All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:44:16
Patrick Moore
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Danny Paul!
Come and subscribe to the podcast, baby!
I love Danny Paul!
And there's another time, subscribe with me!
I love Danny Paul!
Welcome to The Deling Pod with me, James Delingpole, and I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
It's my old friend, Patrick Moore.
Patrick, I haven't seen you.
When did I last see you in the back of a cab in Paris at the COP26?
Whatever it was, or did I see you in Barcelona?
I mean, in Madrid?
I think it was in Paris at the COP in 2015, so long ago.
Time flies when you're having fun.
We had all our youth and beauty then still, and now look at us.
Absolutely.
I feel like we've done it pretty well.
Nora Jones, Efren, sorry, Nora Efren wrote a book titled I'm Not Happy With My Neck, and I always liked that.
Because she talked about how her neck had aged.
And mine's done the same.
You're making me all neck conscious.
I was thinking, how much has the world changed in those... 2015 is quite a while ago.
Do you remember?
We were in Paris and we were...
We were quite nervous because it was, was it, am I right in thinking it wasn't that long after the Bataclan killings and the, you know, those various terrorist atrocities or am I imagining that?
No, it was almost immediately afterwards.
The streets were full of gendarmes in large numbers, protecting each other from terrorists, and hopefully the general public as well, but it was a... the subways, the underground was full of police.
It was a really nasty time.
I thought I was remembering correctly.
There was a sort of sense of unease, wasn't there?
One was always aware that one could be machine gunned at any time.
Well, that's how it felt slightly.
Yes, like in a restaurant or a stadium watching sports.
It really gave people a sense of vulnerability.
And I don't blame them.
I felt the same way when I was there.
I was glad to see the police.
Apparently that's changed in America slightly.
While we're just reminiscing, did you come to that brasserie where we had lunch with Bob Carter?
Yes, I believe so.
I was with Bob Carter quite a lot during that meeting.
We were in the same hotel, along with Willie Soon and many others.
I mean, we were having our alternative conferences and we brought out the Climate Hustle film, a premiere in Paris.
That's right.
We were pretty excited about the situation, not really knowing that bald-faced lying was going to become the standard.
for news.
Yes.
Hard news.
And that's something I don't know really where to start with, because how do you counter someone who is lying on purpose?
Sir David Attenborough comes to mind, Greenpeace, the Smithsonian, all these Supposedly, well I don't know about Greenpeace, but Attenborough is supposed to be telling the truth.
That would seem to be one of the things that he's expected to do.
And yet in my book, as you know, I have shown three examples where he's outright lying, where he knows for sure that he is.
Okay, because he knows that he's not telling the truth.
He knows that he's not telling the truth.
And how does that, how does that, how do we deal with that?
Yeah. - No, that's one of-- You're wetting my appetite for the main course, but I was just dealing with the Amuse girl first.
I just wanted to remember happier times, because I was thinking about this.
Even though we were We thought at the time the biggest problem in the world was the chance of being machine gunned to death while having a mule fruit or whatever in a restaurant.
And actually, that world seems a world of cozy innocence compared with the world we live in now.
And just before we move on to the main event, I just wanted to say to anyone who remembers him how sadly we all miss Bob Carter.
I never thought he was going to keel over and die of a heart attack not long after that.
I think it's going to last forever.
No.
No, it was a surprise.
And many of us believe that it was a broken heart, in a way, because he'd been fired from Jamestown University not long before that for standing up for the truth about the climate.
And he was a genuine expert understanding the history of climate, not just back to 1850.
Like, it seems that the vogue thing these days is to think the world began in 1850.
But actually, there were three and a half billion years of life before that, when other things happened.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
There wasn't just a pre-industrial age.
There was a pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-industrial age.
Yeah, because Bob, being a geologist, got that.
Patrick, I can't imagine that there's anybody who doesn't know who you are, but I'm going to sort of lightly introduce you.
One of the many things I love about you is that you're on my side of the argument, which is the side of truth and science and integrity and courage and all the good things that we stand for, and yet you come from a position which somehow burnishes your credentials, makes you even more credible a witness, because you started out
As a hardcore environmental activist, and you did whatever they may claim to the contrary, you did co-found Greenpeace, did you not?
Yes, I did and it wasn't until 30 years after I left that they decided I hadn't.
My name was emblazoned along with six or so other names on the Greenpeace International website as a co-founder of Greenpeace until 2007.
I left in 1986 after 15 years on the front lines.
I left in 1986 after 15 years on the front lines.
So the reason they canceled me, and this was 2007, That was pretty early cancel culture.
They cancelled me because I came out in favor of nuclear energy, finally.
We made a... the one big mistake we made in the early years of the movement was to be opposed to nuclear energy because we lumped it in with nuclear weapons as if everything nuclear was evil, when we should have lumped it in with nuclear medicine as a beneficial use of nuclear technology.
That's the simplest way I have explaining it.
is that it is not a destructive technology.
It produces electricity for goodness sakes and it does it 24-7 at a reasonable price and there are 440 nuclear reactors running in this world every day.
So that's the big mistake we made and so I made up for that by spending six years as co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition with the U.S.
Nuclear energy institute out of Washington.
As co-chair of that, I traveled all across the United States meeting with top leaders, political and business, chamber of commerce type people and mayors to promote nuclear power.
But it's still being stalled in the West.
Whereas China, India and Russia are building a lot of nuclear plants now and are way ahead in terms of the technology.
But that's why they cancelled me, because of the nuclear issue.
And that was the last straw for them, I guess.
Well go ahead.
Has any of your comrades from that era joined you on the side of truth and integrity etc?
I mean are you a loner?
I'm pretty much a loner now that most of the others are demised.
Yes, well that's... So they cut... There were a couple.
I was among the youngest in my early 20s at the time, and there were people in their 40s.
We called them old.
And they are gone.
I'm one of the few survivors.
There's actually only me and My goodness, there's only two of us left, I think.
Out of 12, 13, including the skipper.
So there was 12 Greenpeacers and our captain.
And we sailed across the Pacific to stop US hydrogen bomb testing and won!
In the end, at the height of the Cold War.
The beginning of Greenpeace was phenomenal, but we were considered to be commies by a lot of the people in the West, especially Americans, who thought, like, why are you going after our nuclear test and not Russia's?
Well, it was because we didn't want to enter into a suicide pact by going into Russia against their nuclear weapons, which You know, we wouldn't have come out alive.
But we made our mark.
But when we went out to save the whales from the Russians and the Japanese, then the Americans thought we were great guys.
And we became famous in the West for doing that.
And the rest is history.
I was there for 15 years in the top committee.
And in the end, though, I had to leave for two reasons.
One was a high philosophical principle.
All of a sudden, the environmental movement, which had started with a strong humanitarian bent, we were saving civilization from all-out nuclear war.
Those are people.
They began to call humans the enemies of the earth, the enemies of nature.
And I'm just going, this is way too much like Original Sin for me.
Like, we are the only evil species.
All the other 1.7 million known species are okay, including the diseases and the vermin.
And we're The enemy of the planet?
No, I don't think so.
So there was that.
But I stayed for a while, even though I was hearing that.
But then my fellow directors in Greenpeace International, none of whom had any science education, decided that we should ban chlorine worldwide, because chlorine is in DDT and its indioxins, chlorinated hydrocarbons, are a fairly large class of chemicals, many of which are extremely useful, especially seeing as though
Adding chlorine to drinking water, even elemental chlorine, which was used as a weapon in World War I, but there are uses for elemental chlorine which make it so that we don't get communicable diseases from water anymore.
So adding it to drinking water, swimming pools, and spas was the biggest advance in the history of public health.
Never mind the fact that chlorine is one of the 94 natural elements and has its place in the universe, so banning it is kind of a stupid idea in the first place.
But the most important thing is that 85% of our medicines are made with chlorine chemistry, and 25% of them have chlorine in them.
And that is largely because iodine, bromine, and chlorine The halogens, as they're known in the periodic table, are very powerful pesticides against bacteria.
And they're very useful.
So banning them worldwide was a really stupid idea.
