Greenpeace Always Makes a Disaster out of it

By Daniel Wetzel | As of: 18.12.2017

[This English version authorised by Patrick Moore.]

“Arguably, the former environmental activist Patrick Moore is difficult to overcome” – Source: Martin U. K. Lengemann

Patrick Moore once helped to found Greenpeace. Today, the ecologist considers the organization an unscientific lobby group. He has a provocative message: carbon dioxide is not poison. It is good for life on the planet.

The week was not bad for the climate protection movement. France’s head of state Emmanuel Macron had summoned the Climate Chancellor Angela Merkel to the summit in Paris and or emerged with the rank of European “Climate President”. And his plan worked out: UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged that he no longer supports fossil fuels because this would amount to an “investment in destruction”. The World Bank announced that it would stop promoting oil and gas production from 2019 onwards.

With so much international involvement in the fight against CO2, the Greens in Paris missed senior German officials. Merkel was represented by Barbara Hendricks (SPD). From the perspective of green climate politician Annalena Baerbock, the Federal Minister for the Environment only completed an “unmotivated courtesy visit”.

Baerbock’s indignation would certainly have been even greater if she had known which alternative program numerous members of the Bundestag of the Union (CDU) and the FDP had preferred to the Paris climate summit. They had followed the invitation of the Federal Association “Liberaler Mittelstand” to a parliamentary breakfast.

There, Canadian Patrick Moore, one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, presented his view on climate change, CO2 emissions and energy policy, which – if true – would undermine the foundations of official energy and climate policies. For years, Moore has been one of the archenemies of the world’s largest environmental organization, which he had once brought to the baptism. For today’s activist generation he is the fallen angel of environmental protection.

Carbon dioxide increase did not increase temperature
Nuclear power, genetically modified food, forest conservation, chemicals use, climate change – in almost every major environmental issue Moore represents a view that directly contradicts the Greenpeace policy. In doing so, Moore studied biology, biochemistry and forestry, a doctorate in ecology, and was for years the only trained scientist in the Greenpeace leadership.

German carbon dioxide emissions are rather low by international standards – Source: Infographic The World

Good argument is difficult to master. His quarrels with Greenpeace often end at a high level at a stalemate, statement against statement. Everyone claims that his view of things is the truth. This is how it was when Moore presented diagrams of global temperatures and CO2 concentrations of the last 500 million years to a parliamentary breakfast of about 30 members of the Bundestag.

In another chart, the curves derived from the ice cores of the Russian Antarctic station Vostok, provided no evidence, according to Moore, that the CO2 content in the atmosphere had raised the temperature. On the contrary, he explained to the perplexed MPs: “The CO2 value follows the change in temperature, not the other way around.”

Moore does not deny that the CO2 concentration has risen sharply since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Nor does he shake the fact of global warming. Only he claims that one has nothing to do with the other. The curves of shark attacks and ice-cream consumption also showed a strong correlation, he reveals. “Correlation does not prove causation.”

The Sun’s activity affects the world climate
According to Moore, there are many complex factors that change the climate. Solar activity is part of it, cloud formation and much more. When the earth’s temperature rises, the oceans “emit” more CO2. A rise in carbon dioxide would be the consequence, not the cause of global warming. The basic assumption of many climate scientists that carbon dioxide is the main trigger of global warming is a “hypothesis” for Moore, nothing more.

“There is no definitive scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred in the last 300 years – since the Little Ice Age,” says Moore. “Such a proof would have been documented – that’s not the case.”

The objection that 97 percent of all climate scientists attribute CO2 to the role of the greenhouse gas does not impress Moore. He refers to a booklet from 1931. The title: “100 authors against Einstein”. With great numerical superiority, scientists attacked the theory of relativity that a young patent attorney named Albert Einstein had published a few years earlier.

Einstein responded as relaxed as Moore today: “If I was wrong, it would be sufficient for a single author to refute me.” the IPCC of the United Nations, the ultimate judge in matters of climate change, certainly does not impress Moore.

Climate council focuses on human influence
His skepticism derives from the statutes of the IPCC: The committee has the mission to explicitly investigate only the human impact on climate change. For the study of the natural causes of climate change, therefore, the IPCC lacks any mandate. This leads to a conflict of interest: If the UN body finds no human cause of global warming, it loses its right to exist.

In any case, because of its composition, the IPCC does not enjoy the confidence of the former Greenpeace chief. The IPCC was founded by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). According to Moore, “people who care about the weather forecast for the next week” and environmentalists “who focus on daily politics”. That does not indicate competence for the evaluation of the ages of the Earth.

“Why does no one ask geologists, paleontologists, astrophysicists?” After all, the IPCC always expresses only a “concern” about climate change in its progress reports, Moore states. “Greenpeace always makes a disaster out of it”. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore repeatedly accuses the environmental organization of unscientific alarmism.

Greenpeace has been attracting attention for decades through spectacular actions. Here activists rappel off the cooling tower of the Neurath coal-fired power plant. The slogan: “CO2 kills” – Source: picture alliance / dpa

When Greenpeace was planning a worldwide campaign against the use of chlorine in the 1980s, Moore’s loyalty ended. Chlorine is the eleventh most common element in the earth’s crust, the most important element for public health in human history, and the raw material for countless medicines.

He does not want to force environmental protection at the expense of people. In the environmental organizations, however, the belief has spread that humans are the enemies of the Earth, which he could not support. Moore withdrew himself after 15 years in the Greenpeace peak body. He first became a salmon farmer and then an independent environmental consultant.

He also accepted positions from the nuclear industry and forestry companies in Asia and North America, but he still does not sacrifice his environmental credentials. Although 70, Moore does not expect his crusade against environmental fear mongering is coming to an end anytime soon.

Without CO2, our earth would have long been a dead planet
It annoys him that CO2, the basic building block of all life on earth, is denounced by climate protectors to school classes as a “poison”. Without the gas, Moore said, “our Earth would be a dead planet.”

In the Bundestag he projected graphs on the wall, showing that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been steadily reduced for 150 million years by natural deposition on the seabed and in the earth’s crust.

In primeval times, the amount of carbon dioxide was ten times higher than today’s levels – at the same time there was an explosion of flora and fauna. “Even today, the plants would like to have more CO2,” says Moore, pointing out that “every professional greenhouse farmer fertilizes his plants with CO2 input.”

Concentration approached dangerously low levels
The real drama is not the warming, but the decay of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. From more than 4600 parts per million (ppm) it had dropped to barely 180 ppm during the last glaciation. “This is only 30 ppm above the level at which plants begin to die,” says Moore. This was only 18,000 years ago, a geological blink of an eye. It is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans, that the CO2 content has increased again to about 400 ppm today.

If man were to support natural CO2 reduction and ban fossil fuels, “life on earth would be over in less than two million years,” claims Moore. “The fact is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been dropping to a dangerously low level for a very long time”.

“Human combustion of fossil carbon sources helps restore a balance to the global carbon cycle,” says Moore. More carbon dioxide would contribute to more plant growth, more trees and larger food harvests.

Climate goals risk Germany’s prosperity
Germany will miss its climate targets for 2020 – and more drastically than expected. The Federal Environment Ministry has calculated this. Above all, the cause is the increasing fuel consumption in road traffic. Source: N24 / Daniel Franz

Germany is missing its climate goals by miles. From an economic point of view, it is impossible to live up to the promises made by the government for CO2 reduction by 2030. This results from a calculation from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. If the analysis of the former Greenpeace leader is correct, it would undermine the basis of an energy policy that derives its legitimacy from mainstream climate science. A layman may wish for open discussion in the face of such a fundamental dispute. But such a serious discussion is not expected in today’s political climate.

The climate “scientists” had already declared their knowledge before the summit in Paris was completed: The climate debate is finished. A dictum that makes Moore quite certain that “in the best scientific tradition, skepticism is almost mandatory.”

© WorldN24 GmbH. All rights reserved.

Part Time Power

Solar power only works while the sun shines – it is part-time power.

Wind power only works when suitable winds blows – also part-time power.

Batteries only work when charged – part-time power again.

Hydro fails in droughts – more part-time power.

And using full-time power like gas to fill the inevitable supply gaps from part-time power forces backup gas to operate like part-time power.

Moreover, on sunny windy days, wind and solar generators spew out electricity at little extra cost. These erratic surges of part-time power drive short-term electricity prices so low that even low-cost full-time producers like coal cannot operate profitably at those times. They are throttled back and forced to operate as yet another part-time power plant.

24/7 electricity users such as hospitals, trains, factories, refineries, fuel and water pumps, cash registers, infrastructure and mines cannot operate on part-time electricity.

Moreover, every part-time power producer (using sun, wind, batteries, hydro, gas or coal) consumes money full-time for operations, standby, maintenance and replacement. Each also has to fund its own specialised generators, transmission lines, access roads and workforce. Electricity becomes both unreliable and expensive, and consumers suffer.

Using taxes, subsidies, dictates and mandates to replace a full-time power producer like coal with up to five part-time power producers only makes sense in the part-time minds that inhabit Greentopia.

Canberra cannot improve any of this with more laws and regulations – they must REPEAL all the legislation, regulations, subsidies and taxes that created the mess in the first place. State governments too should repeal their silly energy laws, and stop shutting and destroying power stations. More laws and regulations can only make things worse.

To comment on this article visit:

Viv Forbes
26 Nov 2017

Party Time for Climateers

The climate warriors have held yet another Global Warming Jamboree in Bonn. As expected we were treated to an orchestrated flood of frightening forecasts to support their alarmist agenda.

Naturally most of them did not use carbon energy to get there.


Image credits to

For 23 years they have maintained these shindigs with no effect on the climate but causing great harm to many ordinary people – soaring costs for unreliable subsidised green electricity, loss of manufacturing and mining jobs, and increased food costs caused by high power prices and using food for ethanol/biodiesel.

Climate alarm is just a cover story. The glittering goal they seek is world government directed by unelected officials and funded by a global carbon tax.

What has kept these unproductive conferences alive for so long?

The money is great, the parties are fun, and the prize is power.

To comment on this article visit:

Further Reading:
An acute case of Apocalypse Fatigue Syndrome by Keith DeLacy:

An Avalanche of Global Warming Alarmism:

Here is the First Alarming Salvo:

Climate Policy Is: Redistributing The World’s Wealth:

What we need to do – Drain the Canberra Swamps like they are doing in Washington:

Viv Forbes
6 Nov 2017

“Zero Emissions” will Test the Convictions of Canberrans

Canberra, with its “zero emissions” target, yearns to be Australia’s greenest address.

Good. Let’s use them as a full-blown test of “zero emissions” before we all jump over that cliff.

Canberra passes thousands of laws for us. If their zero emissions dream is fair dinkum, they need to pass just three laws for themselves.

First, ban all petrol, diesel and gas-powered trucks, cars, boats, generators and aeroplanes from Canberra. That should remove emissions from their atmosphere, food from their supermarkets, and leave their roads free for pedestrians and bicycles. Idle airport runways would be ideal sites for solar panels and wind turbines.

Second, prohibit the importation of electricity generated by coal or gas – they can demonstrate how to survive on wind, solar, hydro, batteries and fire-wood. They should work at home using bees-wax candles on cloudy windless days.

Third, introduce a CCT (Canberra-carbon-tax) whereby all carbon dioxide emitted elsewhere in the production and transport of imported cement, steel, aluminium, bitumen, timber, vehicles, bicycles, solar panels, wind turbines, fire wood and food is charged to ACT end users.

If people flock into emissions-free Canberra we know that this is the way for Australia. But if there is a mass exodus, it will signal that the policy is a failure.

Let’s test the convictions of Canberrans.

If you would like to comment, or read comments, on this article go here:

Further Reading:
Canberra’s Zero Emissions Target:

The Ideal Car for Canberra:

Queensland will have to close perfectly good power stations to meet a 50% target:
Viv Forbes
1 Nov 2017

Back to Bolted-Down Industries

Once upon a time Australia was attractive to processing, refining and manufacturing industries using our abundant mineral and food resources, our reliable low-cost coal-fired electricity and a workforce trained in technical skills.

No longer.

Australia used to have 11 oil refineries, spread around the country. There are just 4 left, all over fifty years old, and all in danger of closing down. Green barriers to oil exploration have forced most of them to rely on costly imported crude oil.

We buy our jet fuel from North Asia and have just 19 days supply of aviation fuel in the country. Australia’s diesel supplies sometimes fall to just 13 days of consumption.

Now, for the first time in at least 60 years Australia no longer produces motor vehicles.

China and India have about 430 coal power plants under construction but Australia has not built a single coal-fired power station for seven years – some politicians even rejoice when they manage to close and demolish one.

Brisbane’s new trains are being made in India, Victa mowers are made in China and most coastal shipping died decades ago. Steel works and refineries producing aluminium, copper and zinc are under stress. All these industries are being pushed overseas by costly unreliable electricity and other government barriers and burdens.

Red-green policies being pushed by all major parties are making Australia more dependent on bolted-down industries such as mining and farming that can’t be sent overseas because their basic resources are here. And green opposition to nuclear power increases Aussie reliance on coal.

A century ago Australians relied on wool, wheat, gold, silver, copper, lead-zinc, butter, beef and timber – all products of bolted-down industries.

Red-green policies are pushing us back to those days. Politicians need to remember Newton’s Law of Bureaucracy – whenever the government tries to use the force of law to achieve economic goals the long term results will be equal and opposite to those intended.

So in the long run, red-green energy and environmental policies will make us more dependent on the bolted-down industries they now attack – mining, farming, forestry and fishing.

If you would like to comment on this article, or see other comments go to:

Further Reading:

Construction of new coal-fired power plants is increasing in at least 35 countries:

Asia is returning to Coal:

Greens Disappointed by Economic Growth:

Australia’s Aging oil refineries are closing:

Viv Forbes

16 Nov 2017

Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23, Frank Bainimarama

Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23, Frank Bainimarama

Nils-Axel Mörner and Pamela Matlack-Klein

Mr. President,

The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding threats to low lying coasts provided sea level would suddenly start to rise at rates never recorded before (which would violate physical laws as well as accumulated scientific knowledge over centuries).

We have been in your lovely country and undertaken a detailed sea level analysis, which beyond doubts indicates that sea level is not at all in a rising mode, but has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years. Hence all threats of an approaching general sea level flooding is totally unfounded.

Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the centre, the true scientific community must insist that only facts as revealed in nature itself and in laboratory experiments can provide trustworthy results.

These are the facts:

  • Sea level has remained virtually at the present level over the last 200 years
  • In the last 50-70 years sea level has remained perfectly stable in Fiji
  • This stability is indicated by the growth of corals (stopped to grow vertically, and forced to grow laterally into microatolls) – and corals do not lie

Full letter, including images and chart: [PDF, 5 MB]


Questions for Jacinda [Ardern, leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party], the Greens and any other political zealots talking about reduction of “carbon” emissions, by which I guess they mean the trace gas carbon dioxide (CO2) that currently, at 400 ppm represents 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere from all sources, natural and human-induced.

How do they propose to deal with (a) human emissions of CO2 when each of us exhale, estimated at around an average of 1 kg per day; (b), emissions from volcanoes both above and below the oceans: (c), emissions from sedimentary basins; the combination of which of which greatly exceed CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in our cars and elsewhere, and from flatulent animals?

And what allowance will they make for the extent to which CO2 as nature’s fertiliser has greened the Earth by an observed 14% since 1979 when satellites gave us the ability to see and measure such changes. For New Zealand alone, an increase of 300 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere is estimated to increase our pasture production by some 30 per cent, and raise our pastoral sector earnings from their current $28 billion by $8 billion, without taking into account similar productivity gains in horticulture and viticulture.

While they’re at at, will one of them quote just one scientific paper, prepared in the recognised scientific method that proves that emissions of CO2 can or do cause variations in the global climate beyond the range of historically recorded observations. No one, anywhere in the world has yet done so.


Terry Dunleavy MBE
Hauraki, North Shore
New Zealand

Worthless Argument: 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Believe Fossil Fuels Cause Global Warming

By Jim Rust.

Many climate alarmists claim 97 percent or more climate scientists state carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. I tell them it is not worth discussing this issue. Anyone can create useless statistics to support their arguments. Simply interview people who agree with you.

If you go back to the 1600s, I could say 100 percent of scientists said the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei dissented from this theory and was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church. In order to save his life, on June 22, 1633, Galileo Galilei recanted his published theory that stated the sun was the center of the world and the earth was not. Galileo lived in house arrest the rest of his life.

This shows the argument of force using claims of majority thinking are worthless and should not be used in debates about global warming (climate change). Similarly, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein quotes from

James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech) and policy advisor The Heartland Institute

Heartland Book: CLEXIT for a Brighter Future


Last Thursday, President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, which the Obama administration initially agreed to in 2015. Environmental activists are lambasting his decision, but should they?

In his new book, Clexit for a Brighter Future: The Case for Withdrawing from the United Nations’ Climate Treaties, energy expert Donn Dears explains why the answer is a resounding “No!”

The purpose of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to “achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Dears describes the impossibility of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow or stop climate change.

The international environmental left is living in a fantasy world, and the United States should leave them there by withdrawing from the UNFCCC, a 1992 treaty with a clear “clexit” clause. The treaty was based on the theory that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming. Since that theory falls apart under scrutiny, Dears concludes, “The UNFCCC treaty is, essentially, a fraud.”

Clexit, a follow-up to Dears’ Nothing to Fear, succinctly and systematically explains, with ample facts and sound logic, why participating in a failed treaty is immoral and economically disastrous.


Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris

From Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr.

Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris

Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.

Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.

Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.

Exit Paris: Business

Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.

We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.

Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.

Continue reading “Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris”