The Truth About Greenpeace w/ Dr. Patrick Moore | PBD Podcast | Ep. 171
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
PBD Podcast Episode 171. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Dr. Patrick Moore and Adam Sosnick.
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Get Dr. Moore's book "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom": https://amzn.to/3yF4H8L
Follow Dr. Patrick Moore on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3AK778V
For more go to Dr. Moore's website: https://bit.ly/3o44CXe
Register for The Next Housing Crash webinar - Tuesday, July 19th @ 5:30PM: https://bit.ly/3RCsBuu
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: booking@valuetainment.com
0:00 - Start
21:54 - Is the earth headed for another ice age?
32:15 - What is the maximum number of people the globe can handle?
38:50 - What would happen if the population were to double in size?
51:18 - Do our presidents and world leaders care about the future? Or just their time in office?
58:02 - The importance of sustainable energy
1:06:35 - Do 'climate skeptics' need better marketing?
1:21:38 - Reaction to the Texas telling citizens to stop using power
1:32:52 - Why is Trump going after Elon Musk?
1:41:09 - Vinny visits Nancy Pelosi's office
1:48:19 - What is going on in Sri Lanka?
If you don't know who Dr. Patrick Moore is, Canadian industry consultant, former activist, and past president of Greenpeace Canada.
And he left.
And he has a lot to say about climate change.
He has a lot to say about anything related to climate change.
And I told him before we went live, I said, look, we have one basic outcome on today's Zoom, today's podcast.
It was basic, right?
It's not like a small little thing we're going to smoke.
Our goal is by the time we're done to solve every issue in regards to climate change because it is a big concern.
So, Dr. Patrick Moore, thanks for being on the podcast.
Thank you for having me, Patrick.
Very nice to be here.
Yes, it's Patrick and Patrick.
We're going to figure this out, guys.
Yeah, but I said he looks like a Patrick.
I don't look like a Patrick.
There's a big difference.
Sir, Patrick, yes.
So, you know, if you don't mind for the audience that doesn't know your full background and what you did to come about the current philosophies that you have in regards to climate change, would you mind taking a minute or two and giving your background to the audience?
I grew up on a floating logging camp on the northwest tip of Vancouver Island in the rainforest by the Pacific Ocean.
I didn't realize how lucky I was, surrounded by forests and tide flats and ocean, rivers, trees everywhere.
I didn't realize how lucky I was until I was sent off to boarding school in Vancouver at age 14, a very good school where I learned city ways and also discovered life science.
And that made me realize that I had always been innately in love with nature and with life.
And I excelled in that, went more to the life science side, biology, forestry, genetics, human evolution, all these subjects.
And I've studied them ever since.
That's all I've ever done.
While I was at UBC, University of British Columbia, doing an honors combined Bachelor of Science in Biology and Forestry, I discovered ecology.
That word had not yet been printed in the popular press.
It was an obscure science word.
Of course, environment was becoming discussed a lot in the late 60s when I joined my PhD program in ecology.
And after about two years, I learned about a small group that had started to form in Vancouver called the Don't Make a Wave Committee, planning a protest voyage across the Pacific to the Aleutian Islands to protest U.S. hydrogen bomb testing.
We took on the world's most powerful organization, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
We're followed by the CIA all the way across the ocean and arrested by the Coast Guard.
So we got on Walter Cronkite's evening news.
And that was the beginning of what Greenpeace became famous for in those early years, was going to the scene of the crime, going out into the ocean and getting in front of the harpoons, which I did for four years in a row in the summers.
And it just was an amazing journey.
So I spent 15 years in the top committee of Greenpeace, first as a director of the founding group, Greenpeace Foundation, and then as an international director for the last six years I was there, campaigning all around the world.
We took on the campaign to stop the slaughter of a quarter of a million baby seals still nursing on the ice floes off Canada.
That was more of a humanitarian issue or a humane issue about wildlife.
We wouldn't do that with deer.
We wouldn't kill the babies when they're still nursing with their mother.
So after that, though, we really got serious about toxics.
And whereas I was the only international director with any formal science education, you don't have to be a marine biologist to want to save the whales.
You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to want to stop nuclear war.
But when it comes to chemicals, diseases and toxics and health and all of that, you do need some science.
And two things happened as Greenpeace grew.
First, it grew into more of a business than a campaigning organization, because now we had 2,000 employees and we had to raise enough money to pay them their salaries.
So your priorities start to shift a bit.
Secondly, Greenpeace decided to describe humans as the enemies of the earth.
Whereas we had started off with a strong humanitarian vision as well as environmental.
The peace in Greenpeace is to stop humans from destroying themselves with nuclear war.
So you had to care about people.
But in the end, the environmental movement decided to characterize humans as the enemies of nature.
In other words, we're the only evil species.
All the other ones are good.
And that's way too much like original sin for me.
I'm not a fire and brimstone kind of guy.
I believe that humans are part of nature.
Well, because they are.
That's why I believe they're part of nature.
And there's way more good people than there are bad people.
I suppose there's bad animals too, like rogue elephants and things like that.
I know for a fact there's bad animals.
I've had experience with some of them.
But going back to Greenpeace and as a kid, were you the kid that was about saving the planet and hugging?
Were you a tree hugger?
Were you the guy that would walk up and see a tree and you'd hug a tree and you're like, I can't believe they're doing this to the planet.
These rich people, they're doing such bad things that made you want to go join Greenpeace.
Like, was that kind of, if I was to, you know, follow you back and we had content on you at 14, 15, 16 years old, was that you?
No.
My father was the logger, and so was I.
So were all the people around me and fisher people too.
So we knew that you had to take from nature in order to survive.
And there's simply no question of that.
And that's why these campaigns today to stop using energy are so stupid because there's 8 billion people.
And so I have a balance about this.
It's not a one-sided situation.
Of course, we have to protect the planet.
That's what feeds us.
But we also have to keep ourselves alive.
And people don't understand how short a time it takes for you not to have any food before you disappear from this life.
Because nobody's experienced it much in recent years.
But we're now facing a situation where a huge number of very powerful organizations and elites at an international and at national levels are calling for policies that are basically a suicide pact.
Basically a death wish of some sort.
And it's true, they might not want to say it out loud, but there's a lot of people who think there's too many people.
And I think that's ridiculous myself.
We're quite well off now than we were before.
Just 20 years ago, we're better off now with the technology and the knowledge, the science we have.
Dr. Moore, you're saying these organizations or these corporations.
Who are you referring to?
You're talking about the World Economic Forum?
Who are you referring to?
Well, let's start there, yes.
Okay.
Also, you probably have some choice words for Klaus Schwab, I assume?
Yeah, the guy who said we'll own nothing and be happy.
Can you put up his picture so people know what he looks like?
He's a sweetheart.
Go ahead.
Yeah, it's a sad situation that we have come to.
I didn't realize it could possibly ever get this serious as I've gone through like 45, 50 years of evolution with this train of thought.
And when climate change first came up as an issue, I realized that we were being duped.
And it was all about money.
80% of all the science research in the United States is in universities.
They have basically become money milling machines getting government grants to tell the politicians what they want.
What the politicians want is stories that make people afraid.
So you're driving down the freeway in your SUV.
You're afraid you're killing your grandchildren.
That makes you feel guilty.
That makes you open your wallet and send a big check to Greenpeace.
The politician then exaggerates that in the public.
The media exaggerates it.
The activists exaggerate it.
And the scientists are the silent part of it in a way because nobody sees the money going from the politicians to the scientists.
It goes through bureaucrats at state, city, national, international levels.
And that money is meant to create narratives that will scare people and that make them easier to control.
It's as simple as that.
And of course, the media machine on a global basis now is one of the most influential and powerful things in everyone's lives.
And some people choose to listen to the lies that are coming from the mainstream media instead of actually interpreting it for themselves from what they see.
Like, how can there be 25% of the population in the United States that thinks Biden's doing a good job?
How does that happen?
Why is there two?
Never mind, 25% of the whole population.
You're the most popular president of all time.
How could you say that?
That's right.
I forgot that.
Yeah, I shouldn't ever do that again.
Okay, so, but I want to go back to what he's asking.
So, you know, I got to, so while you're asking the question and you're saying what you're saying, I said, my mind immediately went to correlation between population increasing in the world and, you know, temperature, climate change, all that stuff.
And then I want to know what is the capacity of the most people that can live in the world.
So this article came out.
Can you zoom in a little bit?
This is an article from four years, three days ago, and I just kind of want to get your feedback on.
I literally just looked at this when he was speaking.
How many people can Earth support?
Because I just read an article last week that says it's projected that we're going to hit 10 billion by 2050.
I don't know if you saw that or not.
By 2050, we're going to hit 10 billion.
Okay, 10 billion is what?
Roughly 2 billion more than what we have today, give or take.
7.8, 7.9.
We go to 9.8, 9.9, 2 billion more, 10 billion.
Okay.
Are we really going to see the difference in traffic?
Are we really going to see the difference?
What does that really mean to us and where we live?
So pull A little bit, keep going up.
So, when you read this, it says around 300, by the way, I want you to correct if anything here I'm reading that the guy got wrong.
So, there are nearly 8 billion people living on Earth today, but our planet wasn't always so crowded.
Around 300,000 years ago, when Homo sapiens likely first appeared, our total population was small, around 100 to 10,000 people.
There were so few people at the start that it took approximately 35,000 years for the human population to double in size.
That's a long time.
According to Joel E. Cohen, head of laboratory and populations at the Rockefeller University and Columbia University in New York City.
After the invention of agricultural agriculture between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, when there were between 1 million and 10 million individuals on Earth, it took 1,500 years for the human population to double.
By the 16th century, the time needed for the population to double dropped to 300 years.
After the turn of the century, it took more than 130 years.
Go a little in the 19th century from 1930 to 1974, the Earth's population doubled again in just 44 years.
But is the human population expected to continue growing at this rate?
And is there an upper limit to how many humans our planet can support?
In 1679, Anthony Van Lewin Hoke, a scientist and inventor of microscope, predicted that Earth could support 13.4 billion people, according to Cohen.
He calculated that Holland occupied one part in 13,000 phones of Earth's habitable land, and so multiplied Holland's population of 1 million people by 13,400 over 40 years of research has collected.
Okay, so this is telling us we can handle 13.4 billion.
But the reality of it is there is a capacity.
And, you know, there was a very legendary song that came out, you know, 25 years ago that would say, you know, me and you are mammals.
Let's do it like they do on Discovery Channel.
What is it?
How does it work?
I think that was a song by the presidents of the United States of America.
But what is the name of the, how does it go?
Mammals We Gonna Do It Lights and Discoveries.
You got to get the lyrics.
Let's do it like they do on Discovery Channel, right?
Massive hit.
I don't know if you're familiar.
Anyways, it's a very good question.
But what's the lyrics?
Can I read the lyrics?
Because this is a very serious conversation.
So you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals.
So let's do it like they do on Discovery Channel.
This is a fact.
Dauka.
It's a fact.
By the bloodhound gang.
I apologize.
This is not going away.
So if we're going to keep having sex, and most people don't like condoms, okay?
And there's only so much you can take nowadays to prevent from pregnancies, unless if you want to be a dictator and saying one child like China did for many, many years, we're going to keep continuing to grow.
So if we keep continuing to grow, is it something that we just sit there and say, let our great, however many greats that we have to say, let them deal with this.
We don't need to do nothing about it today.
Or do we sit there and say, you know what?
I know I'm never going to meet that kid who's 20 generations away from me, but how about I figure out a way to make some things a little bit better so his life is going to be better and he's going to get an opportunity to do whatever he's going to do at that time.
Should we look at it from that perspective?
Well, it wouldn't make much sense if he never got to be there in the first place, would it?
How are you going to help him then?
You know, that's one important question.
Which means what?
What do you mean?
Which means if you stopped him from being born by something.
That's a completely different conversation.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You went elsewhere, which is great.
We can get back to that.
