.

Cyril's picture

Right. Test data fitness to model's predictions doesn't matter

Another red herring from AGW people are the failure of computer models and the testability of theories. If the prediction of a theory fails then the theory is false.

"Red herring"?

Sure, then I can make any model I want, and by completely disregarding the fitness of the test data to the model's predictions, I can also prove anything I want - like Global Cooling-because-of-Coca Cola sales.

How convenient. Next, let's make Coca Cola illegal.

Sorry, but after hearing about their stuff since the late 80s and haste towards their proposed "solutions", well, these days I tend to favor the hypothesis that the global warming alarmists are the real deniers... of science - and they have "good" (read: materialistic) reasons for that :

http://www.dailypaul.com/313421

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Thoroughly enjoyed this.

Dr Moores comments on the fantasy of accurate climate models reminded me of this.

http://www.sixtysymbols.com/videos/butterfly.htm

Thanks.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

Hanging out watching some antennae television with the kids..

and the ole "The Polar Bears are Drowning" commercial came on. Just how ridiculous is that one?

I have no doubt whatsoever that Global Warming is a Scam

All the research money flows towards the proponents. The opponents are marginalized, ridicules, fired, can't receive research grants. Then, they tout the "overwhelming consensus". Of course it is overwhelming. Money talks!

These people love inflating the money supply, making energy more expensive, etc. They love these hidden massive taxes. Control energy and you control everything. And what better justification for controlling energy than a phony baloney crisis.

But even more pathetic than their limitless dishonesty and greed are the imbecilic little creeps that actually enable them by believing this swill.

Cyril's picture

I've relayed this, a while back :

I've relayed this, a while back :

Global Warming Alarmists are the Real Deniers

http://www.dailypaul.com/313421

And this also, more recently :

Global Warming Data FAKED By Gov't to Fit "Climate Change" Fiction

http://www.dailypaul.com/322982

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Japan Radiation Scare Hugely Overblown by Western Media (Mar. 19

(Environmental radiation levels in Tokyo / day): http://monitoring.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/monitoring/past_data.html

This link gives you the Toyko, Shinjuku hour by hour reading on minimum, maximum, and average reading for each day: http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/emergency/monitoring.tokyo-eiken....

Sorry but i know politicians

Sorry but i know politicians lie a lot but they wouldn't even be talking about it if a million scientist with hard evidence over the last 50 years weren't telling us all this information. There should be no debate. Global Warming is man made and real. Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear. Pretty sure SEEING all the ice melting and the hard data shows that as co2 increases temperature is BOTH warmer and colder. The air holds more moisture and also cools and warms FASTER which many ignorant people online forget about. I'm libertarian but don't just hear one thing and act like i know what im talking about. I have seen both sides of the coin on this issue and there should be no debate at all. It's here. Period. The misinformation mainly republicans are spreading is that it doesn't exist which is pure lies. The oil companies are real happy thanks to their misinformation campaign working wonders on dumb people.

robot999's picture

And I quote....

"There should be no debate". Really, says who? You? And you are why?

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

The fundamental weakness with

The fundamental weakness with the anthropogenic global warming model, to my mind, is that it does not take natural heat sources into sufficient consideration or adequately assess their impact on the measurements provided as "proof" of the severity of anthropogenic global warming. Ex: How many undersea volcanoes are there that are active, and how much are they contributing to global warming? To my knowledge there is no answer to that question; if there is no answer to that question, how is it then possible to assert the problem is anthropogenic global warming if the natural causes and anthropogenic causes are incapable of being isolated for accurate measurement?

It's like saying:
x = unquantifiable anthropogenic warming.
y = unquantifiable natural warming.
"x + y = climate change; solve for x and y"

p.s. I am not contending that anthropogenic warming does not exist, but that the dialogue on GW and CC has been hopelessly muddled by disingenuous premises, likely for political/financial gain.

p.p.s. The belief that consensus exists is mistaken, see and read in its entirety: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/07/climate-hustle-or-ame...

"For what avails a golden key if it cannot give access to the object which we wish to reach, and why find fault with a wooden key if it serves our purpose?" -Augustine

Hoax

Positively. It's not even worth bothering to debate online at this point.

If one cannot step back - take their time to examine the actual data AND understand the real motivations of the specific interests and individuals that are pushing this meme the hardest - then one will never arrive at the truth.

Its one of the biggest hoaxes every perpetuated in human history. And the evidence of that grows more irrefutable every year.

Sorry, but there is no evidence

of anthropogenic global warming. First of all, CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It is but a minute fraction of air. Secondly, it is an insignificant greenhouse gas. CO2 could double and there would be virtually no change in temperature. To paraphrase the guest's Senate testimony, there have been times in the earth's history when CO2 has been twice as high as today and there was an ice age. Other times have seen less CO2 than today and much warmer temperatures. AGW alarmists need to explain this.

Third ..

Note that all the biggest globalist promoters and backers of this meme - are also almost all (to a man) the same mega financial interests, institutions and people that are suspiciously ignoring *actual* environmental devastation in our food supply, pharmaceutical and medical system ..

Now note that these same global interests created and *own* these systems that are causing disease poverty and death on a Biblical scale worldwide, as they strip mine the wealth of the world with their phony financial system and subsequent control of these industries.

Its the same people. So why would anyone trust them to be telling the truth about global warming, smart grids, and carbon taxes. This makes *no* rational sense to me whatsoever (beyond all the hard data that proves that they are lying).

"A million?"

A million scientists agree on GW?

Do you refute the claim that the earth has not warmed in the past 18 years?

I'm not dogmatic on this issue;I'm interested in different viewpoints.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

A million? really? What are their names?

First of all, your hyperbole notwithstanding, the term is not global warming, it's man made global warming. The earths temperature is cyclical, therefore it warms and cools all the time. Second, refuting a claim is not the question. The question should be, is the earths warming harmful? Obviously it's not since we as a species and other species, have been adapting to temperatures for MILLIONS of years.

Anything the government and its news media says is a scam, a ruse, a lie, a misdirect. They want all of your money and property. Next up they will control the water.

When did common sense become a super power?

scawarren's picture

Good show, Marc.

Good show, Marc.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

And a

Very interesting guest!

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

Thanks, gents!

Thanks for listening!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

get ready for global extinction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEORgT4mIew

never believe anything until it has been officially denied

Fukushima

Something I meant to get into but it got glossed over and I didn't have the time to delve into any deeper. Scary stuff!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*