Louder with Crowder - ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

00:00:00.000 The deniers of naturally caused climate change are saying that two degrees of warming will be disastrous and that it will destroy agricultural production.

00:00:09.000 The exact opposite is true.

00:00:13.000 So glad to have our next guest on.

00:00:15.000 He's been like my white whale.

00:00:16.000 I have been chasing him, but he's a busy man.

00:00:19.000 And he's a busy man because sometimes the people with the PhDs are.

00:00:23.000 Do you have his Twitter up there?

00:00:24.000 We do have his Twitter.

00:00:25.000 His Twitter is at EcosenseNow.

00:00:29.000 When it's not their actual name, I always have a problem remembering it.

00:00:32.000 But he was one of the original members of Greenpeace, PhD in ecology, if I'm not mistaken.

00:00:38.000 Dr.

00:00:38.000 Patrick Moore, thank you for being on the show, sir.

00:00:41.000 Great to be with you, Stephen.

00:00:43.000 Well, we're always glad to have a dissident on the program.

00:00:47.000 So for people who may not be familiar with you, first off, I want to make sure I'm getting all of this right at the top.

00:00:53.000 You have a PhD in ecology, correct?

00:00:56.000 That is right, and actually when I started my PhD in ecology, the word was not yet in the popular press.

00:01:03.000 It was a word that really nobody knew.

00:01:06.000 The 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?

00:01:31.000 Well, the reason that ecology is so relevant to the climate issue is it's an interdisciplinary subject.

00:01:38.000 Ecology is about the relationships among all the different factors in the environment, the atmosphere, the ocean, the earth, the sun, the planets, etc.

00:01:46.000 So you can make it as big or small as you want.

00:01:49.000 You 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.

00:01:59.000 People keep talking about climate science.

00:02:03.000 There's no such thing as climate science in the sense that climate science is a whole array of different disciplines interacting.

00:02:11.000 You'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.

00:02:25.000 Rocks 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.

00:02:36.000 Okay.

00:02:37.000 Well, I just wanted to clarify.

00:02:38.000 You would be more of a scientist in this field than, say, someone with a bachelor's in mechanical engineering.

00:02:42.000 I just want to make sure that that seems as though...

00:02:45.000 Yes, but I don't discount the layperson even.

00:02:49.000 Studying this thoroughly and having a good mind to analyze the information.

00:02:55.000 You don't have to be a PhD to understand the basics of the situation.

00:03:00.000 In particular, to understand how much uncertainty there is in this subject, rather than the whole science is settled dogma.

00:03:09.000 That's just...

00:03:13.000 Intellectual laziness, I suppose, to just say the argument's over.

00:03:16.000 Well, exactly.

00:03:17.000 To talk about it.

00:03:18.000 Well, you understand the reason I bring this up, and I talked about this, I said, listen, Bill Nye is not an atmospheric scientist.

00:03:22.000 He's not an ecologist.

00:03:24.000 He may be a great mechanical engineer.

00:03:27.000 Now, my only issue is...

00:03:28.000 He's not, by the way.

00:03:28.000 He's pretty filled with that.

00:03:29.000 He hated his job.

00:03:31.000 He loved for comedy.

00:03:32.000 It was very clear during the Fukushima situation that he didn't understand some of the very basics of nuclear physics, for example.

00:03:39.000 Right. 0.99

00:03:39.000 Well, neither do I, but I'm an idiot. 0.99

00:03:41.000 But I assume he is as well. 0.99

00:03:42.000 Him and I are in good company.

00:03:43.000 But 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.

00:04:05.000 So for people out there listening, this guy is as much of the science guy as anybody out there.

00:04:10.000 Something else, too, before we get into some...

00:04:11.000 I 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.

00:04:18.000 But you were...

00:04:19.000 Were you one of the founding members or one of the original members of the environmental activist group Greenpeace?

00:04:24.000 Tell people about that.

00:04:25.000 Well, while I was doing my PhD in ecology, I'd grown up in the wilderness, so I had a natural affinity for nature.

00:04:33.000 And 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.

00:04:42.000 So 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.

00:04:53.000 So green was the environment and peace was the people and civilization.

00:04:59.000 And 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.

00:05:16.000 So that was a symbol for our opposition to the threat of nuclear war.

00:05:21.000 And that was the last H-bomb the United States ever detonated. 0.75

00:05:24.000 So we kind of started off with a bang, so to speak.

00:05:27.000 Well, you started off stopping a bang, so to speak.

00:05:29.000 Yeah.

00:05:29.000 Let me ask, so people, we've established that.

00:05:33.000 What was the turnaround?

00:05:34.000 When did you leave Greenpeace?

00:05:36.000 What was the reason?

00:05:38.000 Well, there's 15 years of history in between then and when I left.

00:05:42.000 And 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.

00:05:53.000 So that's eight years after it started.

00:05:55.000 And then I was one of five international directors for my final six years in the organization.

00:06:00.000 As 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.

00:06:13.000 And then someone came to us, Paul Spong's his name, he's a PhD too.

00:06:17.000 And 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. 1.00

00:06:42.000 He 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.

00:06:54.000 Sounds like Berkeley!

00:06:57.000 We actually got in a boat and went out and confronted the Russian whaling fleet off California.

00:07:02.000 And that was in 1975.

00:07:05.000 That went around the world and was what you'd call viral today.

00:07:09.000 We called it Mind Bomb at that time.

00:07:12.000 Media Mind Bomb was coined by one of our members.

00:07:17.000 And it was an amazing ride.

00:07:21.000 But gradually, Greenpeace...

00:07:23.000 We 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.

00:07:35.000 I think the psychology changed to where now humans were portrayed as the enemies of the earth, the enemies of nature.

00:07:42.000 And I just didn't agree with that large issue of us being the only evil species on the planet.

00:07:50.000 It's too much like original sin for me, and I'm not into that.

00:07:54.000 Well, you know, that's not true that you say that because orca whales are vicious.

00:07:59.000 So are seals, sea otters.

00:08:01.000 They're mating patterns. 0.98

00:08:02.000 I have stand-up bits about this where I try and take some pretty rough stuff in the animal kingdom.

00:08:06.000 Of course, I use it as leverage to make fun of vegans. 1.00

00:08:09.000 But when people say animals don't treat each other as poorly as humans do, come again, stupid? 0.99

00:08:13.000 Some of what they do is on dolphins, for example. 0.99

00:08:16.000 As I'm sure you know, studying more than most mammals, they commit infanticide, some of them.

00:08:21.000 They kill for fun.

00:08:22.000 They rape other dolphins.

00:08:24.000 The point is, yes, the animal kingdom is not perfect.

00:08:28.000 I want to move on.

00:08:28.000 Okay.

00:08:30.000 So you move on from Greenpeace because their focus shifts.

00:08:33.000 Great.

00:08:34.000 I 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.

00:08:40.000 So you leave Greenpeace.

00:08:42.000 You are one of the most vocal skeptics, so to say, or deniers, depending on who you ask, of climate change.

00:08:49.000 Before 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?

00:09:05.000 Well, Stephen, first, there is actually no proof that we are causing the warming.

00:09:11.000 There's a number of reasons to say that.

00:09:14.000 The 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.

00:09:26.000 Like, 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.

00:09:36.000 So that's a big cycle.

00:09:37.000 But 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.

00:09:51.000 Ice came in the southern hemisphere many million years earlier because it's completely different.

00:09:55.000 But the earth has cooled gradually in fits and starts for the last 50 million years.

00:10:02.000 We 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.

00:10:21.000 The Eocene thermal maximum.

00:10:22.000 Everybody knows about it.

00:10:24.000 They just ignore it.

00:10:25.000 Everyone knows about the thermal maximum. 1.00

00:10:26.000 What are you, a moron, Jared? 0.98

00:10:28.000 So, 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. 0.99

00:10:41.000 Varying over time.

00:10:42.000 So we know that cycle.

00:10:44.000 We also know that there was a Minoan Warm Period, a Roman Egyptian Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and now the Modern Warm Period.

00:10:52.000 In 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.

00:11:05.000 Just for example, the last time the River Thames froze over in England was 1814.

00:11:10.000 It 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.

00:11:17.000 We 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.

00:11:29.000 Why would that be obvious if people would argue because of humans and the agricultural revolution and methane from animals?

00:11:38.000 Could they make the argument that there was greater human activity, greater livestock activity during that period, which would have been the catalyst for warming?

00:11:48.000 Of course, but they're just guessing.

00:11:50.000 There'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.

00:11:58.000 Just 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.

00:12:13.000 Nassau now has so manipulated its temperature curve as to hide the cooling that occurred between 1940 and 1970.

00:12:21.000 They've just eliminated it.

00:12:22.000 Why would they do that?

00:12:24.000 They just adjust the numbers.

00:12:26.000 But why?

00:12:27.000 What would be the motivation for NASA to do that?

00:12:30.000 $1.8 billion in public funding.

