742: Debunking the Debunkers - The TRUTH Behind CO2, Forrest Fires, and Climate Change

Brian Nichols  
Today we're debunking the debunkers when it comes to the climate change conversation with Dr. Patrick Moore, let's talk about that. Instead of focusing on winning arguments, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and marketing and how we can use them to win in the world of politics, teaching you how to meet people where they're at on the issues they care about. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show. Wow, hey, they're trying to get here on The Brian Nichols Show. And thank you for joining us on for another fun filled episode. I am as always your humble host joining us live from our VNC studio to your lovely Eastern Indiana and today, I have one of my favorite guests returning to the program, and today we are debunking his debunkers joining us once again on The Brian Nichols Show, Dr. Patrick Moore. Welcome back.

Dr. Patrick Moore  
Hello there. Brian, nice to be with you again.

Brian Nichols  
Great to have you back on the show. Dr. Moore. I know our conversations always leave me feeling educated, enlightened and informed. Like I tell you, I hear from the audience in a slew of emails and messages after your appearances. They love having you on the show that love hearing about you debunking the perpetual myths and narratives that associate themselves with the global warming slash climate change narratives. And that today, I want to go ahead and take a second to debunk some of the debunkers who have gone out of their way to go after your brand new book. So before we do that, do us a favor for the folks who are joining us here for the first time in the program. Dr. Moore, who are you in? What's your role in this greater conversation towards climate change?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
Well, I just happened to stumble across a science called ecology when I was in university and did a PhD in that. And while I was doing it, I heard about this little group that was meeting in a church basement to stop us hydrogen bomb testing. I thought that was a pretty good idea, seeing as though it was the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the threat of all out nuclear war, and the emerging consciousness of the environment. I joined in on that and became a leader of Greenpeace for 15 years, until they were hijacked by the left unfortunately, it turned political. And I had to get out because they started pushing campaigns that had no basis in science than chlorine worldwide was the one that caused me to have to walk out the door. But I did so peacefully. And basically fashion myself a sensible environmentalist, basing my positions on science and logic, rather than misinformation, sensationalism, and fear, which is the hallmark of today's Greenpeace, and basically the whole environmental movement as they call themselves. But now they're really just a scare story machine.

Brian Nichols  
And you have a brand new book, fake catastrophe, or fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom. And we've had you on the show to talk about that book at length. But since that books come out, of course, the detractors have as well. And today, Dr. Moore, I want to take a moment and go after some of these detractors over at the website is the Thai correct me if I'm wrong in the name, there's a Ye

Dr. Patrick Moore  
yes, the Tai Yi is one of the names for the spring salmon, or the Americans call it something different king salmon. Okay, king salmon, which we call the spring salmon is also called a tie, ie if it's over 30 pounds.

Brian Nichols  
Gotcha. Okay, well, let's start debunking some of these debunkers. The first I want to focus on was the IPCC hasn't found climate change is changing more rapidly, rapidly. That's the claim in your book. But according to the tai chi, that is not the case. Go ahead and give us the context between behind their argument and where your argument in the book actually lines up with the truth?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
Well, in general, this warming period that we're in now the modern warming period, or water and warm period, began around 1600 AD. The medieval warm period was around 1000 ad. From then it cooled into the Little Ice Age 1600 ad, that's 423 years ago, more than four centuries. That's when it started warming again. We didn't start using fossil fuels to any extent, until 150 years after that, and since then, the warming has continued at pretty much exactly the same pace that it did. From 1600 till about 1850 250. Two years, it hasn't changed in the slightest, in terms of its upward slope. And, in fact, about 150 years from now, we should expect the modern warm period to reverse itself again, and go back into a cooling period, as it has three times in cycles since the Minoan warm period, which was 3000 years ago. So that's the simplest way I can put it, there is no indication that the rapid increase in co2 that we have caused replenishing the co2 in the global atmosphere and oceans, not adding to it. All the co2 we're putting into the atmosphere came from there in the first place. All of the fossil fuels that we are burning, were once made of life, that life got lost in the sediments and turned into oil, gas, and coal. All the carbon in that oil, gas and coal used to be in the environment. And all we're doing is putting it back where it came from, and replenishing it back to a healthy level. Even today, with 400 Plus ppm. That's only half what the plants would prefer. And they'd even like double that. That's why greenhouse growers around the world purposefully inject to double and triple the co2 in their greenhouses above what's in the natural atmosphere. That's why we know for a fact that 30% increase in growth of natural forests and farm crops is largely due to the increase in co2 that we have put back into the environment, to replenish it to levels that are more conducive to life. It's as simple as that. And you don't need to go any further in terms of the whole idea that more co2 is going to cause runaway global warming and all that it isn't happening and it isn't going to happen.

Brian Nichols  
Let's talk about one of the claims in your book that there's a clear downward trend in species extinction. And in the article from the Tyee. It's a referencing a portion of the graph, which shows a total of 413 recorded extinctions between 1870 and 2009. More rights during the last 100 years, the number of extinctions has declined by about 80% Sounds good, largely due to the efforts of naturalist hunters, environmentalists and politicians that gave their time towards this cause attributing early disappearances towards a European colonization. And over hunting. However, here comes our skeptic Craig Hylton, Taylor, in an email, who was the head of the International Union of Conservation of Nature's Red List of endangered species describes your graph as quote, not good saying that because breaking extinctions down by decade is, quote, not very helpful because of the lag time between extinction and a species being recorded as extinct by the union. Dr. Moore, your response?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
If you can understand what that means. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't till about 100 years ago that the average person even cared about extinction. Maybe a few naturalist did, but it wasn't until the passenger pigeon went extinct in the United States and Canada, that people really started thinking about this. Up until then extinction was just, oh, well, there's none left. And the dodo bird on Mauritius and many other species went extinct due to human overhunting to basically take them all out. Even native people like on New Zealand, the people who were all I had was fears, right, but they put about seven species of flightless birds to extinction before Europeans even arrived there. So there were extinctions going on all the way through human evolution. One of the interesting things is because humans evolved in Africa, the animals evolved with them. And so the animals adjusted to the humans ability. But when humans came to North America, the animals here had never seen human beings before. And it wasn't very long ago, that we came here in historical time, like 15,000 years ago, compared to beginning half a million years ago, and Africa as we evolved from apes, to humans, and develop tools and stuff like that. And when we came to North America, we wiped out quite a few different species. And interestingly, other species came here with us over the land bridge from Asia when the sea was 400 feet lower than it is today. And there was a pathway across there. The wolves came here from the old world. The grizzly bear came here called the Eurasian brown bear on the other side, the moose came here called LK on the other side, the reindeer came here. Now we call them caribou. But those are the same species that came from that side. Interestingly, horses and camels are new world species. They didn't exist in the old world. They went the other way. And the people on the other side thought, wow, these things look useful. horses and camels that wasn't that long ago. and 15,000 years ago, and they became the main pack animals and ridding animals of the whole Old World. But the people on this side that came from the other side, ate them all. And the only ones left are the llamas. They're in the Campbell family, and alpacas, but all the others, including all the horses were exterminated, because it looked pretty good to eat. And so the people who came from Asia to here never figured out how important those animals could have been for transportation, whereas the people on the other side did. So I don't know what that says about the intelligence of new world people. But there you go.

Brian Nichols  
Let's go to another attempt to debunk part of your book that's talking about the, as you claimed a decrease in forest fires, which right now I know, obviously, is a relevant topic of conversation with the wildfires in Canada, which we are getting all the the smoke and deliciousness in the air being sent down here to the States. So one of the claims in the debunking of your book was that while you were using data prior to 1983, that was not actually accurate data. What's your response to that?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
Well, it was their data. I mean, the Forest Service had this graph, ever since 1935, or whatever that goes back to the 1800s. And forest fires were way more important back then than they are now because there was nobody to put them out. And like, there's three things that cause forest fires, first trees, you need trees, to have forest fires, and they are flammable. So if you have a lightning storm, and that's probably what caused most of those fires in Quebec, they all happened at once, when there was a lightning storm. So that makes sense. Now, some people have this conspiracy theory that eco freaks are starting these fires on purpose. I don't believe that to that extent, there are arsonists who start forest fires. So along with lightning, the other thing that starts forest fires is people through campfires that are left burning through throwing cigarette butts out the window without putting them out. And arson, those things are all very much involved in starting forest fires. But forest fires are not caused by climate change. The temperature is not hot enough to spontaneously start a fire. It's as simple as that. A fire in a forest has to start with either lightning or fire, like lightning is sort of like fire in the air coming down as it's very hot. It's amazing when lightning strikes a sand a beach with sand, it congeals that sand it liquefies that sand and makes it into a stone. And it's that hot. So it's easy to understand why lightning causes forest fires. But the other thing that causes forest fires to be so severe these days, is the lack of proper management of the forests. In the old days, when we didn't have fossil fuels, every fall in every settlement, every village, every town, every city, people went out into the forests around and gathered every stick of dry wood there was of Deadwood. It's the easiest to get it's already dry from the summer, and that makes your fuel for the winter, they would also chop live trees down and use those for firewood as well. But especially all the dead wood would be collected. And it's when dead wood is allowed to build up the reason there has been an increase in fires, and nothing like it was back in the day when they've expunged the evidence, nothing like it. But there's been an increase because the forests, especially in the West of the United States, where it's largely federal land, public land, controlled from Washington, DC, a bunch of greens in Congress are controlling the way it's managed. And their basic idea is you just leave it alone. And then everything will be way better than if anybody ever cuts a tree or takes any wood out of it or does anything to it. So hands off. And that is not the way to manage the forest. If you look at the US southeast, which is where most of the lumber now comes from, in the United States. Compared to the US southwest. There's very few fires in the forests of the southeast. They're just as extensive their coniferous forests of pine and other coniferous trees, just like the forests of California, and the West. And that's where all the fires are. So it's management that is responsible for the extreme amount of fires in that area these days, lightning you can't do much about you have to be just ready to go in and put the fire out. And thankfully, there are some people who are willing to risk their lives to do that.

Brian Nichols  
Let's talk about another one of the claims in your book, which is carbon dioxide isn't the main cause of climate Change? Well, according to the person who had the graph that you use in your book that they actually created, they say, well, that's not accurate. Well, this is actually not being used properly. Again, it's their graphs. It's their information. So Dr. Moore, what's your response to that?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
This is why I titled my book fake invisible catastrophes. Because the universal theory of scare stories, as I like to call it, is that virtually every scare story today is based on things that are either invisible. In other words, the average person cannot observe it, and see what's actually happening. Nobody can point to co2 and say, look what the co2 is doing. Radiation is the same. That's how it's why it's easy to scare people about radiation because it's invisible. And whatever the bad thing is in GMOs, it must be invisible. But not only that, it doesn't have a name like radiation and co2, at least have names. Right? But the bad thing in GMOs has no name, there's nothing that has no name. If we know about something, and we give it a name. So actually, it's non existent. And they we've been able, these people have been able to scare half the population of the world over something that doesn't exist, which is invisible and non existent at the same time. The other category is remote polar bears and, and coral reefs. The reason they are the icon for climate change is that nobody can go and count the polar bears at the North Pole, except a few scientists, and hardly anybody is going to go and snorkel the whole coral reef, the Great Barrier Reef or any other large area of reef to find out how many corals are, are left there, when in fact, the polar bear population has grown by at least four to five times in population, since the treaty was signed to end hunting, unrestricted hunting on polar bears in 1973. No one knows that happened, because no one's telling them because they don't want to tell them that that was the reason why polar bears were declining, was over hunting. That hasn't been happening since 1973. The polar bears have grown from about 6000 to about 30,000 or more during that time. Now they say, Oh, yes, but there'll be extinct in 2100, or something, you know, which we don't have a clue about, and decides which the coral reefs when they said in 2016 93% of the Great Barrier Reef is dying, that's actually not dead. It's dying. You know, if you're dying, you're still alive. Right. And the same thing, they said it's in its final terminal stage, as if there are other terminal stages before the final one. So they, yeah, they use this phony use of language to make it seem as though 93% of the coral reef is actually dead. Last summer, was announced by the people who who count the amount of coral that's growing on the Great Barrier Reef, and said in the 38 years since they'd been taking detailed records, this is the highest coral cover, there's been since then. And that made about three publications in the world. Whereas the announcement that 93% of it was dead, must have been in 3000 publications around the world. And I bet that even today, most people think that the Great Barrier Reef is dying, when in fact, the warmest ocean in the world is the great triangle. The Coral Triangle of Indonesia, which is by far the warmest ocean in the world never gets cold has the highest biodiversity of corals more than 600 species and the highest biodiversity of reef fish more than 2000 species of any coral reefs in the world. That's because it's the warmest ocean in the world. And if the world got even a little bit warmer than it is now say, by one or two degrees, corals would spread further, they would not die. They make it out as though it's just at the very edge of all the corals dying now because it's getting so hot. No. The world has been cooling for 50 million years out of the Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred 50 million years ago. It has done nothing but cool since then, we are in the Pleistocene ice age right now, with co2 at one of the lowest levels it's ever been in the history of the earth. And they make it out that the earth is boiling and the co2 is higher than it's ever been. That is the lie.

Brian Nichols  
So as we go towards the tail end of today's episode, I want to read one paragraph here from the Thai article. And then it starts out and it just encapsulates everything from a scientific discussion debate standpoint where we are today. Not all the scientists I contacted respond to requests for comment or as fully as Murray, I one of the scientists quoted this article and his colleagues did. One told me it would be an endless waste of time, I would have to write a book to debunk more he's not going to win any big global warming argument. So it's easy for me just to let it go. Yet, even if more and his allies won't win any arguments. That doesn't mean they can't win followers who will frustrate climate action by governments in court aerations the success of more fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom is proof of that doctor more if that is not more telling than any of the other claims or the attempts to debunk the debunkers as we've gone through today, I mean, what more do we need to say they really are at the point. And we see this right now in the conversation of the I forget that scientist named Dr. Hurwitz, I think it is refusing to debate RFK over on the Joe Rogan podcast when it comes to the the COVID vaccine. There they are in a point right now, where they're just in the trust the experts trust the science mentality and thinking that just screaming that enough is enough. And it's changed I think, over the past few years, where more people are, in fact, starting to be skeptical towards the so called experts, and they are looking for the truth. They're trying to figure things out for themselves. Instead, just being force fed, whatever the expert opinion of the day is. So what would be your response there to that that paragraph and I guess what's your overall take on the whole trust the Science Trust, the expert debate that we are facing today, for example,

Dr. Patrick Moore  
anybody who calls co2 carbon, or carbon pollution is clearly not a scientist, scientists are very specific about what they're talking about. And carbon dioxide and carbon are two completely different things. There's no similarity between them at all, except co2 has carbon in it. But that goes for all of the elements. When you put one element together with another and make a compound like sodium chloride, for example. Chlorine gas, pure chlorine is very, very toxic, and so are all the other halogens chlorine, bromine, fluorine, they kill bacteria. And if you eat too much of it yourself, or breathe it in, it will kill you. But when you make it into table salt, it becomes an essential nutrient. When you make it into sodium chloride, for bleaching and making things, antiseptic, you know it clean, it kills germs. That's why it's so important. So yet, at the same time, Greenpeace, the reason I left was because they started a campaign to ban chlorine world wild white and called it the poison. Know the devil's element. Yeah, they called polyvinyl chloride, PVC, otherwise known as vinyl, what your credit cards are made out of. They call that the devil's element. So it's just a bunch of propaganda. There is nothing at all credible about someone who calls carbon dioxide carbon. And if they call me a climate denier, they're also lying, because I do not deny that there's a climate, I do not deny that the climate changes. They call you a climate change denier. Of course, it changes. It's been changing all through the history of the world. But what they mean is that I'm not a scare story monger, right? I'm not trying to freak people out, and make them think that the world is coming to an end like Greta Thunberg. And, you know, and all these people do, it is just such a shame that people stoop to this kind of tactic of trying to scare people into doing what they say, when in fact, we should be having intelligent conversations about this. And the intelligent conversation shows us that no, this is not a high level of co2 Historically, and life flourished when co2 was far higher. And this is not a high temperature. If you look at it historically, before this, there was 250 million years before this ice age 250 million years when there was no ice on either pole. And life flourished on the poles, not just at the equator, and in the temperate zones, the whole earth was warm. And life flourished everywhere, during these periods during the dinosaur era, for example. So the idea that it's too hot, and there's too much co2 is absolutely and completely false and ridiculous. If you study the history of the world.

Brian Nichols  
The book is fake invisible catastrophes, oh, I just mess it up fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom. There we go. The book is available over on Amazon. Dr. Moore, it's always a great conversation to have, where we're debunking the debunkers do us a favor as we wrap things up today, what would you be your final thoughts to put a nice bow on today's episode?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
My final thought is please people study the science. This has been turned into a completely political attack on Western Civilization, basically, Russia, India and China are not into this. And they you know, if you add Africa, and most of South America and South Asia, you've got two thirds of the world population that don't even believe in any of this and they are right not to. If you look at Modi, now the leader of the world's most populous country, he has a really, I'd say realistic view of what's going on around this objects. And so do many of the other leaders in the developing world. There, they just have to go along with it to a certain extent, or they won't get the aid that they want from the rich countries. But it's the rich countries that have gone all crazy here. And I don't know why that is. But we've got this group of people who actually think the world is coming to an end, if the temperature goes up by another half a degree Celsius, that is such a stupid thing to say, half a degree Celsius wouldn't make hardly any difference to anything. If it did happen, maybe it will, it's gone up one degree since 16 101 degree and it was cold back then, and crops failed, and people died of starvation. We don't have that now, because we have very good science for our agriculture, very good science for our climate, and weather, we can predict the weather, you know, two weeks out sometimes, but these people think you can predict the climate out 50 years. And that's all some kind of computer model. That is just a, it's totally phony. Computer models only put out what you put in. So your assumptions go in there. And all these assumptions are based on this idea that co2 is somehow the control knob of the global climate, which has absolutely no basis in scientific proof whatsoever.

Brian Nichols  
The book is fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom available over on Amazon. And folks, all you got to do to find it is go to your shownotes today, click the link, it'll bring you over to go to Amazon and get your own copy today. And also, while you're going ahead and click on some links, go ahead and follow Dr. Moore over on social media and for our audio listener. Dr. Moore, where can folks go ahead and reach out to you if they want continue the conversation?

Dr. Patrick Moore  
Well, EcoSense now is my Twitter handle. I have 152,000 followers at this point and climbing 1000 a week or so. Having a very good conversation there and sticking to the facts and answering, when people come back with replies even sometimes if they're really negative and even insulting, I will reply and try to help people understand what's this all about? So do come and visit me there. Also, when you look at my book, fake invisible catastrophes, look at the other one, which will be right alongside it called Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout is the history of the first 15 years of Greenpeace when we did a lot of really good stuff. And it went wonky after that. But it also goes through all the different subjects in a slightly different than fake invisible catastrophes, which focuses on some specific ones, particularly the fact that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch twice the size of Texas and growing 15 times larger than we thought it would is fake. It does not exist. There is no Pacific Garbage Patch, read my book, and you will see for yourself.

Brian Nichols  
That's a conversation for another day or folks go ahead and check out my past interviews with Dr. Moore. I will include those links right here in the show notes as well. And by the way, folks, if you are enjoying today's episode, you know the drill go ahead and give it a share when you go ahead and do that. Make sure you tag yours truly at BT Nichols liberty, Twitter, Facebook and wherever it is, you're on social media. And also go ahead and tag Dr. Moore as well. And by the way, yes, today's conversation is a little controversial. It might get the content moderators over at YouTube man so while you if you are following us on YouTube, well thank you. If not hit that subscribe button and notification bells same single time we go live. But number two, just to be safe, cover your bases head over and support us over on rumble but also over on Ben swans sovereign sovereign media big fan over there. And also you get to see today's episode before everyone else as a sovereign exclusive. So I will see you guys over there. But other than that, folks, thank you for joining us. And thank you, Dr. Moore for joining us again. So with that being said, thank you for joining us, folks. We'll talk to you soon Broncos if you're on The Brian Nichols Show for Dr. Patrick Moore. We'll see you next time. Thanks Brian.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai