Doomed Planet

The Greenpeacer Who Came to His Senses

As the Glasgow climate summit drew near we endured an unrelenting onslaught to convince us that the outcome of that ill-fated assembly was a foregone conclusion. According to a popular meme on the nation’s opinion pages, the gathering was Australia’s chance to place itself on “the right of history”.

As is always the case when the globe’s elite jet in to this or that location to discuss how the rest of the world’s population is to be managed, plus what and which energy budgets they will be permitted, we were pushed to accept the implication that those who don’t agree are vacuous laggers incapable of understanding or accepting ‘science’, not caring about the environment and so mentally stuck in the mud that they cannot grasp the need to accept necessary change. This media pounding leaves little room for anything but spin, which is exasperating because it springs from the climateers’ and their mainstream media publicists’ emotional ‘reasoning’ (if that’s not a contradiction of terms), rather than the detached process of real-world observations, collection of data, testing of hypotheses and deductive reasoning. What a wonderful thing it was, therefore, to read Patrick Moore’s recent book, Fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom, published by Ecosense Environmental.

The wonderful aspect of Moore’s effort to dispel delusions of doom and set the record straight is that he boasts impeccable environmental credentials that stretch way back to the start of the global warming scare and beyond. Having been a co-founder of Greenpeace, and a member of its governing board for many years, Moore’s commitment to a healthy environment is beyond dispute. He has, however, changed his mind from the position touted by the organisation he once helped to form and nurture in its early years. This transition came about by a process of intellectual and scientific enquiry, researching the claims and emotion-laden statements about the state of the planet and the role, real and alleged, that carbon dioxide plays. Not only does he find a supreme lack of evidence that the planet is hellbound for catastrophe, he concludes the exact opposite to be the truth. His is a story of conversion brought about by rational analysis.

Moore reveals an interesting insight right at the start of the book. Instead of going straight into a set-piece analysis of factors supposedly contributing to, or ‘proving’, the human-caused global warming hypothesis, he poses a question for reader’s to ponder: why it is that so many of the so-called proofs of the warming hypothesis are based on things that are either invisible or inaccessible to the average person? In the invisible category he cites carbon dioxide and radiation, and in the remote category he points to polar bears and coral reefs. As all who lack grants and light planes will find it hard to carry out a polar bear census, they are obliged to rely on, and trust, the ‘experts’ who have the financial backing and careerist incentives to perpetuate the scare stories. 

When I read Moore’s insight about the invisible and remote being placed at the service of hysteria, I was hooked and stayed that way right to the end of the last chapter.

Moore develops chapters on the Great Barrier Reef, which, incidentally, even the Australian Institute of Marine Science says is in good order; the geological record of high and low carbon dioxide fluctuations; the asserted link between carbon dioxide levels and atmospheric temperature rises and falls; the impossibility of the oceans becoming acid, the so called ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ which those who have gone looking for it just can’t find. Polar bears, of course, get a big mention.

In chapter after chapter Moore dismantles the false claims with withering logic, supporting his case without exception by referencing published scientific studies, plus multiple maps and graphs. All this is done generally without rancour and personal attacks, a refreshing change from the climateers’ standard operating procedure. As anyone who noticed the climate academics’ character assassinations and bitchy back-stabbing in the infamous Climategate emails, ad hom attacks are de rigeur on their side of the argument.  I say ‘generally’ because there is one major instance where he drops his reluctance to make it personal and that comes in the last chapter. For fear of spoiling the sting in the tail I will not reveal it here. Get the book and read it for yourselves.

There is a further subtext to the book which sits just below the surface of the logic-based argument Moore presents. This is about the endless tug-of-war in communications theory between the reliance on emotion to convey a message versus strict logic to do the same. Moore won’t have a bar of what is the stock in trade of sales trainers, advertising executives, speech writers and spin doctors, sticking strictly to logical persuasion. Moore obviously discards this option because he actually cares about the truth of cold, hard facts.

Moore does a hero’s work in laying out the case that we are living in a time future generations may well cite as being one of history’s greatest examples of the madness of crowds. To do this he has had to find the courage to face the ire of many people who were once his comrades. In infuriating them by the simple business of telling the truth he has succeeded admirably.

Fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom
Patrick Moore
Ecosense Environmental Inc.                                              

9 thoughts on “The Greenpeacer Who Came to His Senses

  • Daffy says:

    Editor: last phrase of para 1: should it be ‘the right *side* of history” ? Please delete this comment when you’ve checked.

  • ianl says:

    Patrick Moore’s book deserves a higher sales circulation than I expect it will get. The MSM will ignore it. In fact, one of the Senior Editors of the SMH (whose name I’ve deliberately erased from memory) has stated that facts and logic don’t sell. Presumably she has sales and circulation evidence showing that, since her job depends on it.

    In any case, the dishonest cry of “Consensus !” is used to throttle public discourse. Now demonstrably, the underlying purpose of reducing demand within Western economies to dampen activity (so saving the planet) is being fronted up.

    Since about 12 months or so before Covid, the demand for power in NSW has shrunk close to 20% (switching heavy industry off for periods to avoid suburban houses becoming powerless). This is just as well from the activist viewpoint since on most days NSW requires about 1GW from “the grid” to stay afloat – closing Liddell will add near another 1GW to that deficit, with AGL pretending windmills somewhere else will make it up.

    For those interested in the sway of demand/supply:

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Thanks David, Patrick Moore is always worth reading an d listening to. The point that you hit upon re the alarmists emphasizing remote or inaccessible examples of warming struck a chord with me. Here is the text of a letter I sent to The Australian (unpublished of course) some days ago:

    Paddy Cullen paints a dismal picture of our climate future. He talks about sea level rise, hurricanes, drought – all of which, despite hysterical claims to the contrary, have not been trending upwards over the past few decades. But hyping up these occasional, major events is used to disguise the fact that global warming, supposedly the fundamental problem, is not happening. By now we should be noticing consistently and significantly hotter days. I’m not. Right now, where I live it’s uncommonly cold for this time of the year and has been for most of the year. And last year didn’t seem too hot either. Or the year before that. I wonder how many other readers are noticing the same thing.

  • ianl says:

    I do have a comment above “awaiting approval” for some reason. Nothing untoward, no naughty words, but it does have two (2) internet links – this may be the issue.

    So I’m posting this to see.

  • ianl says:

    Yep, that was it.

    Sorry for the irritating small posts, but here is a credible report showing consequences that Patrick Moore, and many others, is presenting:

    That is credible and very scary, real time, I find.

  • gilmay97 says:

    Climate Change Solved — Causative Factors Identified
    No cause for alarm the problem identified traced back 1 AD
    Brilliant discovery by James A. Marusek. Nuclear Physicist & Engineer. U.S. Department of the Navy, retired.
    Every generation experience weather events so extreme that they are described as “in the memory of the oldest inhabitant nothing like it had ever been known”. Today’s weather is no exception
    Over the centuries, mankind has experienced massive rainfalls, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, parched-earth droughts, strong gales, flash floods, great snowfalls, killer blizzards, lightning storms
    dense fogs, freezing rain, sleet, huge hail, and bone-chilling cold, and in-between, periods of warm sunshine and tranquillity.

    A must read for everyone, Students, Teachers, Scientists, and Governments.
    This should be a compulsory subject for every teacher and student to understand.
    With permission for publication from the author James A. Marusek. ><
    These facts must be opposed at all cost otherwise if the Climate Change Hoax falls over there will be thousands out of work, entire universities relying on this for operational status will fail, Government offices will close and politicians will lose jobs.
    Most experts are only experts in a relatively narrow field.
    The angrier they are, the more likely it is they suspect they are wrong.
    Because their reputation, status and income may be at stake, it is very difficult for experts to change their minds. Prof Peter Saunders 2015.

    Dullards want us to believe the climate has never changed until recent years, their fanatical belief has no basis yet it is so ingrained it has become a pseudo religious fanaticism not to be questioned.
    1970’s — The New ice age
    1980’s — Acid Rain
    1990’s — Ozone Depletion
    2000’s — Global Warming
    Then they had to switch to Climate Change as the Earth was no longer warming.
    That is 40 YEARS OF TOTAL BALONEY AND BASELESS FEARMONGERING: To siphon off billions of dollars from taxpayers, expand government power, and advance the fanatical looney left power.

  • Marcus Harris says:

    I haven’t yet read his book, but this I do know, the average rainfall for SW Western Australia has declined markedly over the last 40 years. That’s tangible evidence of real climate change. Is it an irreversible trend? That’s the big question, because if it is we need to prepare for living with very different natural resources.
    A third desalination plant will be built soon and there’ll be no more logging in much of the native forest.

  • norsaint says:

    Really Marcus?

  • lhackett01 says:

    I have not read the book either. However, I have studied climate history and today’s climate fits within the ranges experienced in past times. My paper, “Global Warming Misunderstood” ( provides evidence.

    Then we have the fixation about CO2. Again, there is evidence that CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases at their present atmospheric concentrations are essentially saturated and adding more cannot increase global temperatures by anywhere near the IPCC claims. My latest paper,”The Impact of Greenhouse Gases On Earth’s Spectral Radiance” ( produces evidence that this is so.

    Unfortunately, the response I get from Government departments is:

    [“The Australian Government accepts the science of climate change. It welcomes the latest assessment from the IPCC on climate science. The IPCC is a trusted source of scientific advice and its work continues to inform the Government. Australian experts have made a significant contribution to the science underpinning the IPCC’s reports, including the most recent report on climate science. Australia is committed to the Paris Agreement and is taking practical action to reduce emissions.

    The Government released its Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan on 26 October 2021. This is a whole-of-economy plan to deliver net zero emissions by 2050. The technology-driven plan sets out the Government’s credible pathway to net zero by 2050 while preserving Australian jobs and generating new opportunities for industries and regional Australia.”]

    This reply was made even though I revealed clearly in my paper sent to you that the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained errors of fact. In particular, the IPCC report Summary states that, “It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades”. This is not supported by real data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or by Dr. Ryan N. Maue, as is referenced in my paper, “Global Warming Misunderstood”.

    The reality seems to be that papers like mine are not even read. They are cast aside as soon as the reader notices the paper is offering evidence that might contradict the IPCC position. This must be so, given the Government can say “the IPCC is a trusted source” when my paper stated there were obvious errors in the IPCC Report. The sensible and professional action should have been to have the content of my paper studied impartially to determine the validity or otherwise or the evidence presented. I say “my paper”, but my papers include the results of studies done by other scientists. It is those papers particularly that must be considered by Government before marching behind the IPCC bandwagon.

Leave a Reply