I think you're just looking for people who tell you what you want to hear. It is fairly easy to debunk the things he says. Pick a claim and try, do some independent research (but *include* scientific sources of information, NASA etc., not only political or self-promoter junk like Moore.)

@@gmprice that works both ways but hey continue to watch CNN etc and believe in their agenda which has obviously warped your opinion on reality

@@seanreid6159 No, it doesn't work both ways. Literally the entire point of scientific method is to empirically test between explanations. Everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion about physics. If you pick one of the areas where Moore is saying something different than all of the world's national academies of science etc. and actually dig into it, you'd see this easily. The reason he can keep up his business is that people are very, very unlikely to do this since there is a chance they will hear what they don't want to hear, and Moore is in the business of telling people what they *do* want to hear. And it is a good business.. The fact that you mention CNN just highlights that you are banking on propaganda - 'the mainstream media lies, you can only trust me.' It's a variant of the oldest con games in the world ('listen kid, there's a lot of people out there trying to swindle you, I'll teach you how to see a real deal.') Don't watch CNN or Fox or Moore or any other entertainer. Read textbooks and published scientific papers.

I agree. Same here, he is a breath of fresh air in all this media BS that's being spread around. He is a realist like me too. I don't get brainwashed like these so called enviromentalists.

@@MrBooojangles Sure you don't.

True

Hold on a second. Power market spot prices are determined by gas prices. Offshore wind farms on top of that are still subject to Cfds (Contracts for Difference). So if the spot price is over the price agreed, the wind farm will pay the difference, if it is below the agreed price, the UK government will pay the wind farm the difference. I am against any ideological opposition to any source of energy. We've got to be pragmatic.

Ya you bet the same guy that said round up was safe to drink! LOL!

He is a turncoat and a money monger

Steffen . Hi Steffens. I know you posted this nine years ago but I’ve just discovered him. He’s quickly becoming my hero too. Well one of them anyway. I’ve never thought that humans are totally responsible for this global warming stuff , and listening to Patrick confirms this. 👍👍👍.

he's your hero for advocating for dangerous pesticides?

No. He is a proven liar.

The 40 year old spruce and pine that covers most of BC? Great! 800 year-old Sitka spruce? Not so great.

I have always said the world exagerates by ecologism!... The only danger for humanity is that of ending up back in the Middle Ages, by throwing away every improvement that came with huge effort and time, centuries, in the name of ecology.

@@alinucalinuc4124 Agreed..

@@alinucalinuc4124 I mean, he's a huge list who says the environment hasn't warmed in 17 years, then ignores the fact that 5 of of the warmest years in record have been in the last seven years .. But if you don't like the truth, you have a spokesman to lie to you!

He said that he would gladly drink weedkiller and that it was safe. He is a paid shill. He does occasionally make ok points but most of the time he tries to convince people that increasing C02 is good for the environment. If you care about the future of life on our planet, I highly encourage you to look at research by people who know and care about what's happening

Yeah he's good. By NOW however he's wrong about solar, wind and *storage* which were way too expensive 12 yrs ago, today the cheapest option most circumstances. Germany gets as much sun as Alaska, solar could be premature there, lol.

I’m awake, not woke.

Ha Ha Ha. Sorry. I fully agree with you on that one. 👍👍😀😀 🇬🇧

What to? His lies?

@ijk240695 Thanks for confirming you are an infantile troll.

wong No mate. His knowledge.

What common sense? his claims can easily be disproved, you probably agree with him because he's telling you what you want to hear. No one wants to think we are damaging the planet and that mine and future generations will live in a very different, less hospitable place.

Yeah I just finished watching that, recommend it to everyone.

@@user-jv3mm6vt6e I loved his degree of detail. All researchable. Not slogans which are emotionally manipulative but impossible to confirm.

@@divergentsenior the receiver of the message is the matter not the conveyer.

My husband has just bought this book and I’m reading it after

@@cosmic-creepers9207 Just finished it. I’ll take detail over word salad any day.

Have you read the sources he cites? Because most of the sources he cites will do the refuting for us.

they can't because he is a Scientist and he debunks the far left

If you check out the lengthy list of links that I just posted above you will find a large numbers of examples that clash with his presentation.

@@longliverocknroll5 actually I have and the sources other use is what needs to be refuted this guy has a phd. in ecology and he is an expert in climate and you people hate him because he is telling truth. all the stuff you people hear that is different then what he saids is all bs science

@@vernonbrechin4207 yes but that don't make them right they all have an agenda he dosen't he isn't paid bye far left nutjobs like sorros or greens.

He's a sellout.

Check out Chris Williamson's interview with this man.

@@phillipcooley83 Agreed ! It's over an hour in length, however Dr. Moore's presentation very compelling for all to watch !

You'd probably like to watch his new interview with Chris Williamson, though, he'd probably surprise you as he's totally for CO2 emissions.

@@user-jv3mm6vt6e Good. I'm for CO2 emissions. As a by product of energy production for example. Totally fine with that.

@@Avidcomp no he isn't. The matter is that from an economic perspective, somethings real relative price measured by real dollars will grow if its really non_renewable. On the other hand oils price has constantly and by competitive measures decreased all the way up to the 70s and then again from the 80s to now. That's the main attitude of the market.

Patrick Moore is a lobbyist. His entire job is to literally have an agenda.

@@VOIDSenseMusic Who is he lobbying for? Who is employing him as a lobbyist?

@@wink3319 Try the Heartland Institute along with many other climate change deniers. The Heartland institute also sponsored the tobacco companies when they convinced many people for years that smoking did not cause cancer and was non-addictive despite overwhelming evidence from the medical industry.

Funny how anything you don't agree with is an "agenda"

@@VOIDSenseMusic For who is he a lobbyist? We know environmentalists lose their sinecure if they posit that AGW does not exist or at least has little effect compared to natural causes.

I think his company has lobbied on behalf of fossil fuel companies; I wish he'd just be honest about that, but I still agree with the guy on the energy scandal that the left has pushed around for a very long time.

scouse roy that’s why we can’t trust no one..how can he change is mind In 10 years ..everyone has is own agenda.. with that said the guy makes more sense than the majority of people talking about climate change

@@buchinha3 how can he change his mind in ten years? I dunno...sounds like he discovered more evidence that forced him to.

Craig Artzner he isn’t like a 25 year old scientist in the beginning of his career.. by the age when he spoke on this video.. I would think he already had his ideas well clarified ..in that case he can come tomorrow and say again that co2 is bad..

@@buchinha3 hey man...I know A LOT of people his age who have almost no clarification whatsoever when it comes to their ideas! Don't tell me you don't! LOL :D

That's because herd mentality and groupthink is just as prevalent among the 'elite' who think they are our betters.

No, Nye is an engineer who is a 'science communicator'. Moore's field was ecology and he shows he doesn't know much about the science of climate change. Or maybe it's just because he's paid to misrepresent science by the fossil fuel industry.

Hahahaha Patric Moore is using real data and real graphs. The IPPC and UN graphs are fraudulent some proven so in courts across the world. If he was working for the fossil fuel industry he would be pushing the climate lie. You see the truth Ciest is that the fossil fuel industry contrary to popular belief supports and pushes the man made climate change agenda. They make more money from carbon trading and pushing up the price of oil than they do under normal production. This fact has been explained by various scientists who have spoken to such companies in a Critical fashion. There is no evidence for CO2 driving temp. Only evidence for it following it. Co2 is the gas of life. More Co2 makes plants grow faster. We need to double or even treble our Co2 production.

@@ceist8552 Ecology is a science of organisms and their physical environment. How that is not relevant, to you, in this matter? You go ad hominem and add an assumption at the end. So I'd say you are a farmer of corn with two daughters, not willing to take your place after you.

Ceist 8 whenever someone doesn’t agree with the climate hysteria they’re always accused of being paid by fossil fuel companies.....laughable. This man is an ecologist and an environmentalist.....actually studied environment....what’s your problem or did you even listen to this video? Ignorance is not becoming.

@@ceist8552 unlike those paid by universities,IPCC, and massive conservation bodies to prove it.

Me as well!!

TED isn't really associated with TEDx that much. Organizers of TEDx events are not part of TED, they're just licensing the name and the format.

That was long ago when there were people around that were allowed to think.

I guess because this was published 11 years ago

what? afraid of facts and truth about the climate?

Al gore hasn't been relevant for 20 years, so why are you bringing him up?

@@rattslayer - Because she started this brainwashing of the idiots. That's why.

@@rattslayer His Inconvenient Truth and vocal advocation catalyzed a lot of the groundless fervor we see today.

Do you know his current position

@@jackpierce230 He now says carbon dioxide is greening the earth and we need more. A new documentary on netflix called "Kiss The Ground" is also a must watch.

Yes and no small cars being built just big ones

At least someone is trying. What? You walk or ride a bike?

Was this person a school teacher that votes NDP?

You're rather gullible to unquestioningly believe what a paid shill for the fossul fuel industry tells you. Your friend is probably shaking their head thinking you're 'impossible' to talk to.

its hard to accept you have been lied to, specially if its a young person who grew up brainwashed in school

Sam Potter climate change is so political....today’s political discussions are as impossible as are climate change discussions. The hysteria has become a religion of the left...

can you explain exactly what you mean? not quite sure what to believe

Have you got to believe that the audience was confused to make your world view hold together? Really?

What?

Not really but it can play a part..

That's not the form of heat pump he talked about. Ground coupled geothermal heat pump. That's what I have and we go through an entire Michigan winter just fine without backup.

Talks about it on Sun news, KZfaq it.

Lisa Colorado Fukushima purchased older USA based GE Nuclear reactor technology that was not a fail safe design - a system that even the USA was not willing to purchase for their own country. And still the damage was not as severe as the news media seemed to indicate would happen to all. The new SMRs - Small Modular Reactors now actually burn the spent fuel from the older tech reactors producing far less nuclear waste as a result and those "refried beans" are easier to store and of no value anymore for the production of nuclear arms as before.

How can one accident mean that nuclear is not beneficial? There are accidents, plusses and minuses in every form of energy production.

I know 😍

Ham and Dr. Timboll as well as Dr. Roy Spencer are all scientists Bill Nye Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio are not scientist by any definition.

He might be wrong about some of his climate change memes, but I challenge you to show where he is wrong about the rest.

@@ForbiddTV At this point, if you're still cherry picking the evidence to suit your beliefs, you're wasting everyone's time. The evidence regarding climate change and it's disastrous effects is overwhelming.

I believe nothing, I research and find facts. You didn't even read my comment correctly. The whole 'climate change' meme is irrelevant to the fact that we are headed for disaster with renewables if it doesn't include nuclear when fossil fuels are phased out.

@@ForbiddTV climate change isn't a "meme" wtf. But thank you for your foresight, it's not like solutions have already been implemented for the transition.

@@potpu You obviously never looked up the definition of meme. Pathetic.

Sounds like it was a poor design of that facility. Ground coupled heat pumps do work for cooling as well as heating.

No, he is lying as usual.

Define "human flourishing"

@@fdestcroix Flourish is to grow in a manner that is conducive to a pleasurable experience of life, and to the extent that such a quality improves from each previous generation. Most certainly the basics are covered; to eat well, to be warm with comfortable shelter, and time efficacy that enables wonder and creative interaction with the world meaning not time required to sustain one's life but beyond that. One example is our use of time saving devices such as machines. This extra time and the more of it enables individuals time to innovate thus progressing further future human flourishing.

North Korea?

Good points. In the U.S., during the 1950s, the federal government began promising to come up with a permanent storage solution for the highly radioactive waste discharged from the nations nuclear power reactors and the highly radioactive waste generated by the nation's vast nuclear weapons production complex. Six decades later there still isn't a deep geological repository for that waste. The same holds true for the other nations that have nuclear power plants. It seems that the power was just too important to hold the producers accountable for dealing with the waste that will remain a potential hazard for about a million years. Nuclear power plant design has always assumed that one the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is removed from the reactors and placed in cooling pools that it will be kept cool for 5-10 years until it is moved to robust storage casks. The assumption has always been that industrial civilization will last a very long time after the plants go into operation. That assumption includes that external power will be supplied to operate the water circulation pumps, that trained nuclear worker will continue to tend to the pools and that equipment replacement supplies will continue to exist while the SNF cools. Due to abrupt climate change the collapse of industrial civilization could happen well before 2030. If that happens the spent nuclear fuel pools, around the world, will lose their cooling water and then the zirconium rods will rupture, releasing particles of fission products into the atmosphere in plumes that will travel downwind of those pools. Based upon this possibility I believe it would be prudent to shut down all nuclear power reactors now and start preparing to eventually move the SNF into the robust storage casks.

a strawman argument based on another strawman argument. Allso attacks the speaker rather than his facts. Come backwith those, and I might consider you someone I might listen to.

@@watchthe1369 I will actually try and read up on him. Brb.

@@khalilg9736 Tripped up on using turns of phrase by an interviewer looking to shutdown a conversation he did nor want to hear. Moore is a real deal scientist that knows what he is talking about and has put himself in harms way fot his beliefs.

Yes, you are right... That was priceless, thank you for reminding me. I had to go and laugh at it again....

I've never once heard him discuss the conundrum of long-term nuclear waste disposal\storage. That's a major problem. It's not in the news, but we're getting more and more of it every year and its extremely toxic and deadly and it lasts for thousands & thousands & thousands of years.

"Climate is not controlled by CO2. " Do source this claim with valid research.

@@longliverocknroll5 If you affirm it does, then YOU have the burden to prove it, not the other way around. Got it!

Mario Neiman So, you can't prove a claim I merely questioned? Sounds like you're a tad bit disingenuous when you form conclusions of scientific means. I'll ask again, can you provide science that backs that claim? If not, just say you let propaganda inform your opinion.

But it is recycled

Al gore has a mansion on the beach,as has obummer,fly their own private jets to their conferences to tell us how to live,screw them!

*What a delicious weed killer.*

@@nazarenomilohanich4883 Sounds like you know what Moore is really about i.e. he claims Roundup is safe to drink - then refuses a glass !

*"Personally I think that a carbon neutral world is feasible."* 7:55

@@truthsayer6414 He said "Personally I do not think a carbon neutral world is feasible."

Maybe not but you just made one, well done, a personal attack on a collective.

@@Margarinetaylorgrease Care to comment about the subject. I have a PhD from Harvard; what are your qualifications?

@@clarkeslemon1312 I went to PragerU, checkmate, mate

And "nukular"

@@j3ffn4v4rr0 Would you happen to be related to one of the former presidents of the United States ?

@@freddyfriesen I'm happy to say, not at all!

Semantics

And never will.

Geothermal heating, works great !!!

@@goudrelle1 He said 'from the ice', mind you!

@@matijabl Well, he meant from under the ice, he's a fast talker.....Geothermal systems can use water from the bottom of a frozen lake to create heat or air conditioning....

@ijk240695 Yes, but it is very, very limited and therefore a non-starter.

So why does he tell so many lies?

@@boffeycn shut up your a liar

@Ian Westby Moore will not engage in open discussion. He always plays to an audience that want to believe what he is saying. He is sponsored by the Heartland Institute that also spent years telling you that tobacco did not cause cancer and was not addictive. Climate change denial follows the same routine. The deniers cannot challenge the science it is far too overwhelming but they always cast doubt on the science by trying to give alternate views.

@Ian Westby The evidence that the planet is warming is overwhelming and no longer in dispute. After every single possible cause for this warming has been eliminated apart from a 50% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels that CO2 and the associated feedbacks has to be blamed, there is nothing else left to blame. Belief that the planet is warming to a dangerous level can m never be classed as a religion because a religion is based on faith alone and there is absolutely no evidence that any god exists. Science relies on proven facts and evidence, not faith. In scientific terms everything is a theory only in mathamatics is anything proven. In scientific terms gravity and your very existence is still a theory. Climat change deniers use the word 'theory' to confuse the unwary. Science considers that gravity , evolution and global warming are acceptable theory's and therefore they are events that cannot be unproven.

nope. i says just the opposite of your claim.

What's so overwhelming about a minute increase of the average temperature of the globe? If anything, animal and plant species thrive in warmer weathers.Let's not give in to irrational hysteria.

And did not age well. His "I'll wait and see" comments are funny, except he refuses to admit he's been wrong about most everything. His payers must feel good about it though.

The predictive value of science is negligible, if not non-existent, when it comes to what the climate's going to be in 2100!

@@flankerroad7414 Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

Cypress1337 successfully my A.. ! You know what his quote was? NO you don't because you are not like it! You're not WISE!

@@jean-marclamothe8859 A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email.

@@jean-marclamothe8859 oohnooo science.. baaahhh what is it. Meh, let's deny it. It's easy.

But toom uch CO2 is bad. OK.

@wong, yes but that's at least 4000 ppm because that's the highest level on record I have seen with plants and it was hundreds of years ago. Submariners can go up to 20000 ppm for at least 3 months. Astronauts are much higher and when you exhale you breath is 40000 ppm. More importantly commercial greenhouses pay to get their levels up to between 800 and 1200 ppm as that gets the best growth rate. Higher works but it's diminishing returns on the extra CO2 cost vs the increased growth gained, however I have seen some operating as high as 2000 ppm Plants die at 150 ppm and relatively recently we were close to that . Even now we are much closer to the low problem that the high problem. As for temp one thing that seems to be overlooked is CO2 absorbtion is logarithmic not linear

Yoo don't make sense and neither does he. He is a proven liar.

@@boffeycn you are a troll activist get lost

I think he understood his audience and had a different message.

Yes, several years later he was talking of a dearth carbon dioxide and asserting, very logically, that recent CO2 increases may have saved parts of the planet from plant death. He now wants to see coal cleaned up by the removal of particulates, sulfur, mercury etc. but is not absolutely opposed to it as a energy source - but he prefers the use of gas and oil.

@@ZigZagHockey People like him make logical and typically real measured data based arguments as opposed to the emotional arguments from the alarmists.

​@@gbuz5789 "The data shows that the last five years are collectively the warmest ever recorded, while 18 of the 19 hottest years have taken place since 2001. " pretty alarming isn´t it ?

@@gbuz5789 Please, show me his real data.

But he does stand against burning coal, and leaving fossil fuels for future generations