00:12:34.000 That's the motivation.

00:12:35.000 Well, when you put a sticker price on it like that.

00:12:38.000 Same reason they keep saying there might be life on Mars.

00:12:42.000 40 years after it's been absolutely certainly proven that there isn't any life on Mars.

00:12:46.000 They 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.

00:12:54.000 But 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.

00:13:17.000 oxygen 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?

00:13:44.000 Is that where you make your living?

00:13:46.000 That is the main criticism.

00:13:48.000 They will always try to discredit the person or somehow question the source.

00:13:52.000 So I've got to do that to be fair here, if you can answer it to the audience.

00:13:56.000 I am not in the pay of any major fossil fuel company.

00:14:01.000 A 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.

00:14:13.000 Yes.

00:14:14.000 Because 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.

00:14:24.000 The oil is oozing into the Athabasca River from the natural oil that's in that sand and has been for millions of years.

00:14:32.000 But they're taking it off and letting us use it to run our cars.

00:14:37.000 And 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.

00:14:50.000 I mean, the boreal forest is 10% of the world's forest, the Canadian boreal forest.

00:14:55.000 Yeah.

00:14:55.000 Right.

00:14:56.000 Well, I have to ask that question because you know that's going to be – those are the spears that always come out.

00:15:01.000 If someone – of course plenty of spears that you're not a scientist is the original one with people like me in which they're correct.

00:15:06.000 Okay.

00:15:07.000 So here's kind of as a layman for me where I say, okay, it seems like the earth is warming.

00:15:13.000 I'm not entirely convinced that men are the main cause of it or that it will have catastrophic results.

00:15:18.000 And 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.

00:15:29.000 I'm certainly not far enough along down that trail.

00:15:31.000 But it does seem to be that the Earth is warming.

00:15:33.000 Now, 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?

00:15:45.000 Is that kind of your presupposition?

00:15:47.000 No.

00:15:48.000 There 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.

00:16:00.000 Nothing.

00:16:01.000 Nothing 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.

00:16:26.000 So here we are now in the Holocene, which was actually warmer 5,000 to 9,000 years ago than it is now.

00:16:32.000 We're also in a cooling period over that length of time.

00:16:36.000 The 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.

00:16:46.000 And so there's patterns on patterns on patterns.

00:16:50.000 Well, 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.

00:17:01.000 a one degree, I think, average per century or 1.2 degrees per century, as they're saying.

00:17:06.000 If that is the case, let's say humans aren't the cause of it or we don't know.

00:17:10.000 Would that have catastrophic results with modern civilization?

00:17:14.000 Because people live in places like Miami.

00:17:17.000 Would it harm farming right now?

00:17:20.000 Would it harm the growth of industry?

00:17:23.000 Would there be famine and plight?

00:17:25.000 Because 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.

00:17:32.000 Well, the earth wasn't desolate during the warm periods It had more vegetation than it does now.

00:17:38.000 More forests and More green, in other words, because it was wetter.

00:17:43.000 And the reason it was wetter is because it was warmer.

00:17:46.000 So there's two reasons why additional CO2 in the atmosphere are entirely beneficial.

00:17:51.000 The 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.

00:17:59.000 The 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.

00:18:06.000 If 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.

00:18:12.000 Ten years ago that it was going to be gone in ten years.

00:18:14.000 That's how the doomsday prophets have always worked from the beginning of time.

00:18:18.000 They take a reasonably long time period, like ten years, and say, if we don't act today, in ten years we will be doomed.

00:18:28.000 And then ten years goes by, the ice caps are still there.

00:18:32.000 Al Gore predicted they'd be gone a few years ago.

00:18:35.000 They're still there, and then he's saying it again now.

00:18:38.000 Exactly the same thing he said before, which did not come true, and they get Nobel Peace Prizes for this.

00:18:44.000 It's all through history people have honored those who proclaim doom is coming.

00:18:50.000 So I don't understand.

00:18:51.000 I'm not a psychologist.

00:18:53.000 It must have something to do with psychology.

00:18:55.000 Well, the ice caps have shrunk.

00:18:56.000 The Antarctic ice caps have grown.

00:18:58.000 The ice caps have shrunken to a significant degree.

00:19:01.000 Yes, but that's because it's becoming warmer.

00:19:04.000 Right.

00:19:08.000 Yes, 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.

00:19:21.000 They are in perfect correlation.

00:19:23.000 Okay, hold on.

00:19:23.000 Ice cream consumption and shark attacks?

00:19:25.000 Ice cream consumption and shark attacks follow each other perfectly in pattern.

00:19:30.000 Whenever shark attacks are high, ice cream consumption goes up.

00:19:35.000 It's a fact, and that is because The strong correlation there is based on a common third factor, temperature.

00:19:43.000 People go swimming in the summer and eat ice cream in the summer because it's warm.

00:19:49.000 And that's why shark attacks and ice cream consumption are heavily correlated.

00:19:53.000 And 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.

00:20:02.000 There may be.

00:20:03.000 You have to prove it.

00:20:05.000 And they haven't proved it with CO2 and temperature in any shape, way or form.

00:20:10.000 Not even slightly.

00:20:11.000 And if you look back in history, I've got all the graphs from different lengths of history.

00:20:17.000 Look at the 100,000 year history, look at the 800,000 year history, the 2.5 million year history, the 500 million year history.

00:20:25.000 CO2 and temperature are out of sync more often than they are in sync.

00:20:29.000 And 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.

00:20:37.000 But that doesn't mean there's a cause-effect relationship.

00:20:39.000 And 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.

00:20:53.000 By now it should be really hot and everything should be drying up and the poles should be deserts or whatever, no ice by now.

00:21:03.000 If people were right in their early predictions, they were wrong.

00:21:07.000 And everything is going along just fine.

00:21:09.000 So a little bit of warming would be a wonderful thing.

00:21:11.000 I always say, why are there 300 million plus people in the United States and only a few more than 30 million people in Canada?

00:21:18.000 10%.

00:21:20.000 Our country is larger than yours.

00:21:23.000 And yet, there's only 10% of the number of people here.

00:21:26.000 There's only one reason for that.

00:21:28.000 One word.

00:21:29.000 Cold.

00:21:29.000 It's true.

00:21:31.000 You 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.

00:21:38.000 You would, except there isn't enough food to support that many people here.

00:21:42.000 We jet a lot of our food in.

00:21:44.000 And we do grow a lot of food in Canada, but we can't grow fruits here like the tropical fruits.

00:21:51.000 The key thing to understand about that though, with relation to people surviving in a warmer world, is that we are a tropical species.

00:21:59.000 We are not an Arctic species like penguins and polar bears.

00:22:02.000 We are a tropical species evolved at the equator, and the only reason we were able to come out of Africa was fire, clothing, and shelter.

00:22:11.000 Which other species don't...

00:22:13.000 Furry animals that live in the northern Arctic places, they dig a hole in the ground and get underneath the frost for the winter.

00:22:24.000 That's just what they have to do in order to survive.

00:22:27.000 When you go from the equator to the North Pole, every step of the way, the species numbers decline.

00:22:36.000 And frost and ice What about the coastal cities?

00:22:55.000 Could a one degree, two degree temperature rise wipe out a lot?

00:23:00.000 Because 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.

00:23:08.000 Places 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?

00:23:20.000 No.

00:23:22.000 The one or two degree rise is not enough to do that.

00:23:26.000 When 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.

00:23:43.000 That melted, and the sea went up over 400 feet as a result of that melting.

00:23:49.000 And that was just 10,000 years ago.

00:23:51.000 So we have to expect that natural climate change, and nobody's going to argue that that wasn't a natural climate change.

00:23:58.000 And that was climate change.

00:24:00.000 It went from really cold to just cold, like it is now.

00:24:04.000 Because I'm more than halfway to the North Pole from the equator here.

00:24:10.000 In just barely halfway to the North Pole from the equator, and it's cold where I am.

00:24:15.000 There's still lots of snow on the mountains.

00:24:16.000 It's supposed to be springtime.

00:24:17.000 Sounds like hell.

00:24:18.000 It'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,

00:24:40.000 and 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.

00:25:00.000 And 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.

00:25:13.000 But when it comes to really complex physics like that, it's not really my bag.

00:25:18.000 But the Russians have been saying this for a long time, and many other people too.

00:25:23.000 There'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.

00:25:36.000 I 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.

00:25:42.000 We'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.

00:25:51.000 But they said, but then after that, human-made climate change is still going to lead to catastrophe.

00:25:56.000 And my antenna went up.

00:25:57.000 Listen, we wrote about it, and people, of course, say, well, this is a misrepresentation.

00:26:00.000 No, the guy who created this study, who made this claim, still said man-made climate change is going to be a problem.

00:26:07.000 It doesn't matter what happens, Stephen.

00:26:11.000 Right.

00:26:14.000 An ice age could descend upon us and they would say it's just temporary.

00:26:17.000 It's going to come back to be a disaster.

00:26:19.000 Well, my issue as a layman is I look at it and say if a one degree...

00:26:23.000 It will be if it gets cold.

00:26:24.000 Right.

00:26:25.000 And I look at this...

00:26:26.000 Like more than half a degree.

00:26:27.000 If it gets two degrees colder, that would be one hell of a lot worse than getting two degrees warmer.

00:26:33.000 Because it affects agriculture.

00:26:35.000 Yes.

00:26:36.000 The deniers, and I call them the deniers because they're denying the actual evidence of what has actually happened over the history.

00:26:43.000 Well played.

00:26:44.000 The deniers of naturally caused climate change are saying that two degrees of warming will be disastrous and that it will destroy agricultural production.

00:26:54.000 The exact opposite is true.

00:26:56.000 It 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.

00:27:03.000 You 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.

00:27:15.000 They've learned to use greenhouses in many of their more northern places.

00:27:19.000 They actually have some population in their northern reaches, but that costs a lot of money to do that.

00:27:26.000 They've got huge diesel electric plants running because they're off the grid way far up north.

00:27:31.000 Now Russia is building floating nuclear reactors.

00:27:38.000 come up the rivers to these settlements in the north.

00:27:41.000 Sure.

00:27:41.000 That sounds like a good idea.

00:27:42.000 Yes.

00:27:43.000 The market of us in that is just makes your head spin.

00:27:46.000 And the media doesn't even pay any attention to it.

00:27:49.000 Russia, China, and India are now all ahead of the United States in nuclear technology.

00:27:54.000 That scares me.

00:27:55.000 But I want two questions.

00:27:56.000 So I want to go back to the NASA issue with the solar radiation patterns.

00:28:00.000 So 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.

00:28:06.000 A half a degree drop in half a century...

00:28:10.000 We'll be no big deal.

00:28:11.000 And then we'll go back to man-made climate change.

00:28:12.000 And of course, as you were talking about the Russians, I can't remember the guy's name, Medesedov something at the Polkovo Observatory.

00:28:18.000 It's a hard name.

00:28:19.000 Published...

00:28:19.000 Go to the website, Steven, website, The Next Grand Solar Minimum.

00:28:24.000 Yes.

00:28:25.000 And they predicted it actually, this one scientist, back as far as 2007-2009, he predicted it would begin between 2012-2015.

00:28:34.000 So he was off by a couple years, but now it's starting.

00:28:36.000 Still a better prediction than Al Gore, mind you.

00:28:39.000 But let me ask you this.

00:28:41.000 This is what people are going to be asking here because the science is very compelling.

00:28:44.000 And I can listen to someone who's a climate change catastrophist and go, well, that sounds convincing.

00:28:50.000 People will say, well, how is it that why do you think you've caught it?

00:28:54.000 And all the scientists, all this consensus in science, they've missed it and you've caught it. 0.79

00:28:59.000 And they'll say you're a quack.

00:29:01.000 How do you respond to that?

00:29:02.000 Why do so many in the scientific field agree on this concept of catastrophic man-made climate change?

00:29:09.000 You will find that nearly all that do believe that it's catastrophic are publicly funded. 0.99

00:29:15.000 The private sector would never fund this kind of crap. 0.85

00:29:18.000 The private sector funds things that may be something useful that's going The climate fear campaign is producing fear. 0.98

00:29:28.000 That is its main product, is to scare people into thinking that doom is coming.

00:29:33.000 And it works really well with many people. 0.99

00:29:35.000 But the fact is, the consensus hypothesis is crap, too. 0.98

00:29:40.000 It's a fabrication. 0.97

00:29:42.000 There 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.

00:29:53.000 You can believe it's natural, or you can believe it's partly manmade, or you can believe it's mostly manmade.

00:30:01.000 That doesn't mean you believe it's catastrophic.

00:30:03.000 Right.

00:30:04.000 You have to say, I believe, as Obama did, it's real, it's manmade, and it's dangerous.

00:30:13.000 Right.

00:30:14.000 You have to go all three steps.

00:30:15.000 Now, it is real.

00:30:17.000 No doubt about that.

00:30:18.000 And there's no scientist who denies that the Earth has warmed.

00:30:21.000 But we do know that NASA and NOAA have both manipulated the data set to make it look like it's warmed more than it actually has.

00:30:29.000 We know that for a fact.

00:30:31.000 But it has warmed.

00:30:32.000 That's a different issue.

00:30:34.000 Whether it is good or not is another question.

00:30:39.000 And whether it is man-made or not is another question.

00:30:42.000 These are other questions.

00:30:43.000 And 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.

00:30:50.000 Well, none of those other steps are actually proven.

00:30:53.000 Right.

00:30:55.000 Well, 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.

00:31:03.000 No, no, the intergovernmental panel on climate change has discarded it.

00:31:08.000 They've discarded it.

00:31:09.000 The 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.

00:31:16.000 they're employed by the IPCC, whose only mandate is to look at human-caused climate change.

00:31:22.000 And so if the IPCC said it isn't caused by humans, that would be self-abolition.

00:31:27.000 So they are inherently conflicted by their own mandate.

00:31:30.000 That's the worst problem with this at an international level.

00:31:33.000 The Russians are the main ones who are looking at natural causes of the cycle. 0.91

00:31:38.000 But here's the most important point.

00:31:41.000 Consensus is not a scientific word.

00:31:43.000 It has no place in science and never has.

00:31:47.000 It is the refuge of scoundrels who want to stop dialogue.

00:31:52.000 Michael Crichton said that.

00:31:52.000 Right?

00:31:54.000 And he's right.

00:31:56.000 And the fact here, go back in history.

00:31:59.000 They actually dare to use the flat earth as an example of how the climate change skeptics are flat earthers.

00:32:06.000 Right?

00:32:06.000 Actually, everybody was a flat earther.

00:32:09.000 That was the consensus.

00:32:11.000 Galileo and Copernicus and others proved that to be wrong.

00:32:17.000 They were in a minority.

00:32:19.000 They weren't the consensus.

00:32:21.000 Darwin was in a minority.

00:32:23.000 Einstein was in a minority among his colleagues who believed that Newtonian physics was correct and perfect.

00:32:30.000 And 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.

00:32:41.000 And Einstein's reply was, why 100?

00:32:45.000 One would be enough.

00:32:48.000 And that is true in science all through history.

00:32:51.000 It only takes one person to see, you know, Faraday's understanding electricity, and Darwin understanding evolution, and Mendel understanding genetics.

00:33:01.000 You know, these are modern figures.

00:33:03.000 So go back to Socrates.

00:33:04.000 He was one against all, right?

00:33:09.000 We have to destroy this idea that consensus has a place in science.

00:33:14.000 Consensus is a political and social word, meaning the people agree and all voted for this, most of them voted.

00:33:21.000 And consensus is a difficult word because it doesn't mean unanimous agreement.

00:33:25.000 Right.

00:33:26.000 It just means most.

00:33:29.000 Well then, what's the difference between consensus and unanimity?

00:33:34.000 is that in consensus there are people who disagree with the majority view.

00:33:40.000 There's every chance that they are right at any point in time of the dialogue because they often turn out to be right.

00:33:48.000 And so therefore they must be right sometimes if they are.

00:33:52.000 It happens.

00:33:53.000 It's happened all through history that even one person can be right and wrong.

00:33:58.000 And everybody else is wrong.

00:34:00.000 And that's how science works.

00:34:02.000 It doesn't work by consensus.

00:34:03.000 That's fascinating.

00:34:04.000 Okay, two more questions before we leave.

00:34:06.000 And, Duncan, do you have any questions that you wanted to toss?

00:34:08.000 I'm only convinced that a certain someone doesn't give a damn about the polar bears.

00:34:12.000 Yes, exactly.

00:34:13.000 Clearly, Patrick Moore does not care about the polar bears.

00:34:15.000 They're soulless killing machines.

00:34:16.000 They hunt humans. 0.90

00:34:17.000 All right, two questions.

00:34:18.000 You 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.

00:34:33.000 On 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?

00:34:44.000 For example, in the African Sahara, places like Zambia, where they have difficulty growing food.

00:34:50.000 Could there be that end result there?

00:34:53.000 No, there could not.

00:34:55.000 And the reason for that is when the earth warms and cools...

00:35:00.000 It does so exorbitantly towards the poles.

00:35:04.000 So, three million years ago, all of Canada's Arctic islands were forested with giant camels in them.

00:35:10.000 The camels originated in this side of the world, actually, and they migrated the other way when we came this way.

00:35:16.000 So did the horses.

00:35:18.000 It's an interesting story, but it's too long for this.

00:35:21.000 The long and the short of it is, the people who came this way ate all the camels and horses over here. 1.00

00:35:27.000 The people on the other side said, whoa, those things look useful.

00:35:30.000 And so they didn't eat all of them.

00:35:32.000 And the whole silk trade...

00:35:36.000 Silk Trail was based on camels.

00:35:38.000 And then there's the horses of Arabia. 1.00

00:35:40.000 So it just goes to show you how stupid the people that came this way were. 1.00

00:35:46.000 I think they could have used it. 1.00

00:35:47.000 Well, we've talked about that.

00:35:48.000 That's a big part of the sort of idea of Native American germ warfare. 0.86

00:35:51.000 Well, biological warfare years before germ theory.

00:35:54.000 They hadn't domesticated the horse.

00:35:56.000 They were coming in contact with animals that apparently started here, went there, were coming back, and of course you're going to get sick.

00:36:01.000 They could have used a fat pride movement back then, it seems like. 0.90

00:36:04.000 It seems like it would have been useful.

00:36:05.000 Millions of years ago.

00:36:06.000 Okay.

00:36:06.000 So 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?

00:36:15.000 They wouldn't see heat waves that could destroy their agriculture?

00:36:19.000 Between 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.

00:36:32.000 So we know that to be a fact.

00:36:35.000 And it was a little bit warmer then, one or two degrees warmer than it is now.

00:36:39.000 So what's the deciding factor there, if it was warmer and it was more lush?

00:36:44.000 More water being evaporated off 72% of the world's surface, which is the oceans, and thereby more rain falling on the land.

00:36:53.000 So a warmer world will almost certainly categorically be a wetter world.

00:37:00.000 There may be some places where it gets drier, but there'll be a lot more places where it gets wetter.

00:37:05.000 And this is just a fact, that in a warmer climate there'll be more moisture in the atmosphere.

00:37:12.000 And that will maybe make more clouds.

00:37:14.000 You just blew my mind, Dr.

00:37:15.000 Moore.

00:37:16.000 I mean, honestly, that's one thing that I hadn't really considered.

00:37:18.000 I thought, well, okay.

00:37:19.000 I think that, as a layman, I think that in the northern hemisphere, you could probably grow more.

00:37:24.000 You'd probably see some die-off in the southern hemisphere.

00:37:26.000 I didn't think of the overall consequence of warming resulting in precipitation, evaporation.

00:37:32.000 The 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.

00:37:43.000 It warms more towards the poles, both ways, than it does at the tropics.

00:37:49.000 The hottest places in the world are not at the equator.

00:37:52.000 They're at about 30 degrees, 20 to 30 degrees, where the Sahara Desert is.

00:37:56.000 They're the driest places with the less clouds.

00:37:59.000 The equatorial zone is very cloudy and wet.

00:38:04.000 That's where all the rainforests are, in Indonesia, in Brazil.

00:38:09.000 Yeah.

00:38:09.000 And the Congo of Africa, that's the equatorial rainforest.

00:38:14.000 So that movie sucked. 0.81

00:38:15.000 They are, you know, we are a tropical species. 0.98

00:38:20.000 I come back to that all the time.

00:38:22.000 Yeah.

00:38:22.000 We couldn't live where we do now.

00:38:25.000 Then what the hell are you doing up there in Canada?

00:38:27.000 Hold on, Naki Jared has a question.

00:38:29.000 We got kicked out by the people further south, I think.

00:38:34.000 I understand you're not a weathermanologist.

00:38:38.000 That 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.

00:38:53.000 Irregular weather.

00:38:54.000 Irregular weather patterns as a way of convincing people of climate change.

00:38:59.000 Do 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?

00:39:07.000 Or is it valid?

00:39:08.000 Or is it valid?

00:39:08.000 Are there super irregular weather patterns?

00:39:10.000 It'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.

00:39:24.000 And then when that didn't bear out, you would say to them, well, what about last winter?

00:39:31.000 It was really cold.

00:39:32.000 And they would say, well, that's not climate, that's just weather.

00:39:36.000 Right.

00:39:37.000 Climate is different than weather.

00:39:39.000 Now all you hear is extreme weather.

00:39:41.000 Because that's all they've got left to latch onto is a big rainstorm or a big snowstorm.

00:39:46.000 Suddenly the California record snowstorm is part of climate change.

00:39:51.000 Right?

00:39:51.000 And part of...

00:39:52.000 But 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.

00:40:10.000 It's been reducing now for years, especially the loss, because we are capable of building things which stand up to extreme weather.

00:40:20.000 But the extreme weather has gone down.

00:40:22.000 Tornadoes are down, hurricanes are down, drought is down, and flooding is down.

00:40:29.000 Worldwide.

00:40:29.000 Well, you know, I can only speak anecdotally.

00:40:32.000 We can speak anecdotally.

00:40:34.000 I 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.

00:40:44.000 And 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.

00:40:51.000 The beaches were almost gone.

00:40:52.000 Yeah, the lake was so full.

00:40:54.000 Stephen, today, The United States has the lowest level of drought, 7.4% or something, than since they started the drought index.

00:41:03.000 Now, they didn't start it in the 30s, so it would have been a lot.

00:41:08.000 You know, the 30s had the dust bowl, and so there was more drought then than there has been any time since then.

00:41:16.000 And it was hotter then in the 30s.

00:41:18.000 If you go to realclimatescience.com, or maybe it's.org, but anyways...

00:41:27.000 Steve Goddard's website, you will see that he shows how they've changed the records to eliminate the really big heat storms of the 30s.

00:41:41.000 1934-36, there were hundreds of cities in the United States over 100 degrees on the same day in July.

00:41:47.000 And that's never happened since.

00:41:49.000 And yet they've suppressed that now.

00:41:51.000 He's got the headlines from the newspapers and the stories that talk about it.

00:41:55.000 But nobody, you know, everybody's memory is like three years.

00:41:59.000 Well, they always claim, well, this isn't peer-reviewed, and he's a quack, and they debunk them because they consider it a blog.

00:42:04.000 That's what happens.

00:42:05.000 Unless 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.

00:42:12.000 Well, 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.

00:42:26.000 And many other publications have done that both explicitly or quietly.

00:42:30.000 They just don't publish it.

00:42:32.000 And there's lots to publish.

00:42:34.000 And this whole theory of solar activity and cosmic rays is getting almost no press.

00:42:41.000 But in the background on the internet, there's lots of interest in it and there's lots of people who are following it.

00:42:47.000 Because 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.

00:43:00.000 Big companies that can afford to support the Smithsonian.

00:43:04.000 He gets paid a salary by the Smithsonian, and he was smeared because he's in the pocket of oil companies.

00:43:13.000 No, that's not why he was smeared. 1.00

00:43:15.000 He was smeared because he says it's the sun, stupid. 1.00

00:43:19.000 And he shows in publications with a couple of... 1.00

00:43:22.000 There's a family in Ireland that is just amazing on this.

00:43:25.000 They're all PhDs.

00:43:27.000 The Connellys, they published with him, showing that there's a much stronger correlation between total solar irradiance, sunshine basically, and the temperature Right.

00:43:52.000 And the Russians, like we were talking about at the observatory there, their head of astrophysics and science, I can't remember his name.

00:43:59.000 They've talked about this for a while.

00:44:00.000 That's kind of been his main bag.

00:44:02.000 Gosh, we could go on forever.

00:44:05.000 Listen, Dr.

00:44:05.000 Moore, 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?

00:44:18.000 Yeah, I would.

00:44:19.000 I can almost guarantee you that they will not accept.

00:44:22.000 Right 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.

00:44:35.000 This is the second time at the last minute.

00:44:37.000 He had a 20,000 seat coliseum lined up for this debate on the moral case for fossil fuels.

00:44:43.000 With the head of DiCaprio's foundation, the guy dropped out with no explanation and no communication to Alex just yesterday.

00:44:52.000 Well, we've had that from our end too.

00:44:53.000 But on the record, you would if we could find someone else who would agree to it.

00:44:57.000 I'll debate anybody in an organized, properly organized debate structure, yes.

00:45:02.000 Sure, absolutely.

00:45:03.000 And the truth is, you know, 20,000 Coliseum, this will, if we do it here, we'll reach millions of people.

00:45:08.000 We'll make sure both parties agree upon it.

00:45:10.000 I watched Ivanhoe yesterday, and today I'm going to use the mace and chain.

00:45:16.000 That will be my chosen weapon.

00:45:18.000 Yes, there you go.

00:45:19.000 We appreciate it.

00:45:20.000 You are a gentleman.

00:45:21.000 Hey, if you liked this video, subscribe by clicking the button that says subscribe.

00:45:24.000 If not, there's a strong chance that you're an Armenian genocide denier.

00:45:28.000 Wink, wink.

00:45:29.000 I think you know what I'm talking about.

00:45:30.000 But head on over there if this isn't the channel for you.

00:45:33.000 I'm sure you'll find something there that you deem very insightful and informative.

00:45:37.000 Also, I request that you come back here afterward and immediately leave a negative comment because we read those and those affect our lives directly.

Louder with Crowder - May 02, 2017

ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript