Patrick Moore is a PhD in ecology, an environmental activist, and an opponent of climate change deniers. He was one of the original members of the environmental group, Greenpeace, and was a founding member of the International Union of Concerned Scientists (IUS). In this episode, he explains why he thinks Bill Nye is not a scientist, and why you don't need a PhD to be an environmentalist.
00:00:00.000The deniers of naturally caused climate change are saying that two degrees of warming will be disastrous and that it will destroy agricultural production.
00:00:56.000That is right, and actually when I started my PhD in ecology, the word was not yet in the popular press.
00:01:03.000It was a word that really nobody knew.
00:01:06.000The word environment had started to come into use, but ecology, which was up until then an obscure branch of the life sciences of biology, Okay, so to be clear, you would be considered a scientist and would it be considered a science relevant to the environment and climate?
00:01:31.000Well, the reason that ecology is so relevant to the climate issue is it's an interdisciplinary subject.
00:01:38.000Ecology is about the relationships among all the different factors in the environment, the atmosphere, the ocean, the earth, the sun, the planets, etc.
00:01:46.000So you can make it as big or small as you want.
00:01:49.000You can look at the ecology of a microcosm, like a small lake, or you can look at the ecology of the whole earth, or Sure.
00:01:59.000People keep talking about climate science.
00:02:03.000There's no such thing as climate science in the sense that climate science is a whole array of different disciplines interacting.
00:02:11.000You've got meteorology, you've got atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics, you've got astrophysics and the sun, you've got oceanography, you've got the whole terrestrial biosphere with all the forests and the crops and the soils.
00:02:25.000Rocks and all the ice on the poles and all of those things are interacting with each other in ways that we don't understand perfectly, but we're gaining more and more insight into it as time goes on.
00:03:43.000But here's my only – the reason I bring this up is because I know people are going to try and discredit you in this very interview saying, well, he's not – insert XYZ. And my point is anyone can have an opinion, but people like Bill Nye, they will use the argument against someone like me who doesn't have a bachelor's in any kind of scientific field saying, well, listen, I'm the science guy.
00:04:05.000So for people out there listening, this guy is as much of the science guy as anybody out there.
00:04:10.000Something else, too, before we get into some...
00:04:11.000I would like to get into some of the nitty-gritty because I'm very compelled by your arguments, and I think a lot of people haven't heard them.
00:04:25.000Well, while I was doing my PhD in ecology, I'd grown up in the wilderness, so I had a natural affinity for nature.
00:04:33.000And this time was the hippie era, the height of the Cold War, the height of the Vietnam War, the threat of all-out nuclear war, and the emerging consciousness of the environment.
00:04:42.000So Greenpeace was the synthesis of the long-standing tradition of peaceful or nonviolent protest against the establishment, along with this newly emerging consciousness, the green.
00:04:53.000So green was the environment and peace was the people and civilization.
00:04:59.000And we chose as our first campaign, I joined it before it was even named Greenpeace, when it was called the Don't Make a Wave Committee, and was a member of the first voyage to Alaska, to the Aleutians, to protest what the United States was doing and testing hydrogen bombs underground there.
00:05:16.000So that was a symbol for our opposition to the threat of nuclear war.
00:05:21.000And that was the last H-bomb the United States ever detonated.
00:05:24.000So we kind of started off with a bang, so to speak.
00:05:27.000Well, you started off stopping a bang, so to speak.
00:05:38.000Well, there's 15 years of history in between then and when I left.
00:05:42.000And during that entire time, I was in the top committee, whether it was the original board of directors or the international board of directors when we formed Greenpeace International in 1979.
00:05:53.000So that's eight years after it started.
00:05:55.000And then I was one of five international directors for my final six years in the organization.
00:06:00.000As we drifted, and I don't mean that in a negative way, from the focus on nuclear war, because we also stopped French atmospheric nuclear testing in the South Pacific after a couple of years of campaigning.
00:06:13.000And then someone came to us, Paul Spong's his name, he's a PhD too.
00:06:17.000And he had been looking after the first captive orca, or killer whale as they were called then, and had come to find how intelligent The Japanese are pretty rough.
00:06:42.000He appealed to us that we were the only protesters that knew how to go out in boats, because we had been doing these voyages to stop nuclear testing, whereas most protesters were just going down the street with a placard.
00:07:23.000We sort of lost the peace part because we were now involved in all these eco campaigns that didn't really care much about the people who were doing the whale killing.
00:07:35.000I think the psychology changed to where now humans were portrayed as the enemies of the earth, the enemies of nature.
00:07:42.000And I just didn't agree with that large issue of us being the only evil species on the planet.
00:07:50.000It's too much like original sin for me, and I'm not into that.
00:07:54.000Well, you know, that's not true that you say that because orca whales are vicious.
00:08:34.000I just want to set this up because people on the Internet have a very short attention span, and then we'll give you the opportunity to expand on it.
00:08:42.000You are one of the most vocal skeptics, so to say, or deniers, depending on who you ask, of climate change.
00:08:49.000Before we get into the reasoning, before we get into the science that I know you've presented, a litany of times which many people refuse to listen to, In a nutshell, what is your position on the currently sort of mass-accepted concept of man-made climate change?
00:09:05.000Well, Stephen, first, there is actually no proof that we are causing the warming.
00:09:11.000There's a number of reasons to say that.
00:09:14.000The evidence is actually against The hypothesis that we're causing the warming, because there's been warming and cooling cycles all through the history of life, and some of them are longer than others.
00:09:26.000Like, the last ice age before this one was 300 million years ago, and then it was warm for nearly 300 million years before it got cold again like it is now.
00:09:37.000But there's smaller cycles, and the ice age we're in now has cycles called major glaciations, which there have been over 20 of in the last 2.5 million years when the ice age set on in the northern hemisphere.
00:09:51.000Ice came in the southern hemisphere many million years earlier because it's completely different.
00:09:55.000But the earth has cooled gradually in fits and starts for the last 50 million years.
00:10:02.000We are at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period and that is well known and the graphs are available on the internet to show you that just after the time of the dinosaurs, well 15 million years after the time the dinosaurs went extinct, The Earth was at its hottest in hundreds of millions of years.
00:10:28.000So, we've had these 22 major glaciations, and for the last million years, they've been every 100,000 years almost in lockstep with the Milankovitch cycles, which has to do with the orbit of the Earth and the tilt of the Earth.
00:10:44.000We also know that there was a Minoan Warm Period, a Roman Egyptian Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and now the Modern Warm Period.
00:10:52.000In between each of one were cooling periods, the last one being the Little Ice Age, which began to end around 1700, as the temperature started warming again, rather than cooling.
00:11:05.000Just for example, the last time the River Thames froze over in England was 1814.
00:11:10.000It had been freezing over regularly for about three or four or five hundred years before that, but it stopped then and hasn't frozen over since.
00:11:17.000We didn't cause that warming from 1700 to 1814, obviously, and we didn't actually cause this Warming trend to start at all in 1700.
00:11:29.000Why would that be obvious if people would argue because of humans and the agricultural revolution and methane from animals?
00:11:38.000Could they make the argument that there was greater human activity, greater livestock activity during that period, which would have been the catalyst for warming?
00:11:50.000There's no reason to believe that it isn't just a continuation of the warming that had already started, and it isn't happening at any more rapid a rate.
00:11:58.000Just going back to the early 1900s, from 1910 to 1940, It warmed the same amount as it did between 1970 and 2000, which was the last major spurt.
00:12:13.000Nassau now has so manipulated its temperature curve as to hide the cooling that occurred between 1940 and 1970.
00:12:35.000Well, when you put a sticker price on it like that.
00:12:38.000Same reason they keep saying there might be life on Mars.
00:12:42.00040 years after it's been absolutely certainly proven that there isn't any life on Mars.
00:12:46.000They just float the life on Mars thing every time they want to send a rocket there so that people will be in favor of it because we might find life on Mars.
00:12:54.000But they know, James Lovelock proved when he designed the life detection system for the first Mars lander, which was looking at the atmosphere For example, on Earth, if you went to another planet and found that there was lots of oxygen in the atmosphere, you could be almost certain there was life on that planet, even if you couldn't see it.
00:13:17.000oxygen wouldn't be in the atmosphere if it weren't for life yeah there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere yes put it there I why no and most humans can survive cannot survive without oxygen Jared knows oh he can go down for a long time without coming up for air so let's get back to there's guessing with the warming okay well first off you just talked about 1.8 billion dollars you know NASA and government funding I know what people say Are you funded by big energy companies?
00:13:48.000They will always try to discredit the person or somehow question the source.
00:13:52.000So I've got to do that to be fair here, if you can answer it to the audience.
00:13:56.000I am not in the pay of any major fossil fuel company.
00:14:01.000A few years ago, I did one public service announcement in which I showed that the oil sands, after they are mined, are being put back to an original forest ecology, the boreal forest of Canada.
00:14:14.000Because they're saying to people who've never seen what's going on that the boreal forest is being destroyed by mining the oil from the sand, which they're actually cleaning the sand.
00:14:24.000The oil is oozing into the Athabasca River from the natural oil that's in that sand and has been for millions of years.
00:14:32.000But they're taking it off and letting us use it to run our cars.
00:14:37.000And so I just wanted people to see the truth of what is really being done here in Canada, because in New York and London and Berlin, they're telling everybody that we're wrecking our whole environment, and it's like a pimple on an elephant.
00:14:50.000I mean, the boreal forest is 10% of the world's forest, the Canadian boreal forest.
00:15:07.000So here's kind of as a layman for me where I say, okay, it seems like the earth is warming.
00:15:13.000I'm not entirely convinced that men are the main cause of it or that it will have catastrophic results.
00:15:18.000And I'm certainly not convinced that the EPA or the Paris Agreement or what was it, the Kyoto Protocol before, or I watched Ted Turner propose China's one-child policy to be enforced globally.
00:15:29.000I'm certainly not far enough along down that trail.
00:15:31.000But it does seem to be that the Earth is warming.
00:15:33.000Now, are you saying that it is warming in a temporary scale, but in the grand scheme of the timeline of the Earth, it's not statistically significant and we don't know that men are causing it?
00:15:48.000There is nothing out of the ordinary with what is happening now in any parameter you can name, temperature, atmospheric chemistry, etc., over the last 20 million years.
00:16:01.000Nothing is happening now that is more radical than things that have happened during the last 20 million years, even during the last 10,000 years, which is the interglacial period we're in now, where it's remained fairly steady at a higher temperature than it was during the depths of the last glaciation, which began to end about 18,000 years ago and was sort of officially over about 10,000 years ago, as those huge glaciers melted.
00:16:26.000So here we are now in the Holocene, which was actually warmer 5,000 to 9,000 years ago than it is now.
00:16:32.000We're also in a cooling period over that length of time.
00:16:36.000The only warming period we're in now is from 1700, at the peak of the Little Ice Age, or the depths of the Little Ice Age, as it would be better called.
00:16:46.000And so there's patterns on patterns on patterns.
00:16:50.000Well, let me ask you this, though, because what they would argue is, well, if you look at those periods during millions of years ago, we didn't have civilization like we do now.
00:17:01.000a one degree, I think, average per century or 1.2 degrees per century, as they're saying.
00:17:06.000If that is the case, let's say humans aren't the cause of it or we don't know.
00:17:10.000Would that have catastrophic results with modern civilization?
00:17:14.000Because people live in places like Miami.
00:17:25.000Because obviously the temperatures that occurred when the earth was very desolate but don't have the same results as they do with billions of people.
00:17:32.000Well, the earth wasn't desolate during the warm periods It had more vegetation than it does now.
00:17:38.000More forests and More green, in other words, because it was wetter.
00:17:43.000And the reason it was wetter is because it was warmer.
00:17:46.000So there's two reasons why additional CO2 in the atmosphere are entirely beneficial.
00:17:51.000The first is a slight warming would be beneficial, and it doesn't look as though there's going to be anything more than a slight warming.
00:17:59.000The catastrophists just exaggerated out of all proportion, and doom and gloom, the end is nigh, the world is coming to an end in 10 years.
00:18:06.000If we don't do something 10 years later, it hasn't happened, and then they predicted again, because people forget that they predicted 10 years later.
00:18:12.000Ten years ago that it was going to be gone in ten years.
00:18:14.000That's how the doomsday prophets have always worked from the beginning of time.
00:18:18.000They take a reasonably long time period, like ten years, and say, if we don't act today, in ten years we will be doomed.
00:18:28.000And then ten years goes by, the ice caps are still there.
00:18:32.000Al Gore predicted they'd be gone a few years ago.
00:18:35.000They're still there, and then he's saying it again now.
00:18:38.000Exactly the same thing he said before, which did not come true, and they get Nobel Peace Prizes for this.
00:18:44.000It's all through history people have honored those who proclaim doom is coming.
00:19:08.000Yes, CO2 is increasing due to our use of fossil fuels, but there's no proof of any causal relationship there, and the best example of that is ice cream consumption and shark attacks.