But the only way to find out how many people the planet can support is to see how many people the planet can support.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of that, but the good news is that the wealthier people get, the fewer children they have.
And it is projected that the population will level off, perhaps by as soon as 2050.
Africa is a bit of an exception.
It's projected to continue to grow in population because look how big Africa is to start with.
It has a pretty low population for its geographical size and potential for agriculture at this point.
I don't want to cut you off.
Did you just say the wealthier people get, the less children they tend to have?
Yes.
Really?
Well, it's true in all the...
Are you really surprised or...?
I didn't know.
Yeah, I actually am surprised because, I mean, you're having more children.
These wealthier you get.
I would have 30, but I didn't know that.
There's exceptions.
Process that, though.
Process that.
Process that.
Because kids cost so much money, you're saying?
No, no, no.
No, just think about, like, look around.
Who has the most babies?
Mormons.
Huh?
Mormons.
Religious people.
Okay, so but Orthodox Jews.
But look communities, look ethnicities, look families, look like, you know, who has the most kids?
You know, certain communities you can go into and say, oh my gosh, I have nine kids.
I grew up in a family with this many kids.
So that is true.
Most of them are.
The more money you make, the less kids most people want to have.
Interesting.
That seems a little counterintuitive because it costs a quarter million dollars.
We would have 20 kids.
From zero to 18.
Statistically, that's...
That most of the wealthier countries have a negative population growth just given their own internal populations.
Hmm.
Most of those countries' populations are only growing because of immigration.
That's when you say wealthier countries.
I mean, who are the wealthiest countries?
Western Europe, United States, United States, China, South Korea.
No, China's, if you look at the per capita wealth of China, it's nowhere near the wealthier countries.
Per capita.
There are rich people.
There's lots of billionaires there, but that's because there's so many people there.
It's just a fact that the wealthier people get.
I just pulled up the 20 countries with the highest population growth in 2021, and it validates what you're saying.
Wow, very interesting.
I think it's like 20 out of 20 countries are all, if you can look this up.
Third world countries, you're saying?
No, it's Africa, specifically Iran-Africa.
That's what he's talking about.
Please continue.
So I don't think, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about this all through recent history about whether or not there should be some effort to curb the growth of human population.
That requires draconian rules such as the one-child policy, which China has now eliminated.
They've realized that was not a good idea because people were purposefully killing girl children in order that they could have a boy.
And Pat cites all the time that India's population is growing exponential.
The average age in India is 26.4, 27 years old.
They're at 38.
We're at 36.
Another one of the most interesting things, though, I mean, I see there's really two main sides to this whole story of climate change, and that is the climate change issue itself, the climate of the earth, and the energy issue.
Those are two sides of the same coin because it's energy that's being blamed for the climate emergency, which is a total hoax.
There is no climate emergency where you start with that one.
And I could go on for a long time about that.
But you've got a teenage girl from Sweden coming out in front of the United Nations as if she's some kind of expert on what's going to happen in the next hundred years with the climate of the earth, which is about one of the most complicated systems there is in the universe.
I mean, there are so many factors involved.
And even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the supreme international body on this subject, has twice stated in its full reports that because the climate is multifactorial, in other words, there are many factors involved.
Non-linear.
In other words, these aren't in straight lines.
These factors have all kinds of different formulas.
You can't just predict a straight line out of any of them.
And most importantly, the climate is chaotic.
And chaotic is a mathematical word.
It means you can't see through it.
It means it's unpredictable.
Like the turbulence in front of a boat.
That is chaos.
Because you can't predict the shape that those bubbles are going to go in.
It's chaotic.
And so they say, therefore, future climate states cannot be predicted.
They say that.
And yet then they go ahead and predict them with computer models, which is like pretending you have a crystal ball.
The crystal ball is a mythical object.
You cannot predict the future with a crystal ball because it doesn't actually exist.
But these computers do exist.
But everybody knows garbage in, garbage out.
So if you put your own assumptions into a computer model, it will come out with the answer you wish to have every single time.
If you put the same numbers into a computer model a million times, a million times you'll get exactly the same result.
It's just a machine.
It is not an intelligent being even.
And intelligent beings have realized that because the climate is chaotic, it's impossible to predict it.
We can go back in time, and we can go back half a billion years in time with sediment cores from the bottom of the ocean, where you can see elements and isotopes which can tell you what the temperature was 100 million years ago and tell you what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 200 million years ago.
We have that to look at.
So we can look at the history of the Earth with many factors and see how it's been behaving.
And we know it's behaving in a way that does not link carbon dioxide to temperature.
They are actually slightly negatively correlated in the long historical record.
In other words, it is not a cause-effect relationship.
There is some cause-effect relationship between temperature and CO2, and that has occurred during the last two and a half million years, which is the Pleistocene Ice Age.
This is the irony of this whole situation.
The world is colder now during this last two and a half billion years than it had been for the previous 250 million.
There was no ice on either pole for 250 million years.
The previous ice age was called a Kareo.
It lasted from 350 to 250 million years ago.
In other words, it lasted for 100 million years.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
So let me challenge you on that.
Okay, so you said that that ice age happened when?
And it lasted for 150, how many years?
100 million.
100 million years, and it was...
It was called the KRU.
K-R-U.
K-A-R-Double O. How long ago was that?
It began 350 million years ago and ended 250 million years ago, and it's in Wikipedia and everywhere else.
No, no, I'm not questioning that.
That didn't exist.
But what doesn't make any sense is when that did happen, how many people were living on the planet 350 million years ago?
Modern life was well established at that time.
Forests were established.
Animals were established.
Insects were established.
All the sea life was already established.
How about human?
Like, how about us?
It doesn't matter.
We're a mammal.
But wait a minute.
I'm asking you a question.
It does matter.
No, it's not.
No, let me tell you why it doesn't.
Because yourself, myself, and all of us in this room, and everybody in this world and all the animals and plants all came from then.
No, that's not what I'm asking.
No, no, you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for a popular.
Of course, listen, you're on a podcast that you're going to get challenged if you're uncomfortable with it.
I'm going to keep challenging you.
So you can challenge me.
I'm comfortable with this.
I'm ready.
So going back to it, do you think if I talk on my phone for 12 hours straight every day for two years, you think that radiation is going to hurt me a little bit?
No.
You don't think it's going to hurt me at all?
No.
Okay.
Do you think the whole thing with radiations being near plants, nuclear plants, or the wiring, you know how 5G you're talking about?
No, no, not 5G.
I'm not going conspiracy theory.
I'm just going straight up.
Like if you live close to plants that have a lot of radiation, you think that's bad for you and I?
No.
At all.
Zero.
Okay.
No, it's because they don't have a lot of radiation.
They're shielded and they have less radiation than standing near a granite wall in many cases.
Okay.
Because granite has radiation in it.
Do you think a guy who works near choppers and planes, there are side effects that's going to hurt his hearing over a time of 10, 20 years?
Only if he gets hit by the propeller.
There's going to be hearing.
I was in the Army myself, and they would say, where are these things?
Because if you, okay, but sometimes eventually there's some side effects to it, right?
Okay.
There's no way I can compare how peaceful a building was with nobody working and living in it versus how peaceful a building is with 200 people living in that building.
There's going to be more things breaking with 200 people living in a building than when that building was built up and nobody's living in it.
There's going to be things that's going to happen.
There's going to be deterioration because we're going to naturally do that.
When I bought my house, my house was brand spanking new, clean, white walls, all this stuff.
Come take a look at some of the white walls, see what my four kids have done.
Okay.
The other day, I'm like, Jen, what is this all about?
Babe, I don't even know how they broke that.
Okay, we got to get a fix, right?
Okay.
So I'm not sitting here saying it's your climate change is real.
But I'm saying if I'm going to match data to data, you can't say data to data and there's no human, you know, mankind living here versus there's mankind living today.
I don't know.
This is not my world.
I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm not a PhD.
I'm a person that questions things to wonder, there has to be some kind of correlation here with what we're doing to hurt this, if we are in any possible way.
So when you say that and you say ice age, all this stuff, I'm like, well, cool, but we were not around.
So we came around.
Things have changed ever since mankind has started producing things.
You can look at Dubai, what Dubai looked like 40 years ago.
You ever seen a picture of what Dubai looks like today?
It ain't the same place.
It's a completely different place.
So we have some kind of an impact on it.
My question becomes as the following.
What's the capacity in this building?
How many people are there?
100 people.
150 people.
But how about if we really are super cheap and we want to max this place out?
200 people.
200 people.
Can we have 500 people working in this building?
Hell no.
Is it no or hell no?
It is hell no.
It is hell no.
I agree with you.
We have a nice building, just for the record.
That's not what I'm saying.
It has nothing to do with nice building.
We have a nice planet that we're living in.
What's our capacity and what kind of a negative impact are we making into it, if any?
That's my curiosity.
Yeah, cities occupy about 2.5% of the land on the Earth, and the land is only 25% of the Earth.
The other 75% is the ocean, where very few people are living.
So we have actually, the people who live in the cities think the whole world is a city, I think.
I think they never go outside to see what's out there or fly over it to see what's underneath how many farms and forests there are across the United States of America.
I've flown over every country in the world practically.
Let me give you one example.
Europe, the whole of Europe, like the EU, 200 years ago, was down to less than 10% forest.
They had been using wood, but this is before fossil fuels were used extensively.
So they were using wood for all their energy, for heating all their buildings, for making steel and copper and glass and steam engines.
So they had started to deplete the forests and the forests weren't growing back naturally as fast as they were being cut for industry and heating.
And so silviculture was born, the science of growing forests.
And whereas agriculture started about 10,000 years ago, growing food, it was not necessary to learn how to grow trees because there were so many of them and so few people that up until then no one had learned how to farm trees.
So silviculture began in Central Europe, in the eastern part.
And today Europe has 43% forest cover, more than four times, nearly five times what it had 200 years ago.
And that is the result of humans farming trees.
And the trees are native trees.
In some countries, they farm trees that come from other countries, where they call them exotic trees.
Like in South America, for example, there are really no native trees that are good for forestry because they grow too slowly.
New Zealand is the same.
A lot of the southern hemisphere has forests that grow very slowly.
But they can import pines from California in New Zealand, Monterey Pine, and develop a huge forest industry and exporting wood to Japan and China by the score.
And at the same time, creating a forest where there wasn't one before because it had been turned into a grassland with sheep on it.
And that's why New Zealand has so many sheep, because it wasn't worth growing trees back on the land after you felled the trees for wood.
So they brought in sheep.
Now they're putting those same pastures back to forest in many cases.
China and India have produced more new forest cover in the last 50 years than all the rest of the world put together.
And in fact, China and India are between the two of them, emitting more than 50% of all the carbon dioxide in the world today.
Therefore, they are contributing to the most to the fertilization of the air with CO2 to grow more food crops and forests.
That's why there's record harvests every year.
About 70% of the increase in our food crops are because of additional carbon dioxide.
So now I want to talk a little bit about the science side of the climate stuff.
Because a piece of wood is made from air.
Only about 1% of it comes from the rocks.
The rest of it comes from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, all of which are invisible gases in the atmosphere.
So life, its foundation of life, is taking its material from the atmosphere, not from the ground.
People think trees are eating the soil.
Trees make the soil.
If it wasn't for the trees, it would just be bare rocks.
So the trees are actually producing the soil by taking gases from the atmosphere.
The nitrogen has to come through nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil, but it originates from the atmosphere.
Are you saying that deforestation is not a major concern?
Like, for instance, a lot of friends in Miami here who are from Brazil.
And anytime you hear about Brazil, Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil, he gets a lot of flack for the deforestation of what they're doing to Brazil.
You see, you know, in the Amazon, trees getting burnt down, you know, making way for more cities and more people.
Are you saying that that's not a big major issue?
The Amazon is called a human desert because there's so few people there.
Hardly any Brazilians ever get to go to the Amazon.
And so they're easily duped with propaganda about what's happening there.
I've flown over it twice, five hours it takes to fly over the Amazon.
It's practically as big as half the lower 48 states.
It's a huge area.
Less than 10% of it has been converted to farmland.
The rest of it is still forested.
That is a fact.
And so I've actually toured the whole of Brazil.
I went there from British Columbia because British Columbia, where I'm from, there came to be a huge anti-forestry movement in a province where forestry is the primary industry and growing trees back.
So I went to Brazil because they were calling BC the Brazil of the North, as if we were destroying all our forests just like Brazil was.
In British Columbia.
Yes, in British Columbia.
Yeah.
And in Canada in general.
It was a big movement.
Greenpeace, after I left, it started a big movement to ban Canadian forest products in all of Europe because we export a lot of forest products to Europe, seeing as though we have the second most number of forests in the whole world.
The United States actually has the largest forest industry in the world.
And the U.S. South produces most of that wood.
But again, coming back to the hardly imaginable fact that wood is made with air.
You're going a different angle.
I want to go a completely different angle.
I want to go a completely different angle.
And I really want you to help me out here.
So based on your research, what is the math?
You said 2.5% of the city, right?
I'm staying on this population topic.
What is the maximum capacity of human beings that can live on Earth and we can coexist and everything is sustainable without it being insanity?
What's the number?
Nobody has a clue.
Well, I think we do have a clue.
No, we don't.
How do you make a formula for that?
But how do you, if that's your world, to me, if, okay, let's do basic math formula.
How do we have a clue?
The way I would do it, I would say, okay, where can't men live?
Okay, so maybe let's just say percentage of mountains, certain struggle.
You can't live in Mount Everest.
You can't take those mountains.
How many square feet is that?
Okay, how many square miles is that?
Let's take this out.
Okay, the world has how many total square miles?
Here's how many square miles we have.
Fantastic.
How much of it is water?
Take that out.
How much of it is this?
Take that out.
Okay, so we're really living with this many square miles.
And then what is a too congested?
Is New York a level of congestion healthy?
No.
What is a healthy level of congestion?
How about we do LA?
LA is congested.
405 is pretty bad, but New York is horrible.
Can we do every city like New York?
No.
Okay, but give me that formula anyways, that if every city in the world looked like New York City, we can handle 22 billion people.
I don't know, but I know we can figure out that mathematical formula.
So then what that does to me is the following.
Here's what I do.
Again, purely thinking like an analytics guy that's a financial guy.
Can you zoom into this real quick for me?
Zoom in so the rest of the people watching this as well can see it.
Okay, so this goes go a little bit more so we can see it.
Okay, this is world population by year.
Go down so they can see what the top top.
No, no, the other way, where the tops is what it is.
Okay.
Worldometer, world population by year.
2020 we had around 7.794 billion people.
Okay.
Go down to when it was 3.7 million, 3.7 billion.
Okay.
So 3.7 billion was 1971, which is exactly 50 years ago, was 3.7 billion.
Go down to see when it was 1.9 billion.
Okay, stop.
1927, what is the difference between 1927 and 1971?
That's what, 44 years?
That's exactly 44 years.
So watch this.
It doubled in 44 years, then it doubled in 50 years.
So it dropped around 10%, 15% a drop.
Okay, go down, see, from 1.9 billion when it was a billion.
Okay, 1.0, no, 1.9.
Okay.
So it was a billion when?
1804 to 1927 is what?
Holy shit, that's 123 years.
Okay, so it's crazy.
It took a long time to double there.
Between a billion and a half billion was 1,600.
So that took how many years?
196 years.
250 billion is what?
900.
That's how many years?
700 years.
Keep going lower.
So 900, if you go to, you get the idea what I'm doing with the math here.
At 5,000 BC before Christ was 5 million people.
So we went in the last 7,000 years from 5 million people to 8 billion people.
If I double that, if I double that, here's what it looks like.
It took 10 doubles only to go from 5 million people to 8 billion people in 7,000 years.
Okay?
That to me, I sit there and I say the follow-on.
I say, Al Gore's full of shit.
I say AOC is definitely full of shit.
The end of the world is in 12 years full of shit.
But guess what?
It is happening eventually if we don't do something about it.
The end of the world or the end of human population growth.
The end of the capacity, what our capacity will be.
So then we can think like Dr. Evil.
I can tell you one thing that explains why there went from 4 billion to 8 billion, for example.
Why?
It's called the Haber-Bosch process.
It won two Nobel Prizes in the early 1900s.
It was a formula, a technological process involving very high heat and very high pressure, an extremely complicated process, which was able to combine nitrogen from the atmosphere with natural gas to make ammonia.
That ammonia is the basis of all the nitrogen fertilizer being used in the world's agriculture today.
It results in at least a doubling of crop production.
And that is why we see this news today about Sri Lanka banning nitrogen fertilizer and Netherlands now basically banning much of the nitrogen fertilizer.
And this is the biggest threat we have right now to an immediate starvation situation in the world.
Food shortage.
You hear it said at the odd time.
But the reason it's self-inflicted, this food shortage, nitrogen, the air has 70% of the air is nitrogen.
We could take nitrogen out of the air for the next million years and make fertilizer because it all goes back into the air again eventually.
Same with the carbon dioxide.
We talk about ourselves emitting all this carbon dioxide.
What are we emitting it from?
Oh, fossil fuels.
Oh, where did they come from?
They came from life absorbing carbon from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and being deposited in sediments called oil, gas, and coal.
So when we put CO2 in the atmosphere, we're just putting it back where it came from in the first place.
That's why CO2 was so much higher in the atmosphere in past millennia.
Like it's gone from 2,500 ppm to 180 ppm 20,000 years ago in 150 million years.
That's a long time.
But it's been a steady downward trend of CO2 in the global atmosphere for 500 million years.
There's been a couple of dips and ups and downs, but basically it's a downward trend.
And that's because the carbon has been taken from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, which is the only way life can get carbon.
It's the only source of carbon for life, and all life is carbon-based.
That's why they call it the chemistry of carbon, organic chemistry, and the chemistry of all other elements in organic chemistry.
So what we've got here is a situation where people just don't understand that there is no historical relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth.
But that's not where I'm going, though.
But that's what the climate change issue is all about.
I'm not a climate change guy.
I think both you and Bill Nye have problems.
I think both of you are bad for society.
Really?
Let me explain to you why, because both of you are way too confident.
And I don't trust that.
I'm just going by data that is.
But he says the same thing.
But he says the same thing.
He says I'm also going based off of data.
No, he doesn't.
He takes a fire extinguisher and points it on a globe of the earth.
Right.
I don't do that sort of thing.
But to me, you seem way too confident as well.
The level of certainty in scientists concerns me too much on both sides.
So I'm questioning the following.
But I don't have a level of certainty because I said very clearly that we can't predict the future of the climate.
I'm looking at the past.
We know the past.
So I can be confident about what's in the past record.
But the past record during the time where we did not exist does not make any sense in the argument we're making because we had no influence over it back then we do today.
It's not about influence, about we can measure pact.
We can measure through sediment cores in the ocean floor.
We can go back half a billion years in terms of the chemistry of the Earth and the atmosphere.
I don't think you understand what my point is.
I think you can go get that data based on what you're saying.
We got it.
But that data doesn't exist if that data doesn't mean anything if we were not there to show any direct negative impact we're making into it.
That's my question.
So if you say, well, let me tell you something.
Here's what happened to the world during this time.
Do we exist?
No.
Okay, so now we do.
And there's 8 billion of us now.
And if we've doubled 10 times in the last 7,000 years, do you know what two doubles is?
Let me ask you, if something doubles 10 times, you think it's a big deal if something doubles two times?
No.
What's two doubles?
You know what two doubles is?
Two doubles is 32 billion people.
You mean to tell me the world can handle 32 billion people?
I didn't say that.
But do you think it can?
So to me, eventually...
I have no idea, Patrick, as what will be invented in the next 50 years or 100 years.
So, but...
But we have to sit there and think, okay, so we have to sit there and say, if that is the case, if we're going there, if math shows us we have not stopped going, like right now the market crashed.
I think the market's going to crash pretty bad the next 6, 12, 24 months.
I think it's going to be very ugly.
And a lot of people are going to get hurt in a very big way.
But you know what I think is going to happen in five to ten years?
The market's going to go.
Dow's going to hit 60,000 in the next 10, 15 years.
What do you think is going to happen in the next five years?
We're going to have a trillionaire.
What do you think is going to happen in the next 20 years?
We're going to have 10 trillionaire.
I mean, that's going to keep happening, right?
And in the market, in the climate change stuff, oh, but look what's going on today.
I don't care what's going on today.
I want to see the difference of what's happened last 50 years.
Oh, what's going on this year?
Look what happened to the temperatures.
Give me 100 years, which I kind of go back to your argument.
What I'm asking right now is, if we double two more times, we've got 32 billion people here.
We can't have 32 billion people in the world.
In other words, we won't double to 32.
If we can't have it, we won't go there.
We can't get it.
Okay, so let's speculate.
Tell me what you mean by that.
What I mean is today, people are getting wealthier.
The number of people living in poverty as a percentage of the population is much smaller now than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago.
When we reach a position where more and more people are going into poverty and starving to death, we will know we're coming close to that limit.
How else are you going to find out unless you artificially reduce the population by cutting off the fossil fuels and by cutting off the nitrogen fertilizer?
That's what the real problem is today.
I'm saying this is a self-inflicted wound that we are dealing with right now.
And it's a real problem because I can see this, that these powerful elites like Schwab and on down, they want control of the world.
They want control of everybody.
Now, what do they want?
They want fewer people.
They think it's already too many, I think.
That's what they've been saying in the United Nations for a long time.
But the facts don't bear that out because less and less people are living in poverty and our knowledge of agriculture is growing, our knowledge of genetics is growing, and we're able to grow way more food now than we were then.
And food is the basis of how many people can be here.
Now, the environmental side of that is a different matter.
But as I've pointed out, we are not losing the world's forests.
There's a few places where deforestation is still an issue, but there's not very many.
Even in Africa, they are growing their forests back in the Sahel.
Now, you know, people don't realize that the Sahara Desert was lush with grass all during the first part of this Holocene interglacial for 5,000 years.
There were goat herders and villages.
You can see red dots on a map of where these villages were all across the Sahara.
So the climate has changed long before humans could have been any factor in it.
It's been changing all through the history of the Earth.
There was, as I say, an ice age hundreds of millions of years ago, and now we're in another ice age.
And the irony is that people think it's getting too hot when we're in one of the coldest periods in Earth's history right now.
This is an interglacial period in between.
There's been like 40 plus major glacial periods during this ice age.
People think the ice age ended 20,000 years ago.
That was just number 42 or 43 in terms of glacial advance, where the whole of Canada and Russia are covered in ice and all of northern Europe.
That melted, took 10,000 years for that to melt.
And for the last 10,000 years, we've been in this relatively benign climate called the Holocene interglacial period, during which the ice has retreated, at least up to the Arctic Ocean.
20,000 years ago, the whole of Canada was covered in a mile or more of ice.
Imagine if that happens again, which if history repeats itself, it will, because it's happened 44 times before this.
And they were in different periods.
Some were 42,000-year periods, others were 100,000-year periods.
The most recent ones have been in 100,000-year periods.
We know this from ice cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland, which go back hundreds of thousands of years.
They can see what the CO2 was, they can see what the temperature was, they can see a whole bunch of other things.
And they show us these patterns of climate that have been occurring.
So it's very clear to me that the human contribution to climate is virtually minimal, if at all.
The main thing we need to worry about is the ecosystems of the oceans and the lands and the forests and how much land we put in farmland and how we can make farmland be conducive to bird life and other life.
I mean, farmers don't really like any other life other than the thing they're growing.
They don't like weeds, they don't like insects, they don't like birds.
But in forestry, the foresters don't care about those things very much.
There are some insects that kill forests, but mostly foresters love birds and animals and plants.
What percentage of the world is farmland and forest, do you know?
I don't know exactly no, but the farmland is, there's two types of farmland.
There's land that's plowed, arable land, and then there's grazing land.
And often the grazing land also has a lot of trees on it and a lot of other plants on it.
So it's more natural.
Can you pull that up?
I just typed in what percentage of the world is farmland and forest.
Just type in what percentage of the world is.
If you do it on Google, it'll actually give you the percentage right off the bat.
Yeah.
What percentage of the world is actually typing the word?
What percentage of the world is farmland?
What percentage of the world is farmland and forest?
Yeah.
And it should say it right up there, 38% or something.
Zoom in a little bit.
Okay, so global trends, global agriculture land is approximately 5 billion hectares and 38% of the global land surface.
About one-third of this is used as cropland, and the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures for grazing livestock.
Okay, so Doc, question for you.
So 10% of the land is used for plowing and growing crops, monocultures.
Let me ask you a question.
How low can we take that percentage down to?
Well, actually, it has been reduced considerably by two factors in the last 100 or so years.
One is the invention of the internal combustion engine and vehicles, which replaced farm animals.
There was a time when farm animals used 25% of all the farmland to grow food for the animals.
So now we can use that 25% for growing food for people, and we're using fossil fuels to produce the energy to do the farming.
So that's one thing.
And the other thing is fertilizer and genetics.
The advances in the science of agriculture, if it hadn't been for the Haber-Bosch process, there would only be half as many people on the earth today, according to some people who look at that.
We wouldn't be able to grow enough food to feed 8 billion people if we hadn't had the nitrogen fertilizer.
Because along with carbon being the basis of life, nitrogen is the basis of proteins, enzymes, DNA, a whole lot of important elements in our bodies.
And so nitrogen is as essential in a way as carbon is, and hydrogen and oxygen.
Those are the main ones.
And interestingly, they all come from the air and water.
Yeah, I guess my question is, I'm just asking such a mathematical question that I'm not even going into the carbon.
Because you want to see the carbon debate on a bunch of different videos.
You can go watch a ton of them.
My concern is math.
Okay.
So innovation is what?
What do capitalists and entrepreneurs do?
Innovators go out there and say, what?
There's a problem.
Here's how we can fix it.
Here's how much money I can make in it.
Great.
I'm willing to fix that.
You need this NEET?
No problem.
Here's what I'm going to do, and I'm going to make this much money.
Cool.
So, but is there a level where are we going to get to a point where food's going to be man-made?
Are we going to get to a point where food's going to be like, you know, what's this new meat they're making?
Beyond meat?
Is that the direction we're going?
Are we going in a direction, well, we don't need any farms?
Well, we don't need any because man can officially, you know, make food ourselves, and we don't need to go to these places.
Okay, and then that's that so-called meat is made from plants.
I mean, you still need farms.
Okay, so how much of this can we not go without?
Like, if it's 38% of the world is global and land surface is cropland and the remaining two-thirds of that is meadows and pastures, how low can we take that 38%?
Because people are going to say, what if we can build this here?
What if we can build that here?
How low can we afford to take that 38% to?
We're growing twice as much food on less land now than we did 50 years ago.
So that's innovation.
So that's progress.
Okay.
And greenhouse growing, if you fly over South Korea, it's amazing.
Nearly every valley is covered in glass.
And it's really quite a sight.
But greenhouse growing is not only because you can make them warmer.
Greenhouse growers all pump CO2 into their greenhouses to double and triple it from the atmospheric level of 420 ppm up to 800 and 1200 ppm and they get 20 to 60 percent increase in yield and growth inside the greenhouse.
And you can also grow without soil in greenhouses.
Hydroponic agriculture is hugely successful.
So there's no doubt in my mind that unless we have a political collapse of the world and a self-inflicted collapse of the world by banning things that are necessary for life to exist, that we could theoretically have way more people than we have now.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of that.
I'm just saying that theoretically it's feasible.
Especially like greenhouse growing is just getting really off the ground now worldwide.
And you can grow twice, three, four times as much food on the same area of land as you can in conventional agriculture.
Well, let me ask you a crazy question.
So when somebody becomes a president or prime minister, how much do they care how the economy in that country does during the eight years they're the president versus how the country does 100 years later?
Well, at this point, it doesn't seem like many presidents, especially in the English-speaking world, give a damn about the eight years they're in power.
I mean, we've got a ski instructor, ski board instructor running Canada.
We've got a half-demented person here with a vice president that can't string two words together properly, running the United States of America.
Boris Johnson, thankfully, is gone, but who's going to replace him?
And Australia has just brought in this weird government.
Colombia has brought a weird guy as well.
They're just bringing weird people left and right.
I guess the qualification is to become a man in power is to be a little bit weird.
Maybe that's what they're looking for.
I just don't understand why there aren't more qualified people seeking these positions.
But then again, maybe not many people actually want to heat.
No, not just the heat.
It's fear.
It's the freedom.
It's life is a lot easier.
Then let them deal with the problem.
I guess the point I'm trying to make to you is the following.
How many people that become presidents sit there and say, I want to create policies that 10 presidents from now makes America a better country?
Or how many presidents get up and say, hey, Mary, can you tell me my approval rating this morning?
Oh, shit.
Okay, let's go tell them we're going to give a billion dollars of subsidies to papa pa papa.
Oh, watch.
It went up to 41%.
You're no longer the worst president of all time.
Like, meaning, what I'm trying to say is, how many presidents actually give a shit about what's going to happen 100 years ago?
You're not going to bring up the T word, are you?
What's the T word?
The next letter is R. Treason?
Trump.
No, Is that a bad word in your mind?
No, it isn't, because I asked people, not why do you hate him?
What policies that he brought in during his tenure do you disagree with?
And I don't know what the answer can be.
The policies he brought in were about the future and were about the economy and we're about the people and we're about the southern border and we're about energy independence and we're about whatever.
I don't know of a bad policy that he passed and Biden comes in and just rubs them all out with a stroke of a pen on the first day and causes an energy disaster and an Afghan disaster, Afghanistan disaster and all these other disasters and he still has 25% approval rating.
I mean that's a good thing because that means he has 75% not good approval rating.
But I just don't understand why the hate happened.
It makes no sense to me because hate is not a good reason to be against a person, especially if they haven't done anything wrong.
And it's been proven eight or ten times over that he didn't do anything illegal or wrong, but they went after him like as if he had robbed a bank, you know.
And I am very unpopular for even ever mentioning his name, even in my own country of Canada.
Oh, we talk about him all the time.
You're in a safe space here, but we'll get back to that because he's got some things he'll say to you about that.
But let me finalize the point I was trying to make.
Do you know what point I'm trying to make?
The point I'm trying to make.
I think you want to know how many people can live on Earth if we keep going in this direction.
So, my point is the following.
Here's my point.
No matter what country you look at when it comes down to elections, how many of those presidents are concerned about what the country's legacy is going to be 50 years from now?
No, zero.
They care about their eighth year.
Well, that's left or right, I think, what you're getting at.
Whether you're any country in the world, of course, you care about your power now.
This is zero to do with left, right, middle is zero.
This is not like, this is why we need a libertarian president.
I'm not doing that at all.
All I'm saying is, the current structure of any leadership in any country is what?
How is the market going to do while I'm there, right?
Okay.
Isn't that the same for any CEO, though?
Quarterly earnings?
Not how the company is.
Not founders.
CEOs, yes, not founders.
Because founders live forever.
CEOs don't.
Okay.
Founders live forever.
You can't name every CEO of McDonald's, but you can name the founders.
Sure, right.
You can't name.
You can name the founding fathers.
You're going to forget a lot of the presidents.
If I told you who's the 19th president, you may not get it right.
But if I tell you who's the founding father, you're probably going to get it right.
So the point I'm trying to make is— You're saying the founding fathers have a vision.
The CEOs are more concerned with if they're watching what's going on are devastated because they're founders.
They're like, dude, we put this together for it to work, and you guys are breaking this thing.
Founders are different.
But this is the point.
So if you look at right now, worst case scenario, according to the math that we just did, when is the next double going to be?
When are we going to go from 8 billion to 16 billion?
Tyler.
40 years, I believe.
So worst case, how many years?
60 years.
What's 60 years from today, 2080?
And how long will it take to double again after that?
We don't know.
But we, based on data, you keep going back to data.
It's not based on data.
You're projecting the future by past data.
And you just use a bunch of past.
But I didn't predict the future.
But you have to predict the future.
No, you can't.
But no, no, it's not you can't.
You can, but you may be wrong.
You can.
That's what visionaries do.
You're more than likely to be wrong.
Well, George Orwell somehow got it right.
Yeah, some people do get it right.
In 1984, when it was written, when he wrote the book, a lot of people said he's a fraud.
Exactly.
Okay, so let's play the game of let's forecast and see what could potentially happen.
And it's okay if we get it wrong.
Just like George Well got it right.
If we do forecast, in 60 years, we're at 16 billion.
If we do forecast, and I'm comfortable being wrong, in 120 years, we're at 32 billion.
You won't know whether you were wrong or not.
I don't care if I know that the human species cease to exist because we won't be here.
I'm in the insurance business.
I'm in the insurance.
I sell life insurance.
Okay.
All right.
Do you know what age you're going to die?
I don't know what age I'm going to die.
Nobody does.
Nobody does.
But guess what?
It's better off having it in case you do die so your family's protected.
So I want to sit there and say, okay, for the people that are using tactics to win elections today, that's not climate change shouldn't be the number one priority of any campaign.
Should it be a top 10 thing that we pay attention to that we have to figure out a way?
Not even the word climate change is not even on my priority.
It's what's the plan to know what the capacity of this planet is.
What is our capacity?
We need to know those numbers.
What number can we not touch?
Is energy on your priority?
In regards to, like you're talking cobalt and what's going on in Congo and Libya.
No, no, I mean, just in general, without energy, nothing moves.
Sure.
And without energy, there's no heat.
Okay.
Or cold because air conditioning depends on it too.
So what we have here is, even though you might not think climate change is an important issue, and I don't either, as a matter of fact, because I don't know if I can do anything about it.
I think it's a top 10.
I don't think it's number one.
No, it's it.
Well, it's a top 10 in people's minds, but the real issue is energy because the climate policy that is being adopted.
That's a better word.
I'm with you there.
more on the energy side, but we have to pay attention to this because if we don't pay attention to this, this could be an issue in the next 200 years.
But it's the energy side that I'm talking about being basically a suicide pact, this net zero thing.
And the whole idea that we can end the use of fossil fuels without increasing nuclear energy, because the same people who are against all fossil fuel use are also against all nuclear energy.
And that is the only technology that can actually replace fossil fuels as a reliable source 24-7.
Hydroelectric is just as good, except there's flat places and dry places where there can't be any hydroelectric energy.
Whereas nuclear can be used anywhere from the North Pole to the equator, out on the oceans on a barge.
You can put nuclear energy anywhere in the world.
All you need to do is cool it with water or air, and you can have it there.
Then the Russians are floating barges down the rivers from the north in the Arctic to some of the cities that don't have a grid that are way up north, like they purposefully developed up there, and they're bringing nuclear reactors in there.
Russia, China, and India are all way ahead of the United States now in nuclear reactor technology.
And Britain is even further ahead too in many ways.
They've got Boeing there, not Boeing, sorry.
I'm trying to think of the people who make really expensive cars.
What is the most expensive British car?
Rolls-Royce, yes.
It's Rolls-Royce that has been building the submarine nuclear engines for UK fleet for 60 years or more.
They know how to do it.
And so the fact of the matter is, we could replace 50% of the fossil fuels in the next 30 years or 40 years with nuclear energy with no difficulty at all.
But the idea that wind and solar are going to replace fossil fuels or nuclear or hydroelectric is absolutely insane.
Can I just explain a little bit?
When you have wind and solar, you have at most one-third of the time can you produce reliable energy.
The sun goes down all night, it's no good early in the morning or the afternoon, and then the clouds come.
So solar energy is more like 20% capacity.
So 80% of the time it can't serve the grid, which is a demand for energy at certain times of day, a certain amount.
The same with wind.
The wind stops at night, the wind stops in the summer, the wind stops in the winter, the wind stops for two weeks at a time.
The wind stops when the propellers freeze up, the wind stops when the wind blows too fast because they have to tether the blades.
And so if you're going to use batteries instead of gas or coal or nuclear to back up the wind and solar, you have to build three times as much capacity in production.
In other words, if you need 100 megawatts of coal energy, you need 300 megawatts capacity of wind and solar energy to charge the batteries.
Because you can't charge the batteries when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
But at the same time as you're charging the batteries, you have to be supplying the grid with the full amount of energy that it needs.
So there's no technical feasibility study on this.
There's no economic feasibility study on this.
Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute in New York is the expert.
He's written three or four recent papers on how much material it's going to take.
In terms of cement, the wind industry uses more than 100 times as much cement per unit of power produced as gas does.
100 times more cement.
So the amount of fossil fuels that are required to build the wind and solar infrastructure makes wind and solar a parasite on the larger economy.
That is a fair metaphor, a parasite.
In other words, it's sucking wealth out of the system in order to support this stupid idea that wind and solar are renewable.
Yes, the sun is renewable and the wind is renewable, but the infrastructure is not.
The stuff they build isn't made out of plants.
It's made out of steel and concrete and cadmium and aluminum and glass and lithium and cobalt and all these things.
And if you look at the amount of material that has to go into a wind turbine, compared to a gas plant, it's phenomenal.
It means they have to mine vast amounts of ore and truck all this stuff everywhere.
Huge machinery to put the things up and build them.
So I've said that all the wind and solar infrastructure, onshore and offshore, should have to be built with wind and solar energy.
In other words, they should not be allowed to use fossil fuels or nuclear or hydroelectric power to build the wind and solar infrastructure and then see how fast it disappears.
It would be wiped off the face of the earth and goodly so, because it is a parasite.
And all these people are getting rich.
All the crony capitalists are getting rich off the subsidies.
First, there are subsidies, then there are tax breaks, then there are mandates by utilities that politically are forcing the people to take the wind and solar when it's available, even though it costs more than the other technologies.
It's a total mess.
And this is the part of climate change that is worth paying attention to.
The science of climate change, I cover it in my book Thoroughly, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.
The main reason that we have all these scare stories today is because there are a lot of things that are either invisible, carbon dioxide, radiation, whatever is supposed to be bad in GMOs, which actually doesn't exist because it doesn't have a name or a chemical formula, so therefore it's fake.
But CO2 and radiation aren't fake.
They're just invisible.
So no one can see what they're doing.
Then you have the remote things.
Why are polar bears and coral reefs the main icons here?
Because no one can see what they're doing.
So they say 93% of the Great Barrier Reef is nearly dead, is practically dead, is bleached, is in its final terminal stage.
None of those mean dead, of course.
They just, they make it like practically dead means it's going to die, right?
No, no, it doesn't.
Things come back from being practically dead, like coral reefs.
And they weren't practically dead in the first place.
That was all hype anyways.
Polar bear population has grown by four to five times in the last 50 years.
I ask big audiences of professional people, how many of you have heard of the international treaty signed in 1973 by all the polar nations ending the unrestricted hunting of polar bears?
No one's ever heard of it.
No one ever talks about it.
They don't want you to know about that because that treaty, on the advice of wildlife biologists to the leaders of those countries around the pole, that has caused a three to five times increase in polar bear populations.
To this day, where now the people who live up in the polar bear region, in Canada, it's Nunavut and then it's Greenland and Norway.
Those people in Nunavut, which is Canada has the most polar bears of anybody because we have so many islands up there in the Arctic, those people have passed a polar bear management plan two years ago because they think there's too many polar bears because they're eating people and they are breaking into houses and there's just too many of them.
They've grown so much.
And yet not one newspaper in Canada or the United States reported that polar bear management plan or report the treaty that was signed in 1973.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, so I believe in the KISS principle.
Keep it simple, stupid, right?
So I'm listening to everything.
I'm writing down numbers, greenhouse gas emissions, I'm doing science projects over here.
Doing math, rule of 72.
I think, and this might be a long question.
You might, we'll go a couple different directions here.
It sounds like you have a marketing problem.
And I had the same conversation with the libertarians when we had the libertarian roundtable debate.
They have all these amazing ideas, but nothing breaks through because none of their candidates are charismatic or nobody's listening to them.
So I'm going to throw something your way.
By the way, I agree with you on that analysis.
Okay.
Well, thank you.
I am a country boy from the north end of Vancouver Island with a science PhD, and I know how to write about it and talk about it.
Yeah.
Well, let's say you are absolutely correct.
Is it fair to say that you're not a fan of the new Green Deal?
Is that fair to say?
That's fair to say.
Okay, so we'll go there.
Is it fair to say that you're not a fan of the Paris Climate Accord?
Of course.
Is that fair to say?
Okay, I'm just painting a picture for you.
So, but you know who is, okay?
And I'm just going to go down some names here and just throw them out there, and this will get to my point of the question about the marketing problem.
We all know Greta Thunberg, you've turned her, you know, 16-year-old girl, whatever, maybe she's 18 now.
You got Leonardo DiCaprio, you got Al Gore, you have Pharrell, Robert Redford, Mark Ruffalo, Joaquin Felix, Sir David Attenborough, Elon Musk, you can throw him in that category.
Jaden Smith, if you're familiar with him, Will Smith's son, big advocate of the.
Did I just go there with the other?
Did you just say Jaden?
Go ahead and look at the list of names.
Jane Fonda.
Point is, you have all these celebrities on the other side of your argument.
Yeah, except for the most part.
Except they know nothing about science.
Okay, but that's my point.
Yeah.
And then, and this is, you just basically answered my question.
They're doing great at marketing.
You have some of the most famous people in the world saying, listen to us.
We know what we're talking about.
And then you have Dr. Patrick Moore, for the most part, not a household name, smart guy on the other side.
So who's on your side?
Who can you recruit?
You know, much like Hollywood or the celebrities or the Green New Deal crew, the AOC crew, who can you recruit to be your biggest advocate to say, oh, it's not just me.
It's not this smart Canadian scientist that's saying this.
It's X, Y, Z, A, B, C, bing, To kind of even the playing field because it sounds like you have the exact same problem the libertarians have.
All these amazing ideas, but it's lost in the echo chamber and nobody's listening.
Is that a fair point?
You understand what I'm saying here?
Yes, I don't know about the libertarian analogy, but you're right.
The point is, they don't have a charismatic leader or leaders.
You're right about the celebrity analogy.
I don't know how to parse society in a way to give a decent answer to that, except all I know is I've worked all my life in the environmental field.
I've seen how it has changed and gone off on a course that it's gone off on now, where it's taking advantage of this situation of people being afraid that they're killing their grandchildren while they're driving their car.
And there are really no celebrities on the science side.
Most of the people on the science side that think like I do are scientists.
Well, you have someone like Bill Nye out there.
He's, I would say, a celebrity scientist, household name.
Yes, except a lot of the Gen Z grew up with that guy.
Bill Nye.
But the point is, I know you're shaking your head.
You're kind of Bill Nye, he's a joke.
Green New Deal.
It's a joke.
It's not a joke.
Paris Climate, I don't know.
I'm not saying that.
But this is who's making traction.
Yes, those aren't jokes.
The Paris Climate Deal is not a joke.
It's an international treaty.
And it's based on the idea that a one-degree more rise in global temperature will be a disaster, a crisis, an emergency, which is so ridiculous if you look at the history of the temperature of the earth.
I mean, we're actually at the tail end of a 50-million-year cooling period at this point in the Pleistocene Ice Age.
And yet they're saying it's too hot.
I mean, it's that simple.
But what do you do about fads and cults and popular moods to get your message out there?
That's essentially what I'm asking.
We have an organization which is recruiting.
It's called the CO2 Coalition.
It's based in Arlington, Virginia.
Greg Wrightstone is the executive director.
He is a very smart geologist who understands the ages of the earth and he also understands politics very well.
We just had a really good win in Pennsylvania where a judge overturned the Pennsylvania greenhouse gas initiative, which was going to cost billions of dollars.
And just like with the recent Supreme Court decision on the EPA and CO2, this is basically making the point that these administrations, the deep state basically, does not have the right to overrule Congress and to go beyond what Congress has approved.
There's a trend in that direction now, and that is a good trend.
And we are helping with that, with information directly to the people who are making the decisions.
So the CO2 coalition here, Clintel, it's a funny name, but it's initials for a global warming group in Europe mainly.
It is now got over a thousand people who are real scientists behind it.
And so we are organizing.
But we are not politicians.
We're just not born and we're not movie stars.
So it's not an easy road aho, but the truth surely will eventually come to the surface, especially if the climate doesn't warm very much in the next while, which it hasn't been doing for the last while.
So we don't really have any big trend of warming going on.
As a matter of fact, Western North America was colder this spring and early summer than it has been for a long time.
But those aren't the messages we're hearing the media.
Well, they don't report cold.
They only report hot.
So that's the other problem that is a societal problem and a political problem is the vast majority of the media is fake now.
And they're not reporting the southern border.
They're not reporting the climate news.
I see politicians saying that Bangladesh now has the biggest flood in 100 years.
They have floods every year.
100 people have died this year in floods.
Just a few years ago, 400 people died in floods.
and they're saying it's the biggest in 100 years.
And these are Canadian members of Parliament.
Is it the fact that the media is actually fake, or are they more just have an agenda and they want to stick to that agenda?
In order to...
There's a difference there.
No, in order to stick to their agenda, they must lie.
That's what they're doing.
And they know they're doing it.
They absolutely know they're twisting it and turning and ignoring.
They have two strategies.
One is to lie, the other one is to ignore.
So a combination of lying and ignoring works really well at making the population ignorant of what's really going on in the world today.
Because what's going on in the world today is that the air is healthy, healthier than it was 50 years ago or even 100 years ago or even 200 years ago when they were burning coal in every house.
You know, they had the Black Death in London occurred before 1900 when they finally realized they had to stop using coal as their main fuel.
And all kinds of changes have happened which make the air in the world cleaner today.
The forest area of the world is growing today.
As I mentioned, China and India are largely responsible, but Europe as well.
And we're not losing forest.
There's more forest in the United States today than there was in 1900, by a small margin, but there is more.
And that's because people are planting trees.
Because you see, the more wood we use, people think, oh, the more wood we use, the fewer trees there will be.
No, the more wood we use, the more trees there will be.
Because when people use wood, someone has to plant another tree in order to produce the wood for the next person that wants it.
So building all our house structures out of wood actually is one of the main reasons why we have so many trees here.
The reason Haiti has almost no forest is because they build their houses out of substandard concrete, which falls on their heads in an earthquake and killed 250,000 of them after the Japanese tsunami, which killed no one in the earthquake.
Unfortunately, 20,000 people died in the tsunami.
But that wasn't because buildings failed.
That was because of the wave.
The buildings in Japan are built to standards that can withstand an earthquake of nine.
In Haiti, an earthquake 20 times less powerful killed a quarter of a million people.
It's powerful right now.
Because if they built their houses out of wood that is treated for termites, it was easy treatment for termite resistance in wood.
If they would build their houses with termite-resistant wood, they would have forests all across the country like their neighbor Dominican Republic has.
It's a famous border between the two.
From the satellite, you can see Haiti completely deforested and the Dominican Republic green and lush as can be.
I've been there.
It's a beautiful place.
I'm not going to Haiti.
It's funny.
You know, for me, the more we do, this is not my area of expertise.
I'm just curious about it.
Like, it's something I want to talk to more people to see opposing ideas.
But the one thing that does concern me is capacity.
That's the one thing that concerns me.
And you see half these guys that are using, it's very easy to use fear tactics with something that can be made up.
It's very easy to use this in marketing campaign.
It's an easy gimmick to use, but the concern, again, for me is capacity, the world population.
That's the part that concerns me because we're two doubles away from 32 billion people living here.
But you can see, Patrick, that it's self-controlling.
Because if there's too many people, they won't be able to live.
And so then there won't be too many people anymore.
Now, it's a fine line because possibly what will happen is the population will continue to grow and grow and grow.
And then something will happen.
It'll get cold and the crops will fail in the north and you'll have mass starvation.
That's what happens, has happened all through the history of civilization.
Yeah, but so then there's two choices we have.
Do we just accept that and when it comes, it comes?
Or do we do something about it today to educate, to prepare, to anticipate?
Is it better to play in the anticipation and preparation game or is it better to sit there and say, look, when that time comes and we starve and half the population and the world dies, we'll adjust to it and we'll move forward.
Well, that would be the case.
It's the case with all the animals and all the plants and all the insects that have to adjust to the change in climates through the millions of years.
Is that the approach, the proactive approach?
There are plagues and you're afraid of a human plague.
I can understand that.
A plague is really when there's more than can survive and then you have a mass die-off once they've eaten themselves out of house and home, like with locusts, for example.
Once they've eaten all the crops, there's nothing left for them.
So that kind of thing could happen with humans.
I don't know if, I mean, we are capable of planning.
Whereas a bear probably, I don't I don't know.
They plan a little bit.
They go and get into a den in the winter.
So I guess that's part of planning for them.
But we can really plan in a serious way, of course.
But you have to wonder how far you go from a draconian point of view.
What do you force people to do?
Not force.
I don't think I'm saying force.
I'm saying education.
Yes, I agree with that.
And I think most people today would agree with you that we should not overpopulate the earth.
But the problem is, what is the definition of overpopulation?
But what I'm saying is, you know, if the guys who are the PhDs of the world, I'm not the PhD of the world, but if the PhDs of the world team up with the business analytics of the world and they pull up the formula, I guarantee you you guys can come with a high low.
I guarantee you can come up with a high low to say, this is the number, guys.
Not if you take into account the fact that there are going to be countless innovations into the future in health.
I know a guy who's working on a procedure that would prevent calcification in our veins.
And that's the main reason people eventually die is because of blood flow in your veins.
I mean, people die of other things before that happens.
But the reason not many people live more than 105 or so is because it just, that's a natural process that occurs.
And if you think about it, death is an absolute necessity for evolution because nothing would change if nobody died, right?
That goes for birds and plants and everything.
So the reason that life has evolved to where it is today is because of the cycle of birth and death.
And so we may be able, though, with our chemistry and our medical knowledge to make people live 200 years.
Then what happens?
Now you've got effectively got twice as many people.
That's even worse.
Well, I don't know about worse.
want to live 200 years it would mean well i would who wouldn't No, I'm fine.
Okay.
But you want to live a little longer than that.
I wouldn't mind.
I think 80 to 100 is fine with me.
Yeah?
Yeah.
And I'm okay, bro.
200 years old.
You don't have kids.
You live 200 years old.
I got to watch a couple of my kids.
I'm good.
What if you were 200 years old and still as healthy as you are today, though?
I don't, I don't, I think there is, I think there is nobility in it's somebody else's time and it's time for you to move on and somebody else taking over your, I think there's nobility and honor in that.
I don't, I think it's too selfish to want to hold that kind of influence for that long.
Somebody else has, their pruning process is healthy.
Anyways, that's just my philosophy.
I was saying that about evolution.
Yes, it is healthy.
There has to be a pruning process or nothing would ever change.
In other words, everything would still be microscopic one-celled things in the ocean.
I'd like to know what our audience has to say.
Would people in our audience want to live past 100?
Is that a goal for most people?
A lot of people do.
You may want to comment that.
We'll follow it.
How many guys would like to live 100 years old?
200 even.
I was just at a birthday party for a 104-year-old woman who has all her marbles and doesn't have any walking.
104.
Yeah, she still drives.
Well, good for her.
Easy, respect.
Respect.
Where does she live?
In Comox, British Columbia.
I won't be driving around there anymore.
I'm going to keep it over there.
My mom's 94 and she still drives.
One thing we know for a fact.
She's got all our marbles.
One thing we know for a fact.
Our friend here, Adam, is not into older woman.
His formula is half his age plus seven.
That's a sweet spot.
So can we talk about a couple different things?
Can you bring up, I was just in Texas this morning.
I got in at 2 a.m. this morning from Texas, and I was in Dallas.
And it's funny, we're eating at Ocean Air, and all of a sudden, lights upstairs goes out.
And the guy comes up and he says, look, this has nothing to do with the blackouts and the power.
We're not turning it off because we're trying to save power here.
He joked about it.
I'm like, what's he talking about?
So then here's the article.
Texas, Texans asked to conserve energy to protect the power grid.
For the second time in a week, Texans have been asked to turn up the thermostats and avoid using large appliances from 2 to 9 p.m. Wednesday.
The power grid operator said it does not expect rolling blackouts.
And I think the temperature, Tyler, if you want to go up so I can read the rest, is 78 degrees.
There you go, 78 degrees.
For the second time this week, the state's power grid operator is asking Texans to turn up their thermostats to 78 degrees and to avoid using large appliances as it expected record high demand for power grid, ongoing scorching temperatures.
It is asking for conservation 2 to 9 p.m.
Interesting.
So what do you think when you hear something like this or you read something like this?
I think in the southern states, the temperature is kept too low in most buildings.
I think it's 78 is fine.
I set mine.
78.
I set mine at 80.
And I come from Canada, but I set my room at 80 here because when I go outside, it's 90, right?
And if I feel fine out there.
People are going to hear these numbers like that.
What are you talking about?
You can sleep at 80.
Yeah, I can sleep at 80.
I just take the covers off.
Can you sleep at 80?
Hell no.
I'm a 72 guy.
It says 80 on my thermostat.
You got the number right.
72.
What?
80?
I said it at 70.
I'm in Miami, buddy.
80.
Are you kidding me?
I want to feel cool when I sleep.
Are you telling me that people in Texas should disregard what they're saying and just keep their thermostat at 80?
No, no, they should put it at 78, like they say.
78?
Yeah.
Nobody's doing that, man.
No, I know they're not.
Nobody.
When you're from the north, right, you set your thermostat probably at 75.
Most people would set it at 75 or even lower.
It's true.
But that's because it's way colder outside.
Eight months out of the year, you don't even use the AC.
No, you use the heater.
Well, we only have AC in our bedrooms.
We don't have the rest of the house air condition.
Just open the windows.
But what about our friends in Texas?
Yeah.
What is it?
ERCOT E-R-C-O-T?
Is that the whole thing?
The real stupid thing about this is they're running out of power in Texas, one of the richest places in the world.
And the reason they're having this problem is because of the huge amount of wind power they put in.
Because it just isn't there sometimes.
A lot of the time, it just isn't there.
And this is where people are going.
Texas, Australia, New York, Ontario in Canada, Germany, all these countries are going to come up against this wall because they just keep building more wind and solar.
The plans to build offshore upstate New York and off Long Island there, there's plans to build like vast wind farms offshore.
Now they're worried about the right whales being in because white whales have their birthing up north of there and then come south.
And they're going to have to be navigating through this massive bunch of wind turbines to get out of there.
Maybe it's a made-up thing.
I mean, I think right whales can probably get past wind farms.
But let me ask you a quick question.
The wrong thing is the wind farms in the first place.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but you know, in economics, there's a term laissez-faire economics, right?
Where don't do anything, just let free market capitalism take its place, no government interference whatsoever.
Just it is what it is, let it be what it be.
Is that essentially the argument that you're making for climate change or the environment?
Is just do nothing, let it be what it be.
Am I misinterpreting that?
I spent a great part of my life stopping toxics from going into the air and water.
There has to be rules.
But when the EPA made the ruling that CO2 was air pollution, instead of recognizing that it was the main food of all life on earth, that was a big mistake.
And they did it without Congress giving them the authority to do that.
And that's been ruled against by the Supreme Court now, which is a really good decision.
Like, what that did was it gave the EPA the power to determine the entire energy infrastructure and what technology could and could not be used.
Nothing to do with clean air.
The air, we can burn coal clean now.
It's being done even in China.
They're putting good pollution control on their coal plants.
But when you make CO2 a pollutant, the food of life, That's so absolutely nuts.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
What else is on your checklist?
Like if you're saying, all right, no, don't do laissez-faire for the environment, like there's some things you should do.
Is there a certain like three-point, five-point checklist?
Do this, do this, do this, like you talked about CO2.
What else?
It's the don't do's that matter.
Don't murder people.
Don't abuse people.
You know, don't.
We've known about that since the Ten Commandments.
I'm talking about government interference today.
What should be done?
Well, there's no clear answer to that question.
It's what shouldn't be done to a large extent.
What shouldn't be done is calling carbon dioxide carbon.
Just remember this.
Anybody who calls CO2 carbon, don't listen to a word they say.
Because CO2 is not carbon.
It is carbon dioxide.
We don't call water hydrogen.
Water is hydrogen dioxide, right?
I learned that from the water boy.
Shout out to Adam Sandler.
So you don't call it hydrogen just because it's the first letter in the formula.
So these people are calling it carbon because they want you to think of soot, right?
Well, why don't they want you to think of diamonds?
Because that's pure carbon too.
And so is graphite, what our pencils have in them.
Carbon is a miracle element.
And CO2 is a miracle molecule because all the carbon in all life comes from CO2 in the air and the ocean.
That's where it comes from.
And fossil fuels are made with carbon that came from life.
So all the fossil fuels were made with solar energy.
Have you heard that before?
No.
Well, how else did they...
The oil and gas are from marine animals and the coal is from forests on the land.
They were made with solar energy.
That's the basis of all life, turning carbon dioxide and water into sugar.
And then the sugar is the energy for all of life from there on up to us.
All life.
And if we threaten our own food system with these stupid rules about not using nitrogen or carbon dioxide, maybe they're going to ban carbon dioxide in greenhouses the next thing you know.
People are working in there in CO2 levels two and three times what it is in the atmosphere.
And actually right in this room now, CO2 will be at least double what it is out in the air because of our breathing.
We breathe out two pounds of CO2 every day.
And the atmosphere is now 420 parts per million CO2.
When we exhale, it's 40,000 parts per million CO2 because we're taking in oxygen and breathing out CO2.
The plants take in CO2 and breathe out oxygen.
So it's a perfect cycle.
And that's nature in a nutshell.
And people are not being even educated about that.
Never mind about basic chemistry and biology.
And the fact of the matter is the earth is very healthy at its present state.
That's great to hear.
We always hear there's no planet B, that the Earth is dying.
Not dying.
But the oceans are being overfished in many places because of internet.
You hear that all the time.
Well, it's international waters.
There's no governance there.
And for example, Canada and the United States have a treaty with China, sorry, with Japan and Russia over the salmon in the North Pacific.
So we do have governance there about how many we can take and what we can do.
There's quite a few of these treaties.
Who's the biggest culprit in overfishing in the international waters?
Japan, China, Spain, Portugal.
Maybe I haven't got the top four there.
And who's holding these countries accountable?
Well, they make their own rules in international waters.
The reason they were able to kill 30,000 whales a year, big whales a year in the North Pacific, Japan and Russia were both involved in that with big factory fleets before we got out there for four years and got in front of the harpoons and got on television all around the world.
And it was finally ended by the International Whaling Commission, which is an arm of the United Nations.
And so we succeeded.
But it was very difficult because there was in a sense a governing body, the International Whaling Commission, but it was totally ruled by the whaling countries.
So we did a political movement where we recruited island nations to join the International Whaling Commission, ones that wanted to stop the whaling.
And we got a majority on the IWC.
Back then, we didn't want to admit that was what was going on because some people thought that was unfair, especially the guys that were killing the whales.
There's two stories I want to tell you before we go.
Apparently, we have one of our guys, Vincent O'Shaughness, who's an actor and a comedian we hired.
I'm not going to go to him right now.
I'm going to go to him in about 12 minutes.
I think he's in a very strange place.
Did you hear about that?
He just texted me.
We're going to go to him in about 15 minutes.
But let's stick to two stories.
One, you commented about Trump earlier.
I want to get your feedback on this.
This just happened over the weekend.
If you want to prepare the tweet, both of them, Trump's first message of what he said, and then the follow-up from how Elon responded and what then Trump put the day after.
So let me read this article to you guys.
Trump ramps up feud with Elon Musk, claiming he would have made Elon Musk drop to his knees and beg for help when he was president.
Originally, so on Tuesday morning, Trump penned three posts hitting at Musk just the day before, day after Musk tweeted that it was time for Mr. President to sail into the sunset when Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidy projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocket ships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican.
I could have said drop to your knees and beg, and he would have done it, Trump claimed in a post.
And by the way, the day prior to that, he was given a message, a speech, and he called Elon Musk a bullshitter.
Bullshit.
And a bullshit artist.
Yeah.
And then Musk responded and said there needs to be a maximum age for presidency after Trump publicly criticized Musk, calling him a bullshit artist.
At a rally in Anchorage, Alaska, Musk tweeted that he thinks it's time for Trump to hang it up and sail into the sunset.
In a series of tweets, Musk said he does not hate Trump, but that his days at the forefront of politics should be done.
Musk also suggested Democrats were enabling Trump's potential return to the White House, which he said should also stop.
A Twitter user then asked Musk what issues he had with Trump's presidency, to which he replied, yeah, but too much drama.
Do you really want to upbull in a China shop situation every single day?
Musk then suggested that the legal maximum age to start a presidential term should be 69 years old, which is one thing we talk about, 35 to 69.
So that's going back and forth to two of them.
What is your take on Trump going after Elon Musk?
You got a lot of people to go after.
Why go after Elon Musk?
I'm for Musk.
You're for Musk.
Yeah, I think Trump should disappear into the sunset.
All the circumstances that have happened, I can understand why he is miffed about what happened to him through his presidency.
He was attacked every day, every day, all day.
I still think the policies he brought in were worthy, and I still think what Biden did to them is wrong.
If you look at just the southern border and the energy issue and Afghanistan and on and on, I believe he tried to do the right thing during his presidency, but he is a bull in the China shop.
And it would be a good idea if someone less like that, such as DeSantis.
DeSantis.
By the way, it's so funny you're saying that.
This is very important that you took the angle that you took because Trump tweeted about you, I want to say in 16.
I don't know the exact date, but he said, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Space, Greenpeace.
The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it's fake science.
There's no climate crisis.
There's weather and climate all around the world.
And in fact, carbon dioxide is the main building blocks of life.
Wow.
And then Patrick.
Who made that quote?
You or him?
He quoted me.
He quoted him.
So I put it on the back of my book because I wasn't quoting him.
He was quoting me out.
That's right.
I thought, that's fine.
So he's a fan of yours.
Apparently.
And you want him out of, you don't want him to run for president again.
I didn't say that.
If he decides to run.
He said, sail off in the sunset.
That's how I'm interpreting that.
If I was him, that's what I would do.
But I am not him.
And I don't have that temperament.
Maybe he does.
Why do you say that's what he should do?
And again, you're an advocate, it seems.
Because I think it's too polarized.
And I think he's part of the reason why it is.
And I think he did a good job when he was in office, but he would have done a much better job if they hadn't impeached him twice and put him through that whole Mueller investigation, which was all phony baloney.
So, you know, you look back in history and you look at the situation now, and I would have said something different back then, probably.
I would have said, carry on.
But he shouldn't get into these kind of myths with Elon Musk.
Elon Musk is pretty good.
Yes, he panders to the climate issue to a certain extent, but who doesn't?
Well, that's what helped him become the richest man in the world.
Exactly.
But you know what's the crazy thing about this?
Here's where I don't understand his strategy.
And I tweeted about this a couple of days ago.
People were all upset.
I was like, I can't believe he did this.
Whose side are you?
And I said, I'm not trying to make more friends.
I'm just telling you how I process this.
So you say this about Musk.
He's the lead today as a Republican, and it's not even close.
I think it's like 46% is him, 29% is DeSantis.
And then I think it drops to 7% Cruz, and I think it's 6% is Pence and Nikki Hayes.
He's still the guy in the Republican.
So check this out.
So you make a comment about a guy that's got 100 million Twitter followers, and you're not on Twitter.
He's on Twitter.
Rogan a week ago just said he would never have you on.
Then Musk says this, and you go after Musk.
So let's just say, let's play this out.
Let's say Trump is the candidate for the Republican side.
Let's say he is.
Let's say he wins.
You think Musk is the kind of a guy that would flip and say, oh, we have to vote for Trump?
You think Musk is all of a sudden going to get behind Trump?
You think Musk is going to remember what he said when he called him a bullshit artist?
What kind of a wiring do you think Musk has?
You think Musk is going to sit there and say, well, let's get him in there.
Or is he going to say, shit, why are you putting me in this guy?
You cornered Musk to not support you.
No, no, that's why I said it.
What are you doing?
By the way, I did not see your tweet, Pat, but you summed up exactly what I'm thinking.
If there's, like...
You talk about this all the time.
Don't create unnecessary enemies.
It's a game of conversion.
It's a game of math.
Let's say you're at 48%.
You want to get the 52% of the country to support you because that's how close these elections are.
No sense.
You're creating unnecessary enemies.
You're supposed to be building advocates and building allies.
And you're taking arguably two of the most popular men in America, approval ratings considered, Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, by the way, who are allies within each other, right?
Those guys are in touch.
And you're cornering these guys to basically say he's untouchable.
It doesn't make sense to me.
And this is the problem that people have with Trump.
It's like, make these guys your allies, not your enemies, or at the very least, be neutral.
You can understand why Trump is bitter, but he is bitter, and that doesn't look good.
No, it's not attractive.
When he was saying make America great again, it wasn't from a place of bitterness.
It was from a place of bitterness.
It was friends and influence.
It was from a different place.
You should read that for me.
But you know what it is?
Here's a question you got to ask yourself.
Okay.
Here's a question I got.
And I asked this.
And I put that in the tweet afterwards.
I said, the only way this makes sense is the following way.
The only way, go back to my tweet.
It's part two.
The only way this makes sense is if his concern is more to increase valuation of truth social over him becoming president.
Maybe that's his agenda.
But by the way, let me unpack that in case anybody, in case there's a 1% chance of this being true, which 99% it's not.
If it is, President Trump, just so you know, the day comes where the world is celebrating your funeral and your service to whatever you did in humanity, somebody that became very successful in business and media, and you were a controversial figure that became a president.
Your policies were effective, but people hated you.
You had a lot of different things that happened.
No one's going to care whether you die being worth $3 billion, $10 billion, $100 billion.
And I'm willing to say, even if somehow, some way you're worth $300 billion, that reputation of business, nothing's going to change.
You winning one more time and coming back and being able to redeem yourself, that's the true legacy.
And you're hurting yourself when you do stuff like this.
This to me made no sense.
I don't understand what I'm saying.
So let's just say the SPAC of Truth Social goes and he sells it for $20 billion and he's 38% owner.
He gets $7.6 billion.
Dude, who gives a shit?
Who cares?
So what you got another $7.6 billion?
You're basically saying the bigger challenge is your legacy.
Who gives a shit if you have a couple more bees?
You won in real estate in the most competitive environment in New York and the most hated.
You came up and you had all this stuff.
Oh, he's daddy's son.
You left the other side to go make it in Manhattan.
Your name, Trump, is all over hotels.
Then you have a reality TV show.
Then you go out there and become a president.
Like, who's been able to do it?
That's like saying you're a trifecta.
You know, like this guy can dance, he can sing, he can act.
Dude, you want in business, you want in media, and you want in politics?
What are you talking about?
How many people like that are there?
Not many.
What are you doing?
Anyways.
But are you getting a lot of hate for basically calling Trump out here?
Look, I don't wake up in the morning saying, what do I need to do to get a lot of likes?
I wake up in the morning saying, this is how I'm processing this.
You agree, disagree.
This is me.
You do what you got to do.
This is my beliefs.
And make a decision for yourself.
I'm not advocating for you to leave Value Taint and become an advisor to Trump, but someone like you is what someone like Trump is missing.
Someone to say, dude, I'm on your team.
And you're a Trump fan.
I mean, I don't think that's a good question.
I think his policies are unbelievable.
Just like Dr. Moore over here.
But at the same time, you're going to be like, dude, what are you doing?
This doesn't make sense.
And that's the problem that Trump has is there's no one saying, dude, I'm with you.
I'm on your team.
I want you to succeed.
Don't pick fights with these types of people.
It does not serve you.
This is only going to hurt you.
But bowl in a china shop.
Yeah, friends.
It's a little wild situation.
I had two other stories I wanted to get into, but I got drunk in Cult today, so I can't do it.
And by the way, so everybody knows at this point we hired this new friend of ours, Vincent O'Shana, who's an actor and a comedian, was part of Deaf Comedy Jam.
I think Kevin Hart interviewed him.
They did a lot of different work.
So when he came on board to the value tainment team, I said, look, one of the things we can do is I'd like to see you go around the world, go around different places, and we can find out where is Vinny and he's going.
So is it true what I just got in text?
Tell me this is fake.
I've been told.
Tell me this is fake.
No, apparently.
Can we go to Vinny real quick?
Yeah.
I think Vinny's live right now.
Hey, Vinny, is it.
Where is Vinny now?
Vinny, is it true that what Mario just texted me, what room you're in?
I can't tell you.
Am I live?
Yeah, we can hear you.
Whose office is that?
We can hear you.
Where are you?
Pat, I'm in Nancy Pelosi's office.
Show yourself.
Show yourself.
Get the hell out of here.
Hold on.
What?
In Nancy Pelosi's office?
I can't see the picture.
Can you get a little closer?
You're in Nancy Pelosi's office.
We came to Washington to make videos of value payment.
We did a tour of the Capitol and her door was open.
Bro, your mom's going to kill me if she says you hire my son and he goes to jail.
What is this guy doing?
My mom hates her too.
But look, Pat, look at all dudes.
And look at the jerk.
This guy's a real through her office.
You just pulled that out of her desk, Vinnie.
Wow.
And I'm going to tell you this.
That's not me.
What is he doing, Dr. Moore?
What is that?
That's not my tweet, Pat.
Vinny, it's Adam.
Can you hear me, Vinny?
Listen.
Number one, I think you should get the hell out of there.
But while you're there, see what's in the desk, would you?
Yeah, okay.
I think he drank the iron off of that bottle.
Adam, look.
Look.
Oh, my God.
Those are safety.
Oh, my God.
I guess today is super salad day for Nancy.
Hold on, dude.
Oh, my God.
Vinny, what else you got?
Look.
Be quiet.
This is what Nancy's got.
I'll bet you any money she uses this on her husband out of the DUI.
Respect to her.
She's creative.
Very progressive.
Okay.
What else do you got to say?
What else do you got?
Vinny, honestly, just the last thing in and get out.
What?
Do the last thing in and get out.
Don't stay there too long.
Okay.
All right.
Well, Pat, look at this.
Insider trading for dummies.
No shit.
And then look.
Be quiet.
The art of the deal is quiet.
Is he making this out?
Nancy, despite what we show the public, I can't wait for us to make America great again.
It's going to be huge.
Your dear friend, Donald J. Trump.
Vinny, Vinny, this is, if the world sees this thing, oh my god.
Vinny, are you freaking kidding me?
What is wrong?
How did he get in there, Pat?
Mario, can you like, are we okay with this or holy moly?
Am I implicated?
Oh, my God.
He said that he was taking a tour of all.
He told me he's going to D.C. because he's meeting a friend.
He was meeting a girl from back in the days.
He was going to go to D.C.
And then, man, I mean, he got luck.
It is what it is.
This would be the short-lived job that he got.
He just came in.
That's not good.
But the insider trading and the art of the deal, what are the odds of the two books that he finds are insider trading for dummies and the art of the deal by the way?
I can see her reading that book.
It's actually a pretty good book for her to read.
Art of the Deal.
You can tell them, Linny, when she comes on to negotiate, she's pretty hardcore.
Well, anyways, hopefully we got Vinny out of there.
Somebody text me and tell me, Vinny, the moment you're out, just text me.
I need to know you're safe and you're in a good place.
I guess we got 10 more minutes with another story.
Can you please zoom in on Patrick's face right now?
Dr. Moore.
This was our plan.
He came in with the heart.
I have no clue what's going on.
He's not faking it, is he?
No, no.
He's there.
We just went from having all these crazy, serious conversations.
Then we talk about Trump to now we see Vinny is, look, I mean, if this, if this, if this story breaks, just so everybody knows in the public, in case you write about it, Dr. Patrick Moore had nothing to do with it.
He's just a guest today.
He's not your.
But you promised to incorporate me in this somehow in your publicity.
Maybe then I'll be able to get through to somebody.
There you go.
That's marketing 101, baby.
But yeah, this guy, Vinny, he's sick in the head.
I can't, number one, I hope he gets out of the Capitol unscathed, no problems.
I hope he doesn't go to jail.
I hope he's going to be okay, but I can't wait to see where Vinny is next.
Where is Vinny now?
I think it could take off.
Hopefully, if he doesn't wind up in July, you think he's going to take his buddy Carl to meet Nancy.
Let's get him out.
Look what they did to the January 6th people.
Is he going to be in solitary people?
Well, those people did some damage to her office.
So, Vinny hopefully didn't do that.
Maybe he leaves like a nice no.
Thank you for your time here or something like that.
Since we got 10 minutes, can we do two more stories?
Sure.
10 minutes.
I want to talk about Sri Lanka.
So, Sri Lanka has been a bit of a mess lately.
I know you've been fought.
It's actually a mess, but it's also good where the people are finally standing up against the government to say, look, we're sick of this.
So, which page is it on?
Bottom of five.
Bottom of five.
Okay, let me go to the bottom of five.
All right.
So, leaked security video from inside Rob Elementary School.
No, this is not it.
This is a.
Which story are you on?
I am on bottom of five.
Sri Lanka deleted article right here?
I'm on five of five.
Maybe next minute.
Maybe it's the next.
No, this says five.
So give me your five.
Yes, sir.
Okay, let me read this to you.
So Sri Lanka.
The one over there.
Deleted WF article.
Sri Lanka PM, Prime Minister.
This is how long I will make my country rich by 2025.
We have achieved many positive gains over the last three years through bold policy initiatives and pragmatic strategies that enable the country to win back recognition and friendly engagement with the rest of the world.
This has been a key foreign policy achievement of our government.
The plan is delivering impressive results.
The current government has created over 460,000 jobs, helped more than 260,000 families secure homes.
Strong progress is being made on plans to bring opportunities to rural communities by building necessary infrastructure such as road bridges, connecting rural and urban areas, and linking Sri Lanka economic hubs.
A program enterprise, Sri Lanka.
Anyways, and then eventually that leads to why Sri Lanka is facing one of the worst economic crises.
The island nation of Sri Lanka is in the midst of one of the worst economic crises it's ever seen.
It has defaulted on its foreign debts for the first time since its independence, and the country's 22 million people are facing crippling 12-hour power cuts and an extreme scarcity of food, fuel, and other essential items such as medicines.
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck in April 2021.
Rajapaksa government made another fatal mistake to prevent the drain of foreign exchange reserves.
All fertilizer imports were completely banned.
Sri Lanka was declared 100% organic farming nation.
This policy, which was withdrawn in November 2020, led to a drastic fall in agriculture production and more imports became necessary, but foreign exchanges reserves remain under strain.
A fall in the productivity tea and rubber due to the ban of fertilizer also led to power export incomes.
You guys saw the people were, Tyler, if we can pull this up, where there was protesting going on in the prime minister's house.
They're jumping in a pool in a backyard, and then they're going up to the, what do you, are you following the story on what's going on with Sri Lanka?
Very.
What are your thoughts on what's going on there?
Social breakdown is almost inevitable unless some miracle happens because the president and his flunkies have all fled.
They're on a boat somewhere out in the ocean.
And the people are occupying his palace.
But I don't think there's any leadership there now.
They don't have the fertilizer they need to grow their food.
And Sri Lanka is a very big food producing country.
There's a lot of millions of people there.
And so this is the first bellwether of the self-suicide destruction of these elites who I don't know where they get this idea that there's too much nitrogen in the soil or in the water.
Nitrogen is, again, one of the building blocks of life.
And just like with carbon dioxide.
And so you've got now Netherlands, the president or prime minister, whatever he is of Netherlands, is saying they have to make a third of their animals go away, which provides a lot of the manure for fertilizing the crops.
And then they're also going to ban part of the nitrogen fertilizer for the crops.
And as I mentioned earlier, the process of making synthetic ammonia is why there are many more billions of people alive today than there would have been if that hadn't happened.
Those two Nobel Prizes that were given to Dr. Haber and Bosch, Haber invented the process and Bosch built it up to an industrial scale so millions of tons of fertilizer could be produced around the world.
And all farmers in the world are dependent on this fertilizer for making their crops grow faster and bigger.
And so if this cascades, like Netherlands is getting a little close to home, it's happening in Western Europe, that leaders of governments are banning fertilizer.
And as I say, Corb Lund has a great country singer in Canada, has a song about, have you ever seen a child who hasn't eaten in 18 days?
And, you know, we can live without food for longer than we can without water, and we can live without water longer than we can without air.
But there is a limit with food too.
And mass starvation is not a pretty thing, and it's happened all through human history.
We haven't had much of it lately because we've been on a roll in terms of technology and agricultural innovation and producing more food and doubled the population like we see.
But that doesn't necessarily go on forever.
And it would be a shame if it was a self-inflicted wound.
It's okay.
Let's at least not shoot ourselves in the midsection here.
That's what I see happening.
And food shortages are not something that are easily caught up with.
There are such things as seasons.
And there are such things as how much you can grow in a certain area of land.
And if you don't have fertilizer, you're only going to get half as much.
And pretty soon the store shelves are going to start being empty in some parts of the world.
And hopefully we're in a much better position in North America than most other places in the world in many ways.
But this can happen anywhere if people start deciding to ban carbon dioxide and nitrogen, which are what life is made from.
You know, it's crazy.
When I saw this, I wrote this out on Twitter.
I said, if the world allows a country with an $81 billion GDP go bankrupt, so can America allow the too big to fail companies fail soon.
Bad policies created by bad leaders cause countries to go bankrupt.
The people of Sri Lanka were sick of Gotobaya Rajabasca's democratic socialist policies, and they moved on, right?
They're saying they don't like it.
Now, here's what's crazy.
A guy responds back to this tweet, and he says, he says, you're not going to find it.
But if you go, you'll find it because there's a bunch of them to go through.
He says, well, that has nothing to do with their democratic socialist policies.
And then one guy responds, that's a great thing about Twitter when people have a debate, they're going to solve each other's issue.
He says, I'm sorry, what do you mean?
He says, that has nothing to do with democratic socialist policies.
Can you go to Sri Lanka's Wikipedia, please?
Go to Sri Lanka's Wikipedia.
What does it say on the top right?
Democratic to the top right.
Right, right.
Democratic Socialist Republic.
Can you go to the right?
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
That's long hand for communists.
Yeah, that's exactly it.
Folks, if you hear anybody in America pitch that to you and they seem noble, eventually you'll be doing that 5, 10, 15 years later, realizing that vote was a shitty vote.
Just like right now, we're facing some consequences with inflation just came out yesterday being 9.1%.
Inflation came out yesterday, 9.1%.
You know what inflation was in December of 2020?
Do you know what inflation was at December 2020?
1.2.7.
No, no, it was 1.4%, 1.7%.
Okay, if you pull up right now, it was on the article.
Inflation just two years ago, December of 2020.
You can actually look this up.
It was 1.4%.
Okay.
I was off by 0.2.
Then it went up to 1.7, then 4.2, then 5.4%.
The month that Putin invades Ukraine, it was 7.9%, which means they can't blame Putin.
Even pre-Putin, it was at 7.9.
Now it's 9.1% inflation.
And who pays the price for this?
Do the billionaires pay the price for this?
No.
Do the rich pay the price for this?
No.
Who pays the price for this?
The worst.
Low-income, middle-income families who are going out there working a job, making $15, $20, $30 an hour, trying to take care of their families.
And they're paying a price for this because they're feeling it in the gas station.
They're feeling it everywhere.
Now, Biden sent a tweet out yesterday responding to inflation.
I don't know if you have that one up or not.
If you do real quick, this is what Biden said after the inflation numbers came up.
He said, if you can zoom in a little bit more, energy companies, nearly half of today's inflation numbers.
So here's what's important.
Energy loan comprises nearly half of today's inflation numbers.
The price of gas has increased 30 days straight.
Decrease.
Decrease.
I'm sorry, decreased 30 days straight.
The price at the pump has dropped by 40 cents since mid-June.
Gas should continue to come down in the days and work weeks ahead.
Here's the crazy thing.
Here's the crazy thing.
He's the president.
Can you go back to that tweet?
A president sends a tweet and he gets 17,000 likes.
This is not a TikToker.
This is the president that got 17,000.
You know what?
17,800 likes?
That's like you putting the tweet and you get two likes.
I got over 3,000 retweets just the other day.
And you're not the president.
I got 2,500 today.
This guy's the president.
And can you go to the other one about inflation?
Go to the other one about inflation that we got.
Today's report is inflation too high.
Fighting inflation is my top economic priority.
And while the numbers today are not acceptable, they're also outdated in the past 30 years.
The average price of gas is.
Okay, so he's trying to put that message in there.
30,000 likes on that one.
So that's making some progress.
I'm telling you, you know what this reminds me of?
Where is Will Farrell when he was making fun of Bush?
Will Farrell, how come you're not doing it with Biden?
Biden is 100 times easier to make fun of than when you were making part of Bush.
When he came out and said, President Bush, you know, I'm here in Crawford, Texas, growing my soul patch, hanging out with Connie and Dick, but we're keeping our eyes on the ball.
And we're focused on climate change.
And you see, the rays are intensifying in such a way where the lava flows in God.
I'm not going to lie to you.
I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
I mean, let the boy watch is what you're trying to say right now.
What I'm trying to say is Will Farrell.
Come on, man.
Mom, be far and do a Joe Biden impersonation.
I just promise you it'll be better than the Bush impersonation.
Anyways, we had a lot of fun today.
We talked about a lot of these things.
I didn't have my book yet?
No, so let's wrap it up.
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore, available on Amazon.
It has 2,300 reviews, which is more than most books ever get.
And it's only been out for a year.
It has really good ratings.
95% of all my ratings are four and five star for the book.
It's easy to read, and it will give you a whole bunch of information beyond what I've talked about today.
Tyler, can we put that in the description and in the comment section?
And it's available in all four of those formats.
Kimball, audiobook, hardcover, and paperback.
Well, we're going to drive towards that.
Dr. Patrick Moore, thank you so much for coming out and educating us and challenging and being open to the pushback and going through it.
I'm sure all of us got smarter just by having you on the podcast today.
You could be scared there for a while.
No, I just wanted to.
For me, when I bring somebody that's smart, I want to kind of get them to the course.
So I learned.
That's how I learned.
I'm trying to learn from you, and I was able to do that, which was a successful podcast.