And I could not convince my fellow directors not to bring that out as their next major fundraising campaign.
And it was all in a part because we had a huge payroll by this time after 15 years.
And fundraising came to the sort of top of the list in terms of what was important to do next.
And so a lot of campaigns got adopted that were pretty, pretty questionable.
Like the chlorine one.
Right.
And I left before it even started, because I could not stand to be there while they were doing that.
Today they actually try to deny that they ever were against chlorine.
And it was before the internet, so it's not, you can't just go back in the Wayback Machine and find it easily.
But it's there in the press, in the records of the press, which have been kept in libraries around the world.
uh for all to see.
So that's why I had to leave and at the time I said I'm going to be a sensible environmentalist and base my positions on science and logic, which was always in my blood from the beginning.
And they went on to base many of their positions on misinformation and fear And there's scare tactics.
Yeah.
And that's the way it is today, especially with the climate.
It's all about making people afraid of the future.
And I've been fighting that for a long time now.
It's interesting.
Actually, one more question about the early days.
Which of the causes that you embraced and fought for, do you still consider to have been worthwhile?
I consider them all to have been worthwhile, including the campaign against nuclear weapons.
We stopped French atmospheric nuclear testing in the South Pacific, where even after the treaty had been signed to go underground, and the United States and Russia and Britain were all abiding by that, France continued to detonate atomic and hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere in the Southern Hemisphere near Tahiti at Muroroa Atoll, which they think is theirs.
And we exposed that to the French people.
Up until the French press was totally controlled by the government at that time, 1972-73.
And we went to Paris and occupied Notre Dame Cathedral, and Le Monde, the main French newspaper, covered the story for the first time.
French people knew about this atmospheric nuclear testing that was going on in the South Pacific, and by 1974 it was ended.
So they went underground and continued to test underground, but at least they weren't sending radiation around the whole Southern Hemisphere any longer.
So that was, in a way, the most significant, because it really did bring about the path towards an end to nuclear testing altogether by any country except North Korea, unfortunately.
But I think we have that somewhat well in hand.
And the campaign to save the whales, though, campaigning against nuclear weapons was a pretty dark issue, you know, like it was the end of humanity type issue.
So, So it wasn't all that pleasant.
But campaigning to save a living creature, the largest creatures that have ever lived in the history of evolution, 30,000 being slaughtered every year still in the mid-1970s, when it was absolutely unnecessary.
We had plenty of oil to make anything else we wanted to.
And the sperm whale oil, which is very unique, could be replaced by a plant called a jojoba.
And there was no reason to keep doing it.
And so stopping that, which we did, There's still a few whales being killed in various places, but nothing like maybe 500 compared to 30,000 back then.
And so the whales are saved.
The humpback whales and the blue whales and the fin whales and the gray whales have all come back to relatively historic levels of population.
It's thought that the gray whale, for example, is at its carrying capacity.
There's 10 or 12,000 of them on the west coast of North America.
Same with the humpback whale.
My wife Eileen and I went snorkeling on the reef that's north of Dominican Republic, where all the humpbacks come down to give birth.
on this shallow area where you can go snorkeling and see them with their calves underwater and coming up to breathe and all.
It's one of the most spectacular things.
We're avid snorkelers and we have Paddy.
We're divers too, but we sort of got a little old for that.
It's kind of a lot of heavy gear, but snorkeling is just as good in many ways.
And we've been to Papua New Guinea twice to the Coral Triangle, which has the richest coral reefs in the world.
And I was able to cover that in my book because the fact is the richest coral reefs in the world are in the warmest oceans in the world today.
Today in a place to see an ice age when it's actually cooler than it has been for most of the history of life.
So what I believe is if the planet warmed, corals would expand in their range, not all die from heat, because they like heat.
You know, it's just a fact.
And they've spun this thing in so many ways that are complete and absolute fabrications and lies.
Saying that it would be better if the oceans were cooler or that the climate was cooler.
Yes.
No, that would be when the glaciation that ended 20,000 years ago, the whole of Canada was covered in a sheet of ice.
There wouldn't be any way to live here or grow food here.
And even half the northern United States would have been too cold for a decent civilization at that time.
And that's happened 40 times or more since the Pleistocene Ice Age set in 2.6 million years ago, so you don't have to go back further than that to realize that we are in a cold period of Earth's climate compared to almost the entire history of life.
We're not in a warm period.
And also, CO2 is lower now than it has been throughout the most of the history of life, as is well documented in my book.
And so, We don't have to worry about the climate at all.
As a matter of fact, it would be better if it got warmer, and it would be better if there was more CO2.
That's, from a science point of view, that's very clear.
And yet... So I was trying to signal to my wife, there's somebody at the door, and she's not... Sorry about these... Domestic scenes which are interrupting.
And what I'm going to do, I'm going to go back to... You have a... What?
You have a door on your house?
We have doors in England, yeah.
I can see, Patrick, we are approaching the main course.
And by the way, congratulations on your book.
I think it should be required.
Can you imagine how much better the world would be How much better informed it would be if every child was taught by a teacher using your book as a text?
Because you run through... Sorry, remind me of the title.
It's quite long and I haven't written it down.
It's Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.
Fake Invisible Catastrophes.
Yes, and I call my theory, well, I'll tell you when you've introduced the book.
Yeah.
No!
What you do very well is you run through what Bjorn Lomborg I think called the litany once.
The litany of disastrous things that are happening to our planet because of our selfishness and greed.
And these have taken on the status of Common knowledge that everyone knows these things to be true.
So do you want to just run through them and just explode some of the myths, you know, from the polar bears to the coral reefs to the plastic?
I mean, that was one of my favorite things you did, where you told the truth about the plastics in the ocean.
And anyway, so run me through them in whatever order you like.
Well, beginning with climate change, because it's the cause of almost every other bad thing in the world, including the polar bears and the coral reefs.
More CO2 is beneficial for life on Earth, period.
In all ways.
Because it is the main food for plants, and it is now, even now at 415 parts per million, it is lower than it has been in almost the entire history of life on Earth, which is 3.5 billion years.
It has been at 2,000 ppm, at 4,000, at 6,000, and even at 10,000 ppm.
And it isn't until about 50,000 ppm that it's even a problem for animals.
But plants would still be perfectly happy at that level, because that is their food.
Of course, our food is oxygen in terms of gases in the atmosphere, and the plants made all that oxygen.
Not only that, if it wasn't for plants of course there'd be no animals, because they are the ones that are taking the solar energy and making it into sugar, which is the energy for all life coming through the food chain, up to us.
They made the food that we are eating, even if it's animals, because the animals we eat, if we eat a carnivore, which isn't all that common on terms of land animals, but most of the fish we eat are carnivores, and they have eaten another animal, like a shrimp.
And so we're up, you know, more levels on the food chain with most of the marine species we eat.
But basically, if it weren't for plants, there wouldn't be any animals.
And seeing as though we are animals, we should start to think like a plant.
Instead of just thinking like animals.
And so when you think like a plant, you think that CO2 is good, not a poison delivered from evil people on Mars to destroy us all.
It is actually a beneficial thing, up to a very much higher level than it is today in the global atmosphere.
And the proof of this, which none of them seem to want to repeat or recognize, is that commercial greenhouse growers around the world, everywhere, buy carbon dioxide and increase the level of CO2 in their greenhouses to somewhere between 800 and 1200 parts per million.
In other words, double or triple what it is in the atmosphere today, in order to get 50-60% higher yield from their crops in the greenhouse.
That is a fact.
We also know from the historical record that carbon dioxide and temperature are not in a lockstep cause-effect relationship with each other.
It is very clear from the record that at times when CO2 was much higher than it is now, it was much colder than it is now, even colder than it is now, because we're in an interglacial period.
And it's also known that when CO2 was lower, sometimes it was warmer than it is now.
So there is no proof That CO2 is what the NASA once called the control knob of temperature on the Earth.
That is a fabrication.
It's simply not known.
And what is known is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
And all else being equal would result in a slight warming of the climate.
But all else is never equal in a changing system with hundreds of variables all operating in a chaotic manner.
Even the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has recognized this.
They seem to have expunged it now from the terminology, once buried deep in their very thick volumes, where it said Because the climate is multifactorial, in other words there are many variables, non-linear, in other words they don't go in a straight line, they're all, you know, they go up and down in all kinds of strange ways, and chaotic.
That's the main one to watch for, because chaos is unpredictable by nature.
That's in fact almost the definition of chaos.
And the IPCC recognizes that the global climate is chaotic.
In other words, it's unpredictable, and then they go ahead and predict it.
And they go ahead and predict it with wildly exaggerated assumptions.
Now, they say that a skeptic is someone who disagrees with your conclusions, with what you think are the results of what's ever going on in the world.
But then there's a heretic.
A heretic disagrees with your assumptions.
And your conclusions are always based on assumptions.
And that's how computer models work.
They put the assumptions in the computer, and out the end comes the conclusions.
But if the assumptions aren't correct, neither will be the conclusions.
And so therefore, a computer model is not a crystal ball.
As a matter of fact, that is a mythical object.
There is no oracle.
predict the future with.
No such thing exists.
As Niels Bohr, Yogi Berra gets the credit because he was more popular than Niels Bohr, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, but Niels Bohr said it very clearly over a hundred years ago.
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
And that was a wise thing he said, because it's not hard to know about the past, although historical revisionism is in great vogue all through history.
They try to rewrite it.
But you can find out something about history, because it actually happened.
And even the present.
We can see what is happening in the present.
It is now a sunny day outside my house, and I know that for sure, but I can't predict the weather two months from now.
So that's what we need to understand about this subject, is it's not something we can easily predict.
But based on the past, we can make a lot of conclusions about the future in general.
And in general, we're in a cold climate with low CO2 right now, and everybody should know that, instead of thinking it's hot and there's too much carbon dioxide.
Yes.
Okay, polar bears.
Excellent.
Oh, sorry, I should let you interject.
No, no, you go ahead.
Polar bears.
Move on.
Polar bears.
Polar bears.
How many people know that in 1973, on the advice of wildlife biologists, all the polar countries, Canada, United States, Norway, Denmark, because they own Greenland, and Russia, all those countries signed an international treaty banning the unrestricted all those countries signed an international treaty banning the unrestricted hunting of polar bears.
Up until then, there was no restriction on people going to the Arctic in an airplane, hiring an Inuit guide, and coming home with three or four polar bear rugs.
And that ended in 1973.
and the other thing.
Any audience I speak to, nobody or even maybe one person out of 500, knows about this treaty.
Because they never told us about it in the media, because they didn't want us to know.
Because they wanted us to think the polar bears are going extinct because the ice was melting.
When in fact, since 1973, when the population of polar bears was estimated to be somewhere between six and ten thousand, Today it is estimated at between 30,000 and 50,000.
In other words, the polar bear is extremely healthy in terms of its recovery from unrestricted hunting up until the 1970s, and there is no problem.
And that's why we don't hear as much about them lately as we did, because this word is getting out.
And in fact, the Inuit people who live in the Arctic where the polar bears are, in Nunavut, the territory of Canada where there's no trees and lots of ice and polar bears, the Nunavut government Which isn't a country, but a sort of a territory of Canada.
The Nunavut government, made up of the people who actually live in the Arctic, in small villages, voted in a polar bear management plan, which means they're actually allowed to kill one now if it's attacking them.
This was not, you couldn't do that.
Polar bears were like totally protected and so they've passed this law saying that you can protect yourself and your village from polar bears.
This was not reported in a single Canadian or American newspaper or any other newspaper that I've been able to find except one newspaper in Nunavut In Cambridge Bay, population 1,200.
Those are the only people who've been told that this piece of legislation has been passed, because there's too many polar bears, as far as the people who are living there are concerned.
And so that's the story of the polar bear.
Coral reefs, I've mentioned them already.
There are no coral reefs in Britain, or Alaska, or Tierra del Fuego, or any other cold ocean in the world.
50 million years ago, the Caribbean, which is the second warmest area of sea in the world, had double the number of species of coral that it has today.
Because of the cooling into the Pleistocene, many of those species could not live in the water at the cooler temperature in the Caribbean that it is today, compared with when the Earth was warmer.
The Earth has been on a 50 million year cooling period.
It's in my book, it's easy to find on the internet, the graph is everywhere, and it shows very clearly that coming out of the Eocene thermal maximum, that would indicate a warm time thermal maximum, from there in 50 million years the Earth has cooled, to today where it's, except for this little interglacial blip, The climate of the Earth is colder now than it has been for 50 million years.
As a matter of fact, going back 250 million years is when the last ice age ended.
It was called the Karoo.
K-A-R-O-O-O.
Easy to look up in the internet.
It lasted a hundred million years.
This one's only two and a half million years old.
It could last a hundred million years too, but we don't know how long it will last because we don't know why it happened.
And yet the coral reefs are now most abundant in the Coral Triangle, which is the most warmest ocean in the world, the warmest ocean in the world that is, in Indonesia, in that area, Solomon Islands, Philippines, Indonesia.
We've been snorkeling there on two two-week trips to see what it's like.
Everybody in the world should go and see this.
It is one of the wonders of this earth to see 600 species of coral and hundreds of species of reef fish in the warmest oceans in the world.
Why are they in the warmest oceans of the world?
Because that's what they prefer.
The only place where the oceans are this warm is where the most corals and reef fish are on this planet at the present time, because they've shrunk during the 50 million years of cooling into a smaller and smaller area.
If the planet warmed a little bit, the coral reefs would expand into a larger area.
They would not shrink and die like we are being told.
It's the opposite.
So that's the coral reefs.
The Walruses Committing Suicide.
Yes.
David Attenborough.
We can talk about Attenborough.
Excellent.
Attenborough.
This is the goofiest one of all, actually, of his lies, is that walruses... He took a film showing some walruses falling off a cliff to their death on the beach below.
He concluded from that And he's still telling the story, even though he's been exposed by the local people up there and everything.
And by Susan Crockford, who's the world expert in polar bears from Victoria, BC, not far from where I live.
He's telling people still that the reason the walruses leapt to their death, committed suicide, as he says, is because there's not enough ice left in the Arctic.
That's his story.
The fact is, there was 20 to 30 polar bears coming up from behind them, where this cliff goes down to the sea and a beach below and the sea.
And the polar bears were going to eat them, kill and eat them.
So they leapt off the cliff instead of being eaten alive by a polar bear.
That's the truth.
And when it comes to ice and walruses, Walrus, he says that the walrus's home is on the ice.
That is not true.
They come out of the water onto the ice if it's there as an easy place to rest for a while.
The ice is the polar bear's home in the winter when they hunt seals.
That's their habitat.
They hunt seals on the ice.
But walruses do not eat anything on the ice.
They are bottom feeders, just like David Attenborough and his crew of the planet Earth.
And walruses, the reason they have those great big tusks is to dig clams out of the mud.
They are a coastal species.
They have to stay near the beach because the water gets too deep for them if you go very far from land.
Now Attenborough says the reason they came out on the land is out of desperation, because there isn't enough ice.
No, they came out on the land because the ice had retreated to the north, as it does every summer on the northern coast of Russia.
And that, it's odd that he would say it was in desperation, because that area of land is a designated walrus sanctuary habitat.
Where you're not allowed to go in there and kill the walruses because it's a park made for walruses to be.
So they've been coming out there for years and he says it's out of desperation.
So he made about six lies in this story and he went to Davos recently after this has been exposed.
The native people up there, well there's actually quite a large village up there, they're Russians, And they saw the whole thing with the polar bears and it was in their newspaper.
It's in my book.
A quote from their newspaper saying it was a pack of polar bears that were attacking the walruses and I didn't do it to commit suicide because there was no ice.
So the other one about Attenborough, I'll just mention these two.
He claims on film that Albatross parents Way out in the middle of nowhere on an island where nobody can ever go, it's just a big rock out in the middle of the ocean where they breed, that albatross parents are feeding plastic to their chicks, mistaking it for food.
And he holds up a clear plastic bag as if this is what albatross are feeding to their chicks.