00:19:23.000Ice cream consumption and shark attacks?
00:19:25.000Ice cream consumption and shark attacks follow each other perfectly in pattern.
00:19:30.000Whenever shark attacks are high, ice cream consumption goes up.
00:19:35.000It's a fact, and that is because The strong correlation there is based on a common third factor, temperature.
00:19:43.000People go swimming in the summer and eat ice cream in the summer because it's warm.
00:19:49.000And that's why shark attacks and ice cream consumption are heavily correlated.
00:19:53.000And the key message there is even when factors are almost perfectly correlated, it doesn't mean there's a cause-effect relationship between the two necessarily.
00:20:11.000And if you look back in history, I've got all the graphs from different lengths of history.
00:20:17.000Look at the 100,000 year history, look at the 800,000 year history, the 2.5 million year history, the 500 million year history.
00:20:25.000CO2 and temperature are out of sync more often than they are in sync.
00:20:29.000And the reason they're in sync sometimes might be A whole slew of other factors that just happen to be affecting them to go in the same direction.
00:20:37.000But that doesn't mean there's a cause-effect relationship.
00:20:39.000And it's very, very clear in my mind from all I know, and I know the last 35 years I've been looking at this and study it every day, that this has turned into actually a scam.
00:20:53.000By now it should be really hot and everything should be drying up and the poles should be deserts or whatever, no ice by now.
00:21:03.000If people were right in their early predictions, they were wrong.
00:21:07.000And everything is going along just fine.
00:21:09.000So a little bit of warming would be a wonderful thing.
00:21:11.000I always say, why are there 300 million plus people in the United States and only a few more than 30 million people in Canada?
00:21:31.000You would think there'd be more in Canada, too, because with the cold and the strong beer and not a whole lot to do, you'd think there'd be a population boom.
00:21:38.000You would, except there isn't enough food to support that many people here.
00:22:13.000Furry animals that live in the northern Arctic places, they dig a hole in the ground and get underneath the frost for the winter.
00:22:24.000That's just what they have to do in order to survive.
00:22:27.000When you go from the equator to the North Pole, every step of the way, the species numbers decline.
00:22:36.000And frost and ice What about the coastal cities?
00:22:55.000Could a one degree, two degree temperature rise wipe out a lot?
00:23:00.000Because now we do tend to live on the coast, and that's a byproduct of, as you said, sort of an economical revolution, you know, with trade occurring by boats, occurring by plane.
00:23:08.000Places like New York, places like Miami, places even like Los Angeles or in Japan, could they see some serious negative ramifications from just a one or two degree rise?
00:23:22.000The one or two degree rise is not enough to do that.
00:23:26.000When we came out of the last glaciation, the temperature rose relatively quickly in time from, you know, enough to cover the whole of the northern hemisphere practically in ice right down into the northern tier U.S. states and covered most of Russia.
00:23:43.000That melted, and the sea went up over 400 feet as a result of that melting.
00:24:18.000It's one of our coldest winters in years here, and that is why, even though I will not make a prediction about the future, because I know it's not possible to be certain, and that the prophets of the future are almost always wrong anyways, the hypothesis that the solar cycles of maximums and minimums,
00:24:40.000and we're now entering what's called a grand solar minimum, where the Sun goes quiet for perhaps decades, and that allows the cosmic rays to come into our solar system, whereas when the Sun is in its active state with lots of sunspots, it's actually sort of fending those off.
00:25:00.000And the theory is that cosmic rays affect cloud cover by And this is actually science beyond me even, and I know a lot about science.
00:25:13.000But when it comes to really complex physics like that, it's not really my bag.
00:25:18.000But the Russians have been saying this for a long time, and many other people too.
00:25:23.000There's people all around the world in the scientific community that are watching this particular pattern of change, which is the grand solar minimum, theoretically taking us now into a new cooling period that will be temporary.
00:25:36.000I want to touch on that real quick, because we wrote about that at the website ladderwithcrowder.com, and I believe it was NASA. Courtney wrote about it.
00:25:42.000We'll get an overlay here, where, yes, they were saying there will be a half a degree, I believe, cooling period over the next half a century.
00:25:51.000But they said, but then after that, human-made climate change is still going to lead to catastrophe.
00:26:44.000The deniers of naturally caused climate change are saying that two degrees of warming will be disastrous and that it will destroy agricultural production.
00:26:56.000It will make vast tracts of Canada and Russia, which is where most of the land is in the world, So you can grow food there.
00:27:03.000You don't have to go many miles north of the U.S. border into Canada, and all of a sudden you can't grow anything there, because it's freezing cold eight months of the year.
00:27:15.000They've learned to use greenhouses in many of their more northern places.
00:27:19.000They actually have some population in their northern reaches, but that costs a lot of money to do that.
00:27:26.000They've got huge diesel electric plants running because they're off the grid way far up north.
00:27:31.000Now Russia is building floating nuclear reactors.
00:27:38.000come up the rivers to these settlements in the north.
00:27:56.000So I want to go back to the NASA issue with the solar radiation patterns.
00:28:00.000So we brought that up, and to me, just as a layman, it's remarkable the inconsistency, where they say a one degree rise in a century can be catastrophic.
00:28:06.000A half a degree drop in half a century...
00:29:42.000There is no peer-reviewed Document that actually does a proper job of analyzing how many scientists believe it's catastrophic and how many people don't.
00:29:53.000You can believe it's natural, or you can believe it's partly manmade, or you can believe it's mostly manmade.
00:30:01.000That doesn't mean you believe it's catastrophic.
00:30:43.000And so some people just wrap that whole thing up into one big ball and say, humans are causing catastrophic climate change, and it's proven.
00:30:50.000Well, none of those other steps are actually proven.
00:30:55.000Well, people, they do bring out those charts, and of course there's the hockey stick graph, which then they said was debunked, but then they actually said the person who debunked it, you know, again, questioned the source.
00:31:03.000No, no, the intergovernmental panel on climate change has discarded it.
00:31:09.000The reputable scientists that are on the side of the human-caused climate change, because they're employed by the IPCC, whose only mandate is to look at human-caused climate change.
00:31:16.000they're employed by the IPCC, whose only mandate is to look at human-caused climate change.
00:31:22.000And so if the IPCC said it isn't caused by humans, that would be self-abolition.
00:31:22.000And so if the IPCC said it isn't caused by humans, that would be self-abolition.
00:31:27.000So they are inherently conflicted by their own mandate.
00:31:27.000So they are inherently conflicted by their own mandate.
00:31:30.000That's the worst problem with this at an international level.
00:31:30.000That's the worst problem with this at an international level.
00:31:33.000The Russians are the main ones who are looking at natural causes of the cycle.
00:31:33.000The Russians are the main ones who are looking at natural causes of the cycle.
00:32:23.000Einstein was in a minority among his colleagues who believed that Newtonian physics was correct and perfect.
00:32:30.000And Einstein came along and brought in relativity, and at a certain point, 100 scientists signed a criticism of his theory of relativity, saying he was wrong.
00:32:48.000And that is true in science all through history.
00:32:51.000It only takes one person to see, you know, Faraday's understanding electricity, and Darwin understanding evolution, and Mendel understanding genetics.
00:34:18.000You mentioned if it goes up a degree or two degrees, the increase in climate, that it would make sort of this Alaskan or this tundra wasteland up there in Canada maybe semi-inhabitable or a place where you could farm.
00:34:33.000On the flip side of that, and I've heard this argument from climate change activists, a one or two degree increase, could that prove catastrophic and create famine in places much further south?
00:34:44.000For example, in the African Sahara, places like Zambia, where they have difficulty growing food.
00:35:56.000They were coming in contact with animals that apparently started here, went there, were coming back, and of course you're going to get sick.
00:36:01.000They could have used a fat pride movement back then, it seems like.
00:36:04.000It seems like it would have been useful.
00:36:06.000So it's a no, but how does that, again, the question is, people in Africa south of the equator, their crops wouldn't dry up?
00:36:15.000They wouldn't see heat waves that could destroy their agriculture?
00:36:19.000Between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, so for a 4,000 year period after the ice retreated and we came into this interglacial period, the Sahara was green and there were goat herders all over it, writing things on rocks.
00:37:19.000I think that, as a layman, I think that in the northern hemisphere, you could probably grow more.
00:37:24.000You'd probably see some die-off in the southern hemisphere.
00:37:26.000I didn't think of the overall consequence of warming resulting in precipitation, evaporation.
00:37:32.000The other factor, though, Stephen, that's really important, is when the Earth warms, it can warm five degrees on the pole and not hardly warm at all at the equator.
00:37:43.000It warms more towards the poles, both ways, than it does at the tropics.
00:37:49.000The hottest places in the world are not at the equator.
00:37:52.000They're at about 30 degrees, 20 to 30 degrees, where the Sahara Desert is.
00:37:56.000They're the driest places with the less clouds.
00:37:59.000The equatorial zone is very cloudy and wet.
00:38:04.000That's where all the rainforests are, in Indonesia, in Brazil.
00:38:29.000We got kicked out by the people further south, I think.
00:38:34.000I understand you're not a weathermanologist.
00:38:38.000That said, do you think, I feel as though you see, when people can't convince you that there's going to be catastrophic results of climate change, man-made climate change, they point to, oh, we'll scare them with just everyday evidence of, oh, see, there's a storm in Ohio.
00:38:54.000Irregular weather patterns as a way of convincing people of climate change.
00:38:59.000Do you see that as part of a strategy of these alarmists to try to take very tangible, hey, there's a drought in California, climate change?
00:39:08.000Are there super irregular weather patterns?
00:39:10.000It's a well-known ditty that first it was global warming, and then when it stopped warming, they changed it to climate change, and then they blamed everything with the climate, whether it was colder or hotter or drier or wetter, they blamed everything on climate change then.
00:39:24.000And then when that didn't bear out, you would say to them, well, what about last winter?
00:39:52.000But the truth is, if you Google Roger Pilkey, P-I-E-L-K-E Jr., who's at Boulder, Colorado, a tenured professor, who studied catastrophic events, not just weather, but The amount of economic loss due to extreme weather and all that whole area.
00:40:10.000It's been reducing now for years, especially the loss, because we are capable of building things which stand up to extreme weather.
00:40:20.000But the extreme weather has gone down.
00:40:22.000Tornadoes are down, hurricanes are down, drought is down, and flooding is down.
00:40:34.000I have family in Texas, and it's very, very lush and green, whereas when they moved to Texas 10 years ago, it was very, very dry and brittle and brown.
00:40:44.000And remember, up in northern Michigan, Lake Michigan, everyone there had to move their chairs back a little bit where they had on the beach because the lake was so full.
00:42:05.000Unless you get into the peer-reviewed, and it seems like it's very difficult to get any kind of peer-reviewed published paper that's skeptical of this.
00:42:12.000Well, that's the other reason that people think there's a consensus is because The LA Times, for example, some years ago now, adopted an explicit policy of not publishing anything that questioned man-made climate change.
00:42:26.000And many other publications have done that both explicitly or quietly.
00:42:34.000And this whole theory of solar activity and cosmic rays is getting almost no press.
00:42:41.000But in the background on the internet, there's lots of interest in it and there's lots of people who are following it.
00:42:47.000Because it seems to be, you know, Willie Soon, for example, Smithsonian Institute, astrophysics, was smeared by the New York Times because the Smithsonian takes money from companies that are in fossil fuels.
00:43:00.000Big companies that can afford to support the Smithsonian.
00:43:04.000He gets paid a salary by the Smithsonian, and he was smeared because he's in the pocket of oil companies.
00:43:27.000The Connellys, they published with him, showing that there's a much stronger correlation between total solar irradiance, sunshine basically, and the temperature Right.
00:43:52.000And the Russians, like we were talking about at the observatory there, their head of astrophysics and science, I can't remember his name.
00:43:59.000They've talked about this for a while.
00:44:05.000Moore, If we were able to find someone who could have a civil dialogue debate on this conversation, would you be willing to return and allow us to moderate it here?
00:44:19.000I can almost guarantee you that they will not accept.
00:44:22.000Right now you've got Alex Epstein, the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, and Leonardo DiCaprio's foundation president had agreed to debate him.
00:44:35.000This is the second time at the last minute.
00:44:37.000He had a 20,000 seat coliseum lined up for this debate on the moral case for fossil fuels.
00:44:43.000With the head of DiCaprio's foundation, the guy dropped out with no explanation and no communication to Alex just yesterday.
00:44:52.000Well, we've had that from our end too.
00:44:53.000But on the record, you would if we could find someone else who would agree to it.
00:44:57.000I'll debate anybody in an organized, properly organized debate structure, yes.
00:45:29.000I think you know what I'm talking about.
00:45:30.000But head on over there if this isn't the channel for you.
00:45:33.000I'm sure you'll find something there that you deem very insightful and informative.
00:45:37.000Also, I request that you come back here afterward and immediately leave a negative comment because we read those and those affect our lives directly.