Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore Says Climate Change Based On False Narratives

A series of email exchanges between Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore and South Korean Professor Seok-soon Park shows him saying that climate change is based on false narratives and that it has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement.

One of Greenpeace’s founding members, Patrick Moore, said in an email why he had quit the organisation: “Greenpeace was ‘hijacked’ by the political left when they realised there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to a political fundraising organization,” Moore said.

15 years after he co-founded Greenpeace, Moore left the organisation in 1986.

“The ‘environmental’ movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement,” he said. “They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instil fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.”

He claimed that they typically carry out their political operations behind closed doors with other operatives at the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and other organisations of a similar kind.

He asserted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is “not a science organization.” The World Meteorological Entity and the United Nations Environment Program make up this political organisation.

“The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with ‘information’ that supports the ‘climate emergency’ narrative.

Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.”

“Today, the left has adopted many policies that would be very destructive to civilization as they are not technically achievable. Only look at the looming energy crisis in Europe and the UK, which Putin is taking advantage of. But it is of their own making in refusing to develop their own natural gas resources, opposing nuclear energy, and adopting an impossible position on fossil fuels in general,” Moore wrote.

The Left ‘Hijacked’ Greenpeace

The organization’s basic values, according to him, were “green” for the environment and “peace” for the people, but peace had largely been forgotten and green had taken precedence.

“Many [so-called] ‘environmental’ leaders were now saying that ‘humans are the enemies of the Earth, the enemies of Nature.’ I could not accept that humans are the only evil species. This is too much like ‘original sin,’ that humans are born with evil, but all the other species are good, even cockroaches, mosquitos, and diseases,” Moore argued.

The idea that there should be fewer people in the world is the current dominant philosophy, according to him.

“But the people who said this were not volunteering to be the first to go away. They behave as if they are superior to others. This kind of ‘pride’ and ‘conceit’ is the worst of the Cardinal Sins,” Moore said.

False Narrative on Chlorine

“At the time I decided to leave Greenpeace, I was one of 6 Directors of Greenpeace International. I was the only one with formal science education, BSc Honors in Science and Forestry, and Ph.D. in Ecology. My fellow directors decided that Greenpeace should begin a campaign to ‘Ban Chlorine Worldwide.’”

Moore argued that although chlorine is one of the 94 [naturally-occurring] elements on the Periodic Table and plays many important roles in biology and human health, it is also true that elemental chlorine gas is very toxic and was employed as a weapon in World War I. For instance, sodium chloride, also known as table salt, is a necessary nutrient for all animals and many plants. NaCl cannot be “banned.”

He emphasised that one of the most important developments in public health history in reducing the spread of water-borne communicable illnesses like cholera was the addition of chlorine to drinking water, swimming pools, and spas. Additionally, roughly 25% of all of our medicines involve chlorine, and about 85% of pharmaceutical drugs are created using chemistry related to chlorine. Without halogens, such as chlorine, bromine, and iodine, medicine would not be the same. Halogens are all potent antibiotics.

“Greenpeace named chlorine ‘The Devil’s Element’ and calls PVC, polyvinyl chloride, or simply vinyl, ‘the Poison Plastic.’ All of this is fake [and] to scare the public. In addition, this misguided policy reinforces the attitude that humans are not a worthy species and that the world would be better off without them. I could not convince my fellow Greenpeace directors to abandon this misguided policy. This was the turning point for me,” Moore said.

False Narrative on Polar Bears

Moore responded when asked how Greenpeace used its big contributions, saying money was used to fund “a very large staff” (possibly numbering over 2,000), extensive advertising, and fundraising initiatives. Additionally, almost all of the organization’s fundraising advertisements are founded on myths that he had thoroughly debunked in his books, with polar bears serving as one such example.

“The International Treaty on Polar Bears, signed by all polar countries in 1973, to ban unrestricted hunting of polar bears, is never mentioned in the media, Greenpeace, or politicians who say the polar bear is going extinct due to melting ice in the Arctic. In fact, the polar bear population has increased from 6,000 to 8,000 in 1973 to 30,000 to 50,000 today. This is not disputed,” Moore said.

“But now they say the polar bear will go extinct in 2100 as if they have a magic crystal ball that can predict the future. In fact, this past winter in the Arctic saw an expansion of ice from previous years, and Antarctica was colder during the last winter than in the past 50 years.”

Like many in the “climate emergency” sector, Moore said he does not pretend to be an expert or foresee the future with certainty.

The Goal of the ‘Environmental Apocalypse’ Theory

“I believe the human population has always been vulnerable to people who predict doom with false stories,” Moore said.

“The Aztecs threw virgins into volcanos, and the Europeans and Americans burned women as witches for 200 years claiming this would ‘save the world’ from evil people. This has been [referred to as] ‘herd mentality,’ ‘groupthink,’ and ‘cult behavior.’ Humans are social animals with a hierarchy, and it is easiest to gain a high position by using fear and control.”

Moore added that he is committed to proving to people that the situation is not as dire as they are led to believe that the environmental apocalypse hypothesis is really about “political power and control.”

“Today, in the richest countries, our descendants are making decisions that our grandchildren will have to pay for,” he said. “Predictions that the world is coming to an end have been made for thousands of years. Not once has this come true. Why should we believe it now?”

“People are naturally afraid of the future because it is unknown and full of risks and difficult decisions. I believe there is also an element of ‘self-loathing’ in this apocalypse movement.”

According to Moore, today’s youth are taught that people are unworthy and are destroying the planet. They now feel guilty and ashamed of themselves as a result of this indoctrination, which is the incorrect attitude to have in life.

The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide

“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.

“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”

Moore made it clear that the “minority opinion” is not about the temperature history of the Earth; rather, the relationship between the temperature and CO2 is the subject of dispute.

“In this regard, I agree that many believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. CO2 is invisible, so no one can actually see what it is doing. And this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money. [The rest are] the public who believe this story even though they can’t actually see what CO2 is doing,” Moore said.

Moore presented a graph showing the temperature in central England during a period of 350 years, from 1659 to 2009. He said that “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t.”

In addition to stating that CO2 is the foundation of all life on Earth and that its concentration in the atmosphere is currently lower than it has been for a significant portion of life’s history, Moore called the demonization of CO2 “completely ridiculous.”

‘Wind and Solar Power Are Parasites on the Economy’

“Solar and wind power are both very expensive and very unreliable. It is almost like a mental illness that so many people have been brainwashed to think entire countries can be supported with these technologies,” Moore said.

“I believe wind and solar energy are parasites on the larger economy. In other words, they make the country poorer than if other more reliable and less costly technologies were used.”

According to Moore, companies that provide wind and solar energy heavily rely on government mandates, tax write-offs, and subsidies. Under these mandates, people are compelled to buy wind and solar energy, even if it is more expensive, under the guise that it is “environmentally friendly.”

“Millions of people pay more for wind and solar energy while a few people make millions of dollars, marks, pounds, etc. It is a bit like a Ponzi scheme in the stock markets,” Moore added.

“They require vast areas of land, are not available most of the time, and require reliable energy such as nuclear, hydroelectric, [coal, and natural] gas to be available when wind and solar are unavailable.”

According to Moore, the mining, transporting, and building of wind and solar farms need significant amounts of fossil fuels. In many places, they also don’t generate nearly as much energy during their lifetimes as is needed to construct and maintain them.

“Why not use reliable energy [such as nuclear, hydroelectricity, natural gas, etc.] as the primary source?” Moore questioned, adding if that were the case, “then wind and solar would be unnecessary.”

‘Plastic Is Not a Toxic Substance’

“Plastic is not a toxic substance. That is why we package and wrap our food in it, to prevent it from becoming contaminated. Plastic does not magically become toxic when it enters the ocean,” Moore said.

“Of course, they say on one hand that plastic will never break down, and then, on the other hand, they say it will quickly decay into ‘microplastics,’ which, of course, are conveniently invisible so no one can observe or verify this for themselves. How clever!”

Moore claims that our digestive system can distinguish between “food” and plastic or minute sand particles. No matter how minute the sand is, our body does not absorb it into our bloodstream.

He claimed that, like driftwood, floating plastic in the ocean is similar to a little floating reef. It gives marine organisms a surface to attach to, lay their eggs on, and eat things that are attached to it.

“Pollution is usually toxic or causes harm to life. Plastic is simply ‘litter’ beside the road. It is not hurting anything. One exception is discarded fishing nets, not because they are plastic but because they are shaped to catch fish. The environmental community should work with the fishing industry to stop throwing damaged nets in the sea and bring them back to the dock, where they can be recycled, used in a waste-to-energy plant, or discarded safely,” Moore added.