There is no video of an albatross feeding a plastic bag to its chick.
That's because albatross do not feed plastic bags to their chick.
They give them small pieces of hard plastic in the same way that a land bird would give their chick a pebble to go in their gizzard as a digestive aid.
Birds don't have teeth, they can't chew their food, so it goes down whole.
So they have two stomachs, one like ours with acid in it, but another one for large harder objects to go, which is a muscular stomach in which there are hard objects put into the chick, and the adults have to ingest hard objects all their life for their gizzard.
Land birds use rocks.
There's no rocks floating in the ocean.
So albatross and other seabirds have to collect hard objects, which there aren't many suitable ones.
They use pumice from undersea volcanoes, which floats because it's full of air.
They use rock, sorry, they use pieces of wood.
They use nuts that have fallen off a tree near the ocean and drifted out.
And now they, for the last 50 years, use hard bits of plastic.
that are the right shape.
There's a picture in my book of an albatross adult feeding these hard bits of plastic to its chick.
There's no plastic bags in there.
And then you go on the internet.
So they're feeding this to their chicks to keep their chicks alive.
And yet Attenborough has them murdering their chicks by mistaking this for food.
He wrote The Secret Life of Birds.
He had a 10-part BBC series on birds.
You think he doesn't know that birds have gizzards?
He never mentions the word gizzards in anything I've ever seen.
He never admits that the reason seabirds feed small bits of hard plastic to their chicks is for a digestive aid, and the Smithsonian and Greenpeace follow up on it.
Greenpeace even says the albatross is endangered with extinction, when in my book you will see a verified graph of the population of albatross on this huge island, where they breed is gone up in an exponential curve and is leveling off now because they probably nearly reached their carrying capacity after a hundred years since they stopped the feather trade.
Seabirds were killed by the millions for their feathers for ladies' hats at the turn of the last century.
And since that ended, they have all recovered to much higher populations than they were before.
They are in no way endangered.
And they use bits of plastic as a digestive aid because it's there.
Now, they make it out as if as soon as plastic is in the ocean it becomes a toxic.
That it's leaching chemicals into the environment and all the rest.
That's why we wrap all our food in it and put all our food into plastic containers.
Because it's toxic and leaching terrible chemicals.
No, it doesn't become toxic just because it goes in the ocean.
It is inert.
Plastic's one of the most inert things there is.
It's sterile.
And a piece of plastic in the ocean is no different than a piece of wood in the ocean.
As a matter of fact, barnacles love to attach themselves to pieces of plastic.
And again, in my book, I show a photograph demonstrating this.
But it's always made to be bad.
Plastic is bad in the ocean.
No, plastic is actually beneficial in the ocean, in the amount that's there, because coming to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas, three times the size of France, which is growing 16 times faster than we ever imagined, according to CNN.
There isn't one.
It does not exist, and you've seen the proof of that in my book, James.
It's there for all to see.
There is no plastic garbage patch in the ocean.
And when you challenge people, they come up with some really, because I go to, I speak at sometimes gatherings where there's a mixed audience.
Some of whom obviously believe there is a great Pacific garbage patch and come up to me afterwards and challenge me on this.
And they say, well, the reason you can't see it is because it's all the clear plastic.
Oh yeah, right, all the clear plastic congregates and the colored plastic stays away.
I don't think so.
The next thing they come up with is it's just under the surface, like as if each piece of plastic has a buoyancy compensation device on it that makes it just the right density to be just below the surface.
And when finally they give up on that, They say, well, it's microplastic.
Oh, you mean it's invisible, as in fake invisible catastrophes.
And yes, that's what they come up with in the end.
And a very prominent fisheries biologist I know, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, recently went up into the North Pacific to study how much microplastic there was in the water column.
Because this is where all our salmon go to feed in the summer.
He came back embarrassed, thinking he must have not done his experiment properly, because he didn't find any microplastic.
in the water column in the North Pacific.
And I believe that's true.
So they even make up this thing about microplastic as a... because there again you've got down to something that nobody can see, nobody can verify.
And as you may know, I call my theory about fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom By which I mean, all the scare stories are based on things that are either invisible or so far away, like the Pacific Garbage Patch, or the polar bears, or the coral reefs, that nobody in the public can verify the truth for themselves.
Who can go to the Arctic and count polar bears?
Who can go to the Great Barrier Reef and snorkel the whole thing?
It's about as big as California.
And so nobody can verify these stories, scare stories.
So the fact of the matter is, the scientists and the politicians who are buying the science, because it's all public money going to these climate scientists, the politicians are buying the science.
from the scientists.
And they want a scare story to tell the public so they can say they're going to save their grandchildren from a certain demise.
And then the media and the activists are the bullhorn on this that tell the whole world that it's coming to an end because the scientists said so and the politicians are getting votes.
And so the votes are skewed in the favor of people who are telling these doomsday stories when in fact nobody can verify the truth.
And it's all lies.
And And as you can see from 11 chapters, I could have written 15 or 20 chapters, because there's other subjects I know of where it's a fake invisible catastrophe as well, that I could have put in the book.
So there it is, and people have to read the book though to get this.
It's available on Amazon.
It's actually selling quite well in the UK.
The UK is the third best market after the US and Canada, and seeing as I'm Canadian, a lot of people know me.
Here, but the UK is doing quite well.
I call this, as a general category, the unified field theory of scare stories.
It's sort of like in physics, there's this idea of the unified field theory, where They explain gravity and light and heat and everything all in one equation, so you can actually put the whole universe in one equation, like E equals mc squared on steroids.
I doubt that'll ever happen, and I probably won't get a Nobel Prize for coming up with the unified theory of scare stories, but it's a fact.
These are all the same in the sense That nobody can verify them.
And science and discovery is based on observation.
That's the first step in learning something new in science.
You have to see it.
Whereas with religion, it's okay if the deity is invisible.
And okay, fine.
I'm okay with that.
But with science, you can't do that.
You have to see it with a microscope or a telescope or a Geiger counter or your own eyes.
Yeah.
And once you've observed something, then you have to verify it.
In other words, repeat the same thing over and over again to make sure it wasn't just a fluke that you saw this cause this.
And You have to control the variables and you have to do it in a proper scientific method.
Methodology is actually usually the biggest chapter in a science paper because that's how you make sure that other variables aren't interfering with the two things you're trying to work with as to whether this is the cause and this is the effect or vice versa.
Once you've verified something like that, you put it out for replication among other credentialed scientists who know how to do methodology.
and who know how to do a scientific experiment, and if they find the same thing you did, you are verging on a discovery, a hypothesis, a theory in science.
And that whole process is not possible with things that are invisible and so far away that the average person can't see it for themselves.
It's as simple as that.
So I could listen to you all day going through the litany and demolishing it so rigorously.
But here's the thing.
I was listening to you talking about the great plastic, whatever it's called, the ocean, what's it called again?
The garbage patch.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Okay, and I was listening to you, and I've read your book, I've read papers you've written on this before, and I totally trust you, and yet at the same time, part of me was putting myself in the position of some random person watching you on the internet now, and they're going, Well, I don't believe him.
He's wrong.
I mean, I was thinking exactly like those people who come up to you after your talks.
Because so many of us have read in colour supplement magazines, on newspapers and things, there's always stuff about plastic.
We hear it on TV and stuff and etc, etc.
How is it That they get away with this so unchallenged.
I mean, obviously people like you and me and the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Heartland Institute try and counter this narrative with facts, but it's everywhere, isn't it?
This narrative, it's ubiquitous.
How do they get away with it?
I don't know.
My best comeback is that we wrap all our food in it.
In plastic.
Yeah.
And so therefore it isn't toxic.
So we get rid of that argument.
What else is there?
The shape of it.
A straw in a turtle's eye.
I'm sure that was staged.
If you go on the internet and you google plastic in albatross chick.
Yeah.
They take albatross chicks that have died, and when there's a million albatross, a few of the chicks do die.
Naturally.
And they take that chick and they cut it open and stuff it with plastic things and then take a picture of it and say this is how much plastic was fed to this chick And mistaking it for food and it got stuck in there.
Yeah.
Because it couldn't get out.
So they put big things like cigarette lighters in there.
If you see the picture in my book of what the albatross is feeding to its chick, it's small pieces, maybe half an inch to three quarters of an inch and nice piece.
Nice.
They're not jagged.
They're pieces of plastic that are worn and they're being put into the chick as a digestive aid.
So they do this.
And one of the things I say in my book that maybe some people don't know, is that nature was very intelligent in its evolution, in that it made the out-hole bigger than the in-hole.
Because almost all of animals are tubes, right?
I can see the in-hole on your face right now.
The out-hole is usually covered up.
But That's the truth.
If you can get something through your esophagus and into your stomach, it will come out the other end.
They made it that way on purpose.
I went to the Webster's, no, Harvard University medical website and looked for bowel obstruction.
There's lots of things that cause bowel obstruction.
They're usually tumors.
There's no mention of anything that was ever swallowed causing a bowel obstruction in the Harvard Medical Dictionary.
It isn't even mentioned.
That's because anything you can swallow.
The real problem is when you try to swallow something that's too big to go down and you need the Heimlich maneuver to get it back out of there again.
But if it does go down, it will come out.
This is a rule of nature.
Otherwise, nature wouldn't have lasted very long if all the stuff that went in couldn't come out the other end.
So, the conversation we've had so far is a conversation that you and I have been having, and many people, experts, like, I hate to use that word, experts, but informed people, let's say, have been saying this for, well, I mean, you know, I've been writing about this since before Climate Gate.
When was that?
That was a while ago, wasn't it?
Yes.
That was 2009, I think.
2009.
But the world has changed dramatically in the last 18 months, and things are becoming much clearer.
You know, remember when I wrote my Watermelons book, and I set out to answer the question, If all this stuff isn't true, if they're just bullshitting us, which I think you've demonstrated fairly comprehensively in your book, it's everything they tell us is a lie about the environment, all the litany.
I set out to answer the question, okay, if it's not true, why are they doing this?
And I sort of got maybe three quarters of the way there, but Today, I think, do you agree with me on this?
It's becoming much, much clearer that they are inventing this stuff.
I mean, in a way, these environmental activists, like you were in the early days, are being used by much bigger, darker forces to a particular end.
Are you noticing this?
Well which particular end are you referring to that the human population should be culled quite early?
I thought you put your finger on it early on in this chat where you said why it was that you left Greenpeace and there were two reasons.
One of them was the was the kind of anti-human agenda.
I mean, I suppose Malthusianism is another word for it.
The Earth has a cancer, the cancer is man, that the Club of Rome came up with.
This notion that we are a blight on the planet.
Now, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you reach the dark place that you've just mentioned.
Do you think this is what's going on?
Yes, I do, unfortunately.
I think it's a mental illness of sorts, and that it afflicts a large percentage of the population.
I don't know why they can't look out and see the beauty of nature all around them, but then a lot of people live on the 30th floor condominium in the middle of a Terrible city with homeless people all around.
So maybe that colors their perception.
One of my theories is that mechanization has been a wonderful thing in so many ways.
It has meant that 80% of the population doesn't have to grow food.
like before there was machines.
80% of the people were out in the fields toiling with children having to start doing it at six to eight years of age for labor because they were free and only the lords and ladies lived in the castle on the hill and everybody else lived in squalor and worked hard and died young.
And then mechanization came And then it only took less than 5% of the people to grow the food, so nearly everybody moved into cities.
So now the city people are the vast majority, and they are easily convinced by the so-called Greens,
That it's the people out in the country who are cutting trees and drilling for oil and blowing up rocks in the mining big huge open pit mines and catching all the fish and everything that they are the true enemies of the earth and me with my electric car or driving going on the subway is the is the pure person in the city.
They are easily tricked into forgetting that the only reason the people in the country are hewing and plowing and drilling and doing all the things that they do out there is to get the food, energy and materials for the people who live in the city.
Where would the concrete and steel come from?
Where would the food come from?
Where would the energy come from?
40% of all the energy we use is for buildings.
40%.
And that doesn't include what's inside a factory making things.
That's just the building itself to stay warm, or cool, or hot water, or appliances.
That's that's where our energy is going is to keep the city people warm and comfortable or cool and comfortable in the summer.
And they think the people who are getting their resources for them are the enemies of the earth and they are all just cool and in their hip clothing and Hip music and whatever else.
That, I think, is the downside of mechanization, is now a vast number more people who vote, even in a democracy who vote, are on the side of getting rid of people.
Yes.
Because they just think there's too many of them and they're overcrowded.
Well they are overcrowded in the cities in a sense, but the world, if you look at the world, the urban environment is less than three percent of the earth's surface, and the earth's surface is only 25 percent of the oceans, or 75 percent.
There's not too many people living in cities on the ocean.
So we really have a very small percentage of the city, of the earth, that is urbanized.
Most of it is country.
I live in the country.
I'm in a town where there's about 100,000 people in this region in three sort of towns in a beautiful valley on the east coast of Vancouver Island.
And for the love of me, I could never think this is a bad place, or that there's anything evil going on here, because it's so beautiful.
And so is almost all of the Earth.
If more people should fly over Europe and North America, they should fly over it and see how much of it is country, and how beautiful it is, the pattern of farmland and forest all across the country.
And television makes us focus in, like as if a fire in a forest is taking up the whole screen.
Right?
In the Amazon, for example.
90% of the Amazon is intact nature.
90%.
It's nearly as big as the lower 48 of the United States.
Brazil, that is.
And the Amazon is like at least a quarter of the whole of Brazil.
It's so huge.
And yet they show pictures of fire, usually which are fires to re-clear land that was already cleared before for farming.
But very little farming occurs in the Amazon, in fact.
It's not a very hospitable environment.
A lot of people call it a human desert, because there are so few people there.
And that's the problem.
The Amazon is remote.
And almost no Brazilians go there.
Never mind people from all around the world being told that the Amazon is being destroyed by fires and etc.
It's not.
It's 2011 and 90% of the Amazon forest is still intact as a natural forest.
It takes five hours to fly across the Amazon.
I've done it.
So if everybody could do that, It would be great if everybody could do that.
Of course they can't, Patrick, because we've all been shut down.
We've all been forbidden from flying on pain of effectively imprisonment.
I mean, currently, for example, in the UK, I know Canada is as bad.
If you want to go to a lot of countries, When you come back, you have to spend 10 days in prison.
They call it a hotel, but it's not a hotel.
I've seen the wire exercise yard where you've got security guards in high-vis jackets escorting you around for this bug that's like flu at worst.
This, it seems to me, is not accidental.
That what we're going to find is that the alleged pandemic, which I don't think is, is going to be re-designated, you know, this is our defense against all the things that you've just mentioned, against the climate change disaster, we're doing it for the coral reefs, we're doing it for the polar bears, we're doing it for all this made-up stuff promoted by charlatans like David Attenborough.
I don't know how he gets away with it.
I really don't.
But this is what is what is really going on?
Because you've made a you've made a very convincing case for why so many gullible, brainwashed fools are participating in this Malthusian agenda.
That we've been taught to hate ourselves.
We've been taught to think of ourselves as the enemy.
Some people are so stupid they're actually choosing not to breed now because they believe all the rubbish that David Attenborough told us.
But on the level above that, the people who are funding the big money funding Greenpeace and more opaque organizations like the Tides Foundation, all these various eco charities and the Nature Conservancy, all these various eco charities and the Nature Conservancy, which are which are incredibly richly funded by the super, super elite.
What do you think is going on there?
Do you think that these are Malthusians who are They're enacting their depopulation plan.
Most are, yes.
At least if we followed their plan, it would result in massive depopulation.
Yeah.
I have said many times that if they got away with ending fossil fuels, for example, the farmers would not be able to run their tractors or combines which have 500 horsepower diesel engines in them.
And will not run on solar power.
And so then the food would stop coming into the cities.
And the rot would begin in the center of the cities.
That's where people would begin to die.
Of starvation, in fact.
Because that's the thing you need immediately.
You need food.
Right?
And so that... And then, within three or four years, there'd hardly be a tree left on the planet.
Because wood would be the only energy resource that would be left.
I mean, for centuries, wood was the energy resource.
It did everything.
And by about 1750, Europe's forests had been reduced to less than 10% of the landscape.
Today, they are 43% of the landscape.
Because people invented forestry, otherwise known as silviculture, in the 1800s.
And reforested Europe.
And today it's in total sustainable use.
And people are complaining that Europe is being deforested.
Because they use the word deforestation to describe cutting the trees and planting new ones.
Instead of the true meaning of deforestation is cutting down the forest and putting a farm there or a city there or a factory there instead.
So now you don't have any trees there anymore.
That's deforestation.
It's part of civilization.
And so the lies that we're being told... Now the Nature Conservancy, I don't include in that category.
They actually pay for the areas that they protect.
Whereas most of the environmental movement steals it from people, and makes laws that where people can't do what they were doing before, for example.
Right, the land use laws, regulations.
Yes, yes.
Whereas the Nature Conservancy, its whole purpose is to protect special places, and they pay real money for it.
They reward the people that they are buying the land from with the fair market value of that land.
So that's one of the reasons they're the largest environmental group in the United States, is because they're honest and they're doing a good thing.
Whereas a lot of the environmental groups today are funded by all kinds of nefarious means.
The EU, for example, is funneling vast amounts of money into the non-government organizations.
And whereas Greenpeace says it doesn't take money from governments, it does take money from people who get their money from governments.
In other words, third parties.
So that's how they get away with saying that.
And there's all kinds of ways that they're funneling money into these organizations.
Now, whether or not all the people in Greenpeace, for example, are so anti-human that they think most people should be dead, I'm not certain of that.
But I am certain of the fact that the policies that they have adopted will result in such an end, especially ending 80 plus percent of all the energy that powers our lives.
I mean, you cannot just freeze in time and need no energy anymore.
You need it every day, just like you need food every day.
Well, you can go for 15 days without food and by another 10 you're dead.
And if you're lucky, To live that long without any food, water, you needed even more energy.
If you're in a sub-zero situation and you run out of heat, you're liable to freeze to death in your own home.
And that happens now.
The really cynical thing I think about the environmental movement today, is the effect they are going to have with making energy more expensive, way more expensive, like in Germany, where it's gone up by three times, even though they still have a big whack of nuclear power there.
I don't know what they're going to do, because they voted to phase it out like this year, I think, this year and next year.
They don't seem to be too keen to do that, and I don't blame them, because if they did, they'd really be in a pickle.
But the effect of the environmental movement's campaigns is worse on the poorest people in the world than it is on the rich people.
Now, I thought the environmental movement cared about the poor and cared about people.
But no.
You're right.
They do not.
Obviously, they do not.
Because their policies are going to affect the poorest of the poor.
And the Golden Rice campaign that we fought Yeah.
For three years we fought the Golden Rice Campaign until finally it had become known to a lot of people that there was this program to prevent one or two million children from dying from vitamin A deficiency every year because rice has no beta carotene in it, which is what we make vitamin A with in our bodies.
The Philippines finally, just a year or so ago, adopted golden rice as acceptable for human consumption and animal feed, but no one is growing it.
If the environmental movement had any concern whatsoever for the poor, they would support golden rice.
Yeah.
But it's a GMO.
I didn't get to that.
It's interesting that when you come to the invisible things, the invisible poisons and catastrophes, Carbon dioxide is invisible.
Radiation is invisible, so they can use that to be against all nuclear power.
And then there's the thing that is in GMOs, in genetically modified foods.
The bad thing that's gonna hurt you in the GMO.
James, it doesn't have a name.
It doesn't have a chemical formula.
Everything has a name.
I mean, what doesn't have a name that you know about?
Once you know about something new, you give it a name.
There's nothing that is nameless that we know about.
But the thing in GMOs is nameless.
That's because it doesn't exist.
It's not just invisible.
It is non-existent.
And yet they won't recognize that.
There's still this huge campaign against GMOs, especially in Europe, as you know.
And it's based on something that doesn't exist, in the same way that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is something that doesn't exist.
And they're, I don't know what they're blaming on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
What is it doing that's bad?
It's just a pile of plastic floating around in the ocean, apparently.
So what harm would that cause?
In my book, you will see a green piece photograph of a crab inside a clear plastic cup, which is kind of dis-shaped and it's like been crushed a little bit.
And the crab is in it.
And the caption in the Greenpeace publication says, a crab has become trapped in a teacup.
No, the crab is using it as shelter.
Yeah.
It's using it as a habitat.
It's not trapped.
You can see that the mouth of the cup is open.
It could come out if it wanted to, but if it did, it might be eaten by something like a fish and seeing as though it's inside this cup.
And when I was on my Greenpeace voyages back in the day, I would throw glass containers overboard out in 3 000 feet of water in the oceans and they'd all go oh no you can't do that it's pollution.
I said no actually it's just litter and something might want to live in it.
Use it as a home because if you've got a bottle with a neck on it this big and there's a big space inside And you're a creature that is afraid of being eaten any day now by some predator.
Wouldn't you want to go in there and make that your home?
Yeah.
So if only people would look at the world differently.
Because this world is greening like crazy because of our carbon dioxide emissions.
That's the big story on CO2.
And NASA accepts that?
It was CSIRO in Australia, their peak science body, the Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organization, CSIRO.
They're the ones who broke the story on this in 2014.
They published a photograph, well no, it's actually a graphic, showing how much vegetation had increased in its growth and biomass just in the last 20 years.
And NASA has done the same thing.
It's like 30% more biomass today because we've taken CO2 from 280 to 415 parts per million, which is 0.0415.
It's like such a small amount of CO2 in the global atmosphere, and yet it is resulting in the greening of the Earth.
Now, we take it up to 800, 1,000.
That might be difficult, because I don't know if there's enough fossil fuels to even do that.
But if we could, the vegetation would just go crazy.
Like it was in the warmer periods before this Pleistocene Ice Age set in and CO2 sunk to such low levels.
They're partly interconnected because the colder the oceans are, the more gas they can hold, both carbon dioxide and oxygen and the other gases.
So when the oceans cool, they take CO2 from the atmosphere.
When they warm, they give it back.
During the last major glaciation, 20,000 years ago, CO2 fell to 180 parts per million.
They know this from ice cores that they've drilled in Antarctica.
They can see what the CO2 level was in the air from bubbles in those ice cores.
20,000 years ago, CO2 fell to the coldest Sorry, the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth, since the beginning of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago.
We know for a fact that it's never been lower than that.
And that 180 parts per million is only 30 ppm above the death of plants.
That's why we should think like a plant.
Because if we were thinking like a plant, we would never want it to go below 150.
As a matter of fact, even at 180, it is believed that the high altitude forests all died in the middle, all over the Earth.
Because as you go up, the air gets thinner.
And that means the CO2 gets even more difficult to take in.
When plants have more CO2, They stop making so many holes under their leaves.
They're called stomata.
This is where the CO2 goes into the plant and where oxygen comes out and where water comes out.
So if they make less holes under their leaves, which they do as soon as CO2 goes up and it's easier for them to get it, suddenly they also become drought resistant because the water doesn't escape from them as easily.
So not only does CO2 cause plants to grow faster, It makes them more tolerant of drought, which is a good thing because there are droughts, especially in the dry parts of the world like Western Australia, Western India, the southwest of the United States, where they get droughts that last four or five years quite often.
Now trees are marching out onto grasslands in the U.S.
southwest Which were too dry for trees before and could only support grass on them.
Trees are marching out onto those dry areas because they are now more drought tolerant and don't need as much water as they used to.
It's a phenomenon that's going on going on worldwide and nobody is talking about it.
Yes, it sounds like the Malthusians have got their work cut out.
With all this global greening, they're going to have to find other ways of starving us of food and removing land from agriculture, which we're seeing actually already.
I mean, it seems to me that this rewilding thing is... Look, I'm all for wilderness and stuff in the right place, but the idea that That Britain can be rewilded.
That would necessarily entail removing agricultural land and turning it back to wilderness.
It would probably involve installing species which are no longer here for a good reason.
I'm not sure we could cope with bears and wolves in the UK.
I wanted to actually ask you about something else.
I say let them eat trees.
Who?
The bear?
I'm glad you brought up that thing about rewilding because what most people don't realize is humans are the wildest species of all.
We are not domesticated.
No one is farming us.
We are a wild species like a wolf or a bear.
Still, We have this idea that we've been gentrified and domesticated.
We've done all those things, but we are still wild.
And if we realize that, we would get a better insight into politics and the social dynamic.
Because when you've got Putin and Biden Talking to each other.
Remember that they are the leaders of two huge wild tribes of humans.
We're not tame.
My brother Michael, my late brother Michael, thought we were actually being controlled by extraterrestrials who were going to harvest our organs once we got numerous on the earth, you know, but we're not being harvested.
We're not being harvested.
They haven't shown themselves yet.
We're not being grown by another The aliens.
Give it time.
Sorry, carry on.
Yes.
Apparently they are coming, according to Tucker Carlson.
I read it in the paper.
I'd love it if there were some.
I mean, it would make... Not ones that come to harvest us.
I don't want those.
That'd be horrible.
No, no, not those kind.
But they would be really intelligent and nice.
They'd be benign and humanitarian, I'm sure, if they got this far from wherever they came from.
They would have already killed themselves off if they were evil.
So, and anyways, if they are here, if those things that the U.S.
military are seeing are probes from other planets in the universe, they really are very intelligent.
And they could have killed us all already, no doubt, because I'm sure they have technology for that.
So we are actually a wild species, like an elephant in Africa, like a lion, a tiger, a bear, a wolf.
We're high food chain predators, but we also eat plants.
So we are omnivores, like our ancestors were.
I just had someone come back to me saying they love my book except humans did not evolve from apes.
And so they're, it's an anti-evolution person who thinks there wasn't enough time for evolution to occur.
Like as if three and a half billion years wasn't enough time for just about anything to occur.
And here we are, 7.8 billion of us or whatever, All alive!
All 7.8 billion of these people are alive and living every day and getting enough sustenance to do so.
But the bottom 25% of them, in terms of how close they are to not being alive, is what's going to be affected by these policies, this so-called Green New Deal and this so-called Great Reset.
Absolutely, that is a fact and no one can deny that.
The three-quarters of the people who are getting more than they need and have access to more than they need and money to buy more than they need are the ones that would survive first.
And the bottom quarter won't, if we actually do the things they say we should do.
The policies that are being recommended By the green movement or whatever you want to call it.
They're far from green as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah.
Because the greening of the Earth is what's green and that's being caused by our CO2 emissions.
What most people don't realize is that the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels came from the atmosphere in the first place.
That's what made the fossil fuels.
Note that they are called hydrocarbons.
The carbon in hydrocarbons, natural gas, oil, and coal, all came from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide to feed those plants.
Plants on the land and plants in the sea.
Let's stick with the land here because it's easiest.
The forests that grew from the atmospheric CO2 to make wood.
Wood is 50% carbon.
All that carbon came from the atmosphere.
When that wood got buried and it was turned into coal by heat down deep in the earth over hundreds of millions of years, All that carbon was then lost to the atmosphere.
It had been taken out and what's called sequestered or stored in hydrocarbons under the ground, where that carbon was no longer part of the atmosphere-plant-ocean cycle, the annual to decadal cycle.
It was gone for millions of years.
When we burn fossil fuels, which were made with solar energy in forests, by trees, Fossil fuels are all based on solar energy, and they are all organic, as in the scientific meaning of organic.
When people go to the store and it says organic, that is a marketing term.
It is not a scientific term.
The scientific meaning of organic is carbon-based.
All the carbon compounds are what organic chemistry is about, the chemistry of life.
The non-carbon Elements are called inorganic chemistry.
Iron and cobalt and steel, you know, all those things.
Whereas only carbon is called organic, because it's made from life.
So when we put CO2 back into the environment, we are merely replenishing the carbon that was taken out of it for millions of years and stored in fossil fuels And carbonaceous rocks, limestone, are of life origin.
The cliffs of Dover are made from the shells of coccolithophores, which are a very small microscopic plankton, a plant in the sea, which is the basis of about half the food chain in the whole ocean.
Those cliffs are made from their skeletons.
Those skeletons are made of calcium carbonate.
The carbon in calcium carbonate came from the atmosphere into the oceans and then was used to make shells.
All the shells that are made in the ocean, coral reefs, clams, shrimp, are made from carbon that was taken out of the system of the cycle of carbon between the oceans and the atmosphere and the land.
We're putting it back.
And we are restoring a balance to the global carbon cycle.
Our species is doing that.
We didn't do it on purpose, any more than the trees turned into coal on purpose, or any more than the creatures that make shells for themselves in the ocean purposefully took the CO2 out of the system, which eventually would have become the end of life, because they were going to keep taking it out until there wasn't enough left for the plants on the land.
In other words, there wasn't enough left in the atmosphere.
That was going to happen in a few million years from now, which is nothing, a blink in the eye of geological time.
And we humans have come along at a very auspicious time, and inadvertently, or so we think, because we started burning fossil fuels for energy, not to replenish the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the oceans, but that is what we're doing.
We are putting the CO2 back that was taken out by life.
And we are life.
And we are putting it back.
And that is a fact.
And I can prove it ten times over for anybody who wants to take a look at it.
So that's also in my book.
It's very clearly explained.
And I'm sticking to it, you know?
I know I'm telling the truth.
I believe you.
I trust you, Patrick.
Before we go, I just wanted to ask you one question.
I was watching a documentary last night.
I don't know whether you've ever come across Jeremy Clarkson, who's just taken up farming.
And Jeremy Clarkson, there was a scene where he's planted this field of oilseed rape, which is not a crop I particularly like.
It causes terrible hay fever and stuff.
But the entire crop in one field was destroyed by this black beetle.
And Clarkson was like, WTF?
How can this be allowed?
What about pesticides?
His land manager said, I'm afraid the EU has just banned neonicotinoids, so we can't protect the crop against these pests anymore.
We've just got to roll with it.
Two things came to mind.
First of all, I've written about neonicotinoids before.
I got the impression from my research that a lot of the anti-Neonic stuff was junk science.
Maybe you can correct me on that.
But also, it would fit in with what we've been suggesting about this Malthusian project.
If you wanted to depopulate the planet, if you wanted to cause starvation and things, You think about it, you would have organizations like the EU banning the products that made agriculture, sort of mass production of food or whatever, easier.
Because after all, am I right in thinking it was the Green Revolution which kept the planet fed, stopped us all starving to death?
Where are you on things like pesticides and neonicotinoids and stuff?
Neonicotinoids.
They are put on the seeds, not on the plant.
They're not sprayed over the plants.
They're simply coated on the seed so that they go into the plant as the plant grows.
And they repel insect pests.
In Canada, where we call oilseed rape canola, Because Canadian scientists figured out how to get a certain protein out of it that made it impossible to use the... after you crush the canola seeds and get the oil, the mash or whatever it's called.
there's a proper name for it uh that was left over was could not be used because it had this certain protein in it that was toxic to to animals right Whereas quite often you can feed them this mash to animals and get more money from your crop.
They figured out how to take that protein out of there and now it can be used to feed animals.
So canola.
A lot of it is grown in our province of Saskatchewan, which is in central Canada.
90% of the honey that is produced in Canada is from canola crops that have been treated with neonicotinoids.
And it's the bees that they say are the big problem.
It's a total lie.
It's proven by the fact that 90% of the honey in Canada is produced from canola, which is treated with neonicotinoids.
And so there you go.
It's total BS.
There's so many stories about the bees collapsing.
Indeed, honey bees, which are not wild insects, they are kept, they're domestic, are used to make honey.
If the honey consumption goes down, so does the bee population.
Because then there doesn't need to be as many bees if nobody's eating honey anymore.
And honey consumption has gone down in North America.
I don't know about Europe.
China, however, the honey consumption continues to rise, and so does the bee population, the domestic bee population.
And once it was proven that neonics do not affect domestic bees, then they started with the wild bees.
And that becomes very difficult to deal with, because how many people can actually count all the wild bees?
Yeah.
Bumblebees, in other words.
Oh, okay.
And they said, one time they said that the heating of the earth was driving the bumblebees north from the south, but the ones in the north couldn't go further north, so it was crushing them Like one of those things where you go in a pit and the things come and crush you.
It was kind of like that kind of image.
The same kinds of images they have about just about everything were end-of-world images.
One thing I say that is true, and I only say true things of course, is that the people who've been predicting doomsday and end of the world and apocalypse and all of that, end times, the people who've been predicting that since the beginning of civilization, probably, have all been wrong.
How do we know?
They're batten zero, right?
Not one doomsday prediction has ever come true.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
Doomsday would have happened already.
So that's a fairly good clue with regard to the present day doomsday predictions.
They are just as false as all the ones that have been promulgated all through history.
The world isn't coming to an end, whatever that would look like.
Is it going to explode?
Implode?
Will the seas all catch fire spontaneously and spread to the land and burn everything to a crisp?
No, probably not.
So that's my sort of universal take on the whole idea of end times and doomsday, is they've been wrong every single time and they're liable to be wrong Every other time.
Yeah.
Well, okay, just before we go, I want to float a theory past you.
Which is, and I think it accords with a lot of what you've said so far, which is that Man is endlessly ingenious.
God has blessed us with this extraordinary planet full of just abundance and life and resources and things which, thanks to human ingenuity, We have been able to exploit and expand our population with relatively minimal damage to the planet.
I mean, as you said, large swathes of it are still undamaged, and we've got better at looking after the planet.
You know, you think about how the Thames, for example, which used to be just full of bodies and sewage, is now, you know, it's got fish in it again.
And just one tiny example.
And the carrying capacity of the planet is... The planet is capable of supporting larger populations than it currently supports.
We could carry on expanding for a long time yet.
And there are all manner of energy sources that we can tap into, such as, well, nuclear we haven't properly exploited, clathrates, all sorts of things that we really haven't gone into.
The animal populations which we're told to worry about turn out, like polar bears, not to be a problem.
Most species extinctions have tended to take place on islands due to predators.
I don't think there have been any continental species extinctions.
They're certainly not caused by things like global warming.
So we're in a good place, and yet all we hear is this narrative of doom and gloom, promoted by organizations like your alma mater, Greenpeace, and promoted in the newspapers, promoted by politicians, and so on.
Large chunks of the populace have been persuaded to believe this absolute lie, which you very effectively debunk in your book.
And yet, so we've been given all these advantages, but somehow, a Malthusian elite at the top who believe all this shit, you only have to read the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, for example.
This is a manual for depopulation, for hatred of the human race, and for reducing the planet's population by a lot.
Do you not suspect, as I do, that This tiny elite is actually steering us towards extinction.
I mean, this is not just a theory anymore.
This is what is actually happening, that we are heading towards a terrifying depopulation program unless we can stop these people, unless we can educate ourselves and get out of this situation, this death spiral.
Well, James, I think we will get out of it by recognizing it widespread.
I think once people see, if we even ever get to the end of fossil fuel program, Let's see what happens when you take 20% of the fossil fuels out of distribution.
Right now it doesn't look to me like anything like that's going to happen.
Europe's coal consumption just went up because you don't have enough natural gas.
Why don't you have enough natural gas?
Because you have banned fracking.
Well, that's not going to last forever.
I mean, Biden threatened to ban fracking in the United States and has done some minimal amount of it.
But he won't get away with banning fracking in the United States.
That's just not going to happen.
So there's a lot of things that are just not going to happen because people won't let them happen because they understand how terribly negative the results would be.
Just one point.
One of the last things I was involved with in Greenpeace before I had to leave was a really important campaign.
In the early 70s, Canada and the United States adopted really good water and air pollution regulations, but Europe and Britain did not.
And so, even by the mid-80s, early 80s to mid-80s, almost all the rivers of Europe, even the big ones, the Rhine and the Elbe, the Rhône, and the Thames, were basically poisoned to death.
There was hardly anything living in them anymore, because the factories were putting poison in below the waterline from pipes.
So we created the riverboat campaign with a boat we named the Beluga after the whale, and went up the rivers plugging the pipes and backing the waste up into the factories.
And this made big news.
And today all those rivers have fish in them.
So Greenpeace did a lot of good things in the early years, but it was when they went into the campaign to ban chlorine worldwide that they turned into a racket-peddling junk science is what really happened there.
So we went from a group of volunteers, nobody getting paid anything, to stop nuclear testing.
And suddenly, after the Save the Whales campaign, money started pouring in.
We ended up paying ourselves a small stipend so that we could buy our food and pay our rent.
And again, pretty soon, we had more money and more people on the payroll.
And then fundraising became important.
So we were more like a business all of a sudden.
We used to be a bunch of volunteers.
So as a business we did really good things for a period of time and then it degenerated as the left moved in, the political left moved in and basically hijacked Greenpeace around the mid-80s.
All of a sudden there were all these people with red berets and army costumes coming in to sign up in the Greenpeace offices.
What are the contras or whatever they were called.
And that's what happened is Greenpeace got Once it got rich and famous, the left moved in and basically they were smarter politically than a bunch of Greenpeacers.
And they eventually took it over.
And now they're all behind closed doors at Davos, hobnobbing with the elite.
And so I do agree that it is this elite group of people who are so totally deranged.
I have no idea how they got like that.
They actually think that it would be... yeah, psychopaths.
Yeah, it'd be better if there weren't all these people messing up the place.
Whereas I don't see agriculture as damage to the environment.
I don't see it that way.
I look around where I am and there's beautiful areas of forest and then there's places where the trees were cut but now are greening up with new trees and there's farms with produce coming even, you know, because of the increased CO2 the produce is all growing faster all around the world on the farms so we won't need as much land if we put more CO2 into the air.
We wouldn't need as much land and commercial greenhouses take up a lot less land Because they produce way more per hectare in terms of food production than open air does, partly because they're putting CO2 into the greenhouse.
So, I see the oceans are relatively clean.
The tide is still going in and out.
It hasn't inundated my waterfront home yet, where I live on Vancouver Island.
And, you know, I always say if the sea level does actually rise a few feet, that would have an effect, of course.
You have two choices.
Move to higher ground, or hire the Dutch.
As in Holland, 25% of Holland is under the sea level, but they've built dikes to keep the sea out.
We're quite capable of building dikes, and if Manhattan were threatened, that's what you'd want to do, because it has such a high population density, that you could just put the taxes up 1% and you'd be able to build dikes around the whole of that island.
So I'm not that worried about the future, because I think people will resist when they see the results of even the initial attempts to depopulate the planet by taking the energy away from us.
Well, from your lips to God's ear, yeah, I hope so.
I hope so, because if we don't resist, if we don't wake up, that's going to be where we're heading.
It's going to be grim.
But thank you.
If you look at China, India and Russia today, they're not going down this path.
No, they're not.
So even if we do, it will only be to our detriment and our demise.
And then they will inherit the Earth or whatever, and have bad systems of government for years to come.
Yes, that could be our final lesson of this podcast.
Move to Russia while you still can!
I don't fancy our chances in Canada and the UK, Patrick.
I just think... I'm staying right where I am, right here on Vancouver Island.
Well, you're lucky to be here for a while.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, it's great seeing you again, and I'm sorry we're not there in person so we can have a drink.
That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Let's hope we do one day.
Thank you very much.
I think that's in the cards, James.
Is it?
We're going to have a drink one day.
Yeah.
I'm so pleased to hear this.
And if you've enjoyed this podcast, well, first of all, buy Patrick's excellent book.
I'll put the details on the bottom.
But also do remember to Freedom isn't free, and I'd love it if you could support me on my Patreon, Patreon James Delingpole, or Subscribestar James Delingpole, or at my website, delingpoleworld.com, where you can get your special friend badges.
Patrick, thank you very much again.
It's been really good, and thank you.
You're very welcome, James, and thank you, and I hope we meet again soon.
▲
Export Selection