I just read the article I am going to link to and reference here. I thought it was a good read. It had information I have been aware of for quite some time now. It did however, present some information worded in ways I myself had not considered before. This was especially true when he speaks of "Plastics".
While I know the propaganda arms of various political powers have greatly controlled this narrative for some time now it is still something I occasionally speak up about. I don't have much in particular to say in this case. Since Patrick Moore framed some things in ways I hadn't encountered before I think it is worth sharing some of that here. I also linked to the article above so you can read it in it's entirety, follow any links within, etc.
“Greenpeace was ‘hijacked’ by the political left when they realised there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to a political fundraising organization,” Moore said.
He asserted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is “not a science organization.” The World Meteorological Entity and the United Nations Environment Program make up this political organisation.
“The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with ‘information’ that supports the ‘climate emergency’ narrative.
Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.”
The Left ‘Hijacked’ Greenpeace
The organization’s basic values, according to him, were “green” for the environment and “peace” for the people, but peace had largely been forgotten and green had taken precedence.
“Many [so-called] ‘environmental’ leaders were now saying that ‘humans are the enemies of the Earth, the enemies of Nature.’ I could not accept that humans are the only evil species. This is too much like ‘original sin,’ that humans are born with evil, but all the other species are good, even cockroaches, mosquitos, and diseases,” Moore argued.
(Emphasis added is my own)
“But the people who said this were not volunteering to be the first to go away. They behave as if they are superior to others. This kind of ‘pride’ and ‘conceit’ is the worst of the Cardinal Sins,” Moore said.
“At the time I decided to leave Greenpeace, I was one of 6 Directors of Greenpeace International. I was the only one with formal science education, BSc Honors in Science and Forestry, and Ph.D. in Ecology. My fellow directors decided that Greenpeace should begin a campaign to ‘Ban Chlorine Worldwide.’”
He was the only formal scientist in Greenpeace as a director at the time. I myself don't think a person needs to have "formal" anything to be a scientist. They simply need to adhere to the scientific method. Opinion and emotion are not part of the scientific method. It is designed to help us avoid being a slave to our own biases. I do think it is important to understand that most of those that say "Trust the science" (which is anti-scientific method) do think that you need a formal education to be a scientist. In that case Patrick Moore was the only Director of Greenpeace that had that distinction.
“Greenpeace named chlorine ‘The Devil’s Element’ and calls PVC, polyvinyl chloride, or simply vinyl, ‘the Poison Plastic.’ All of this is fake [and] to scare the public. In addition, this misguided policy reinforces the attitude that humans are not a worthy species and that the world would be better off without them. I could not convince my fellow Greenpeace directors to abandon this misguided policy. This was the turning point for me,” Moore said.
Moore responded when asked how Greenpeace used its big contributions, saying money was used to fund “a very large staff” (possibly numbering over 2,000), extensive advertising, and fundraising initiatives.
“The International Treaty on Polar Bears, signed by all polar countries in 1973, to ban unrestricted hunting of polar bears, is never mentioned in the media, Greenpeace, or politicians who say the polar bear is going extinct due to melting ice in the Arctic. In fact, the polar bear population has increased from 6,000 to 8,000 in 1973 to 30,000 to 50,000 today. This is not disputed,” Moore said.
“But now they say the polar bear will go extinct in 2100 as if they have a magic crystal ball that can predict the future. In fact, this past winter in the Arctic saw an expansion of ice from previous years, and Antarctica was colder during the last winter than in the past 50 years.”
Like many in the “climate emergency” sector, Moore said he does not pretend to be an expert or foresee the future with certainty.
The Goal of the ‘Environmental Apocalypse’ Theory
“I believe the human population has always been vulnerable to people who predict doom with false stories,” Moore said.
“The Aztecs threw virgins into volcanos, and the Europeans and Americans burned women as witches for 200 years claiming this would ‘save the world’ from evil people. This has been [referred to as] ‘herd mentality,’ ‘groupthink,’ and ‘cult behavior.’ Humans are social animals with a hierarchy, and it is easiest to gain a high position by using fear and control.”
Moore added that he is committed to proving to people that the situation is not as dire as they are led to believe that the environmental apocalypse hypothesis is really about “political power and control.”
“Today, in the richest countries, our descendants are making decisions that our grandchildren will have to pay for,” he said.
“Predictions that the world is coming to an end have been made for thousands of years. Not once has this come true. Why should we believe it now?”
The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide
“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.
“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”
Moore made it clear that the “minority opinion” is not about the temperature history of the Earth; rather, the relationship between the temperature and CO2 is the subject of dispute.
Moore presented a graph showing the temperature in central England during a period of 350 years, from 1659 to 2009. He said that “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t.”
Then he gets to something I speak of frequently...
In addition to stating that CO2 is the foundation of all life on Earth and that its concentration in the atmosphere is currently lower than it has been for a significant portion of life’s history, Moore called the demonization of CO2 “completely ridiculous.”
I've said many times that if we want a brown and dying planet then all we need to do is continue thinking we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I contend we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than we currently have.
‘Wind and Solar Power Are Parasites on the Economy’
“Solar and wind power are both very expensive and very unreliable. It is almost like a mental illness that so many people have been brainwashed to think entire countries can be supported with these technologies,” Moore said.
“I believe wind and solar energy are parasites on the larger economy. In other words, they make the country poorer than if other more reliable and less costly technologies were used.”
According to Moore, companies that provide wind and solar energy heavily rely on government mandates, tax write-offs, and subsidies. Under these mandates, people are compelled to buy wind and solar energy, even if it is more expensive, under the guise that it is “environmentally friendly.”
“Millions of people pay more for wind and solar energy while a few people make millions of dollars, marks, pounds, etc. It is a bit like a Ponzi scheme in the stock markets,” Moore added.
“They require vast areas of land, are not available most of the time, and require reliable energy such as nuclear, hydroelectric, [coal, and natural] gas to be available when wind and solar are unavailable.”
According to Moore, the mining, transporting, and building of wind and solar farms need significant amounts of fossil fuels. In many places, they also don’t generate nearly as much energy during their lifetimes as is needed to construct and maintain them.
“Why not use reliable energy [such as nuclear, hydroelectricity, natural gas, etc.] as the primary source?” Moore questioned, adding if that were the case, “then wind and solar would be unnecessary.”
Then he got into some things I've never seen put this way and hadn't considered myself. The following is ultimately why I shared this in a post.
‘Plastic Is Not a Toxic Substance’
“Plastic is not a toxic substance. That is why we package and wrap our food in it, to prevent it from becoming contaminated. Plastic does not magically become toxic when it enters the ocean,” Moore said.
“Of course, they say on one hand that plastic will never break down, and then, on the other hand, they say it will quickly decay into ‘microplastics,’ which, of course, are conveniently invisible so no one can observe or verify this for themselves. How clever!”
Moore claims that our digestive system can distinguish between “food” and plastic or minute sand particles. No matter how minute the sand is, our body does not absorb it into our bloodstream.
He claimed that, like driftwood, floating plastic in the ocean is similar to a little floating reef. It gives marine organisms a surface to attach to, lay their eggs on, and eat things that are attached to it.
“Pollution is usually toxic or causes harm to life. Plastic is simply ‘litter’ beside the road. It is not hurting anything. One exception is discarded fishing nets, not because they are plastic but because they are shaped to catch fish.
“The environmental community should work with the fishing industry to stop throwing damaged nets in the sea and bring them back to the dock, where they can be recycled, used in a waste-to-energy plant, or discarded safely,” Moore added.
My closing comments about this post...
I included large swaths of quotes from the article I linked to. I did add my own emphasis and I did add my own points at various locations. I make no claims that this is mine or that I should be voted on to large degrees for sharing the work of other people. Vote accordingly and as you see fit.