I
received a copy of Patrick Moore’s book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom from a friend who went down the anti-climate change denialist rabbithole. In this concise work, Moore uses internet news headlines to propagate a series of misleading assertions and flat-out disinformation concerning climate change and related environmental matters. His content is tailored for easy consumption but contains inaccurate information that aims to undermine established scientific principles, particularly when reaching an audience with limited exposure to sound scientific education.
Before we review the book itself, let’s look at the author of this self-published book, and ask ourselves: is this the character of someone who is out to honestly report on complex science subjects?
Patrick Moore Credibility
Chapter 1 Fact-check: Baobab Trees
Chapter 2 Fact-check: Coral Bleaching
Chapter 3 Fact-check: Carbon Dioxide
Chapter 4 Fact-check: Polar Bears
Chapter 5 Fact-check: Estimated Threats to Biodiversity
Chapter 6 Fact-check: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Chapter 7 Fact-check: Genetically Modified Foods
Chapter 8 Fact-check: Nuclear Radiation
Who is Patrick Moore?
Patrick Moore’s new book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom’ is laced with misinformation, and features lines of argument that are incompatible with modern science.
Patrick Moore, born in British Columbia on January 15, 1947, received a forestry degree from the University of British Columbia, and then joined Greenpeace as a crewmember of its original chartered fishing boat.
Over time, Moore’s ideologies began to shift toward ever more radical positions, and he began to fall for far-right ideologies. He became intoxicated with the popular, and often most ridiculous far-right anti-environmental claims that were popular during the various eras in which he was most active.
His transformation coincided with his move to becoming a consultant role for industries that had classic conflicts with environmental concerns – logging, plastics, GMO and oil. His company, Greenspirit Enterprises offered greenwashing services through the deployment of public relations tactics aimed at alleviating concerns or diverting public attention from underlying environmental issues.
Throughout his career, from Greenpeace to Greenspirit, Moore’s skills have been as a communicator; simplifying ideas; distilling them down to a pedestrian level.
Patrick Moore’s many dubious claims, adherence to pseudoscience and to extremist, far-right views should be a sign to anybody who may take his claims seriously. Here are some examples:
Encouraging Others to Drink Roundup
On a French television show, Patrick Moore claimed that Roundup was safe to drink, despite being toxic to humans.
During the interview, Moore dismissed the safety concerns associated with the herbicide, and went through his routine of false claims about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
But the host of the show surprised Moore and offered him a glass of Roundup to drink. Moore, cornered, refused the glass of Roundup and said, “I’m not an idiot.”
Drinking glyphosate, of course, can be deadly, and there is evidence that Roundup causes cancer.
Moore often makes reckless claims and statements, but rarely was he caught as openly as in this televised story, which has been shared around the world over multiple news cycles.
Video Shows Patrick Moore Refusing Glass of Roundup
Attacks on Greta Thunberg
Patrick Moore has repeatedly attacked climate active Greta Thunberg in videos and on Twitter. He has claimed she is incapable of the thoughts and words she says. He has written that, “she is being abused by whoever wrote the words she speaks. She is like a puppet on strings. If she doesn’t rebel against her abusers she will be forever damaged and will never be a free thinking person.”
But Greta Thunberg is actually a hyper-intelligent and eloquent spokesperson with a passion for climate advocacy. It is well documented that she in fact understands the science and is an adept communicator, consistently speaking correctly about the complex science.
Attacking a young activist who is genuinely concerned about the planet’s future and advocating for a more sustainable world is not a good look.
Moore’s criticisms of Thunberg – claiming she was too young to have an opinion, and too autistic, is a logical fallacy. Rather than addressing the science in the language of logic and science, Moore insists on fallacious ad hominem. This is a clear sign that Moore is not interested in constructive debate.
Greta Thunberg is a world-renowned advocate for climate activism. Instead of attacking her aspergers diagnosis or her age, Patrick Moore should communicate his disagreements with the consensus science.
Greta Thunberg’s messages are rooted in scientific consensus and are backed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Her message is basically: follow the science. Attacking her for her stance on climate change disregards the body of scientific evidence that supports her concerns.
If people under the age of 21 can’t have their own voices or help change history, then what do we think of Joan of Arc, who led the French army at age 13? What do we think of Bob Weir, who helped found the Grateful Dead at age 16? What about James Monroe, who signed the declaration of independence at age 18? What about Malala Yousafzai, who at age 17 won the nobel prize? Or Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein at age 18? Alexander the Great, who conquered the known world at age 18? Or Mozart, who wrote his first symphony at age 8?
Greta Thunberg, like anyone else, has the right to communicate her views on climate science and advocate for addressing climate change.
Thunberg has been very public about her diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. But why would anyone use her neurodiversity against her? Anybody interested in genuine scientific discourse would rather focus on the knowledge, the research and the understanding of climate change that she has communicated so well.
Those who are interested in true scientific discourse and debate don’t judge individuals by their personal characteristics, but rather the quality and substance of their arguments. Trying to discriminate and silence someone because they are neurodivergent is absolutely counterproductive to informed dialogue and is another direct disqualification of Moore.
Not every likes Greta Thunberg’s advocacy, but there are thousands of other eloquent advocates and speakers on the subject of climate change. The reality is that Thunberg has remained one of the most consistently successful speakers about the subject. Moore has referred to Thunberg as evil, as a puppet, a tool. When he was called out for repeatedly pointing out her asperger’s diagnosis, he explained that he was just trying to compare ‘her masters to Hitler.” Moore’s repeated verbal attacks on Greta Thunberg are show his ignorance on climate science, because they undermine discourse without offering anything of substance.
Greenpeace Co-Founder Claim
Patrick Moore has long claimed that he is a co-founder or founder of Greenpeace. But this false assertion has been repeatedly dismissed by Greenpeace and its original members. Even in 2023, in his new book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”, Moore rehashes this false narrative, by opening the back cover with a quote that begins, “Patrick Moore, Cofounder of Greenpeace…”
In reality, Greenpeace was founded in Vancouver, Canada, as the Don’t Make a Wave Committee in 1970 by a group of dedicated activists, including Irving Stowe, Dorothy Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter. Patrick Moore did join Greenpeace around 1971, and he played a role as a member of the crew on one of their early protest voyages, but he was not a founding member.
Moore uses the claim that he founded Greenpeace as a way to bolster his credibility—leading many who follow him to see that as a sort of credential for his extremist views. Moore’s association with Greenpeace was relatively brief, and he later distanced himself from the organization, evolving into a vocal advocate for industries and positions that were almost always directly at odds with Greenpeace’s original environmental mission.
Moore’s involvement in Greenpeacw was about the straightforward and immediate environmental issues of the early 1970’s, like protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific and the protection of whales through direct action campaigns. Climate change requires expertise in climatology, environmental science, and other related fields, which Moore has never possessed.
Patrick Moore is a January 6 Insurrectionist Sympathizer
Patrick Moore’s sympathetic views toward the January 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol, which involved the storming of the Capitol building by a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump, have been widely criticized as antithetical to his credibility on complex scientific topics like climate change. His support or sympathy for the insurrection is concerning for several reasons.
The January 6 insurrection was a highly dangerous, violent and unlawful event that sought to undermine the democratic processes of the United States. By expressing support for the insurrection, Moore aligns himself with actions that fundamentally undermine the rule of law and democratic institutions, which are critical for addressing complex issues like climate change through proper legislative and policy mechanisms.
Second, embracing or sympathizing with actions that promote disinformation, conspiracy theories, and political extremism can erode public trust and rational discourse. The same disinformation tactics that have fueled political extremism in some contexts can be found in climate change denial, which hinders constructive dialogue on this complex and scientifically established issue.
Moore’s support for the insurrection undermines his credibility when discussing climate change, as it suggests a willingness to disregard facts, evidence, and the democratic processes that underpin sound scientific and policy decisions. It can lead to doubts about his commitment to rational and evidence-based discourse, which is essential when addressing the complexities of climate science and policy.
What Expertise and Evidence does Patrick Moore Have in Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Patrick Moore’s book is largely a climate change denialist book. In this book, Moore responds to various sensationalist internet headlines and uses the wording chosen by the editor as a means to try to discredit various foundational aspects of modern ecology.
- He interviews no experts or scientists
- He has no formal education in climate science
- He has never published peer-reviewed studies or been involved in climate research
- His pseudoscientific statements on climate change are not supported by the scientific community
Chapter 1: Patrick Moore’s Claims about Baobab Tree Health in Africa is False
In the first chapter of Patrick Moore’s Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, he decries a June 2018 news cycle that was based on a study published in the journal Plant Nature, a well-respected botany journal. Such nature, science and environment stories are commonplace. They are reactions to published science reports, and thousands of them are written daily. Every day, there are articles condensing a study about the decline of a frog, or a fish, or a habitat, as it relates to climate change. This particular study would not have been all that notable, except that its subject—
the largest baobabs in the world—
captivated the attention of the world because…everybody loves giant and ancient baobabs. To people around the world, baobabs are a symbol of wild Africa.
It is important to note here that Patrick Moore is actually attempting to discredit the science that links the impact of climate-fueled drought on arid regions…but he relies purely on the headline as his evidence that the research must be bunk. However, he didn’t read the actual report.
Patrick Moore attempts a bait-and-switch on baobab trees. Sketched with copic markers and colored pencils.
So, let’s focus on the science.
Beginning in 2005, a group of researchers sought to better understand how the largest and oldest African Baobabs, the largest angiosperms on Earth, can reach such enormous size and age. The study was possible only because of new techniques.
In the report that appeared in Plant Nature, they explain the purpose of their research:
In 2005 we started an in-depth research programme to elucidate several controversial or poorly understood aspects of the architecture, growth and age of the African baobab. The research is based on our new approach, which is not limited to fallen specimens, but allows live specimens to be investigated and dated. The approach consists of accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating of small wood samples collected from inner cavities and/or from different areas of their trunk/stems.
Over a 12 year period, the team studied the largest African Baobabs. They write:
In the period 2005–2017, we investigated and dated practically all known very large and potentially old African baobab specimens (over 60 trees) from northern and southern continental Africa, the African islands and outside Africa.
There are only so many baobabs that are enormous and ancient. But something happened during their research that was worth writing about in a research paper—
although it was not the purpose of their 12 year study. Of these 60 trees that they were able to identify by their girth, height and volume, and by their radiocarbon age as the largest and oldest, they directly observed that 8 of the 13 oldest trees and 5 of the 6 largest trees had died, or that at least the largest parts of their stems had died.
They explain:
The deaths of the majority of the oldest and largest African bao-babs over the past 12 years is an event of an unprecedented magnitude. These deaths were not caused by an epidemic and there has also been a rapid increase in the apparently natural deaths of many other mature baobabs. We suspect that the demise of monumental baobabs may be associated at least in part with significant modifications of climate conditions that affect southern Africa in particular. However, further research is necessary to support or refute this supposition.
Now, Patrick Moore, who did not read the actual research, claims “The story is so fake that it does not take a genius to see through it.”
To him, it is completely natural that the majority of these very large and ancient trees all died within 12 years of each other, claiming that if there were 10,000 of these trees, that the population would be stable. He then cites the estimated age of the oldest tree—
2500 years—
and claims that these trees must have died simply because of old age. As a climate change denier, Moore will do anything to use headlines to make climate science sound fake.
While Moore assumed all the fallen trees were 2500 years old, the average radiocarbon dated age of this group was 1,533 years, with some of them being under 1000 years old. For African baobabs, that would mean they were old, but not at the end of their natural lifespans.
If 8 of the 13 most famous actors over age 50 all died within a month in areas all over the world, Patrick Moore would say they died of old age. But the rest of us would presume there was more than coincidence to the statistical anomaly. and want further investigation.
But, it should be noted that the researchers were not studying climate, they were studying tree ages and attempting to learn the secrets of their longevity. They only hypothesized that climate played a role in the demise of these large and ancient trees, since disease was not present in any of the die-offs. This was the sole sentence in the study about climate change: We suspect that the demise of monumental baobabs may be associated at least in part with significant modifications of climate conditions that affect southern Africa in particular.
This sort of hypothesis invites further study, but to Patrick Moore, this study, and the dozens of mainstream publications that reported on the study, it was all fake!
What does the Science Say?
In the sixth 2023 6th IPCC Assessment, the working group reports on the changing temperatures in Southern Africa, where all of the largest and oldest baobabs live:
Mean annual temperatures over the region increased by between 1.04°C and 1.44°C over the period 1961–2015 depending on the observational dataset and, in northern Botswana and Zimbabwe, they have increased by 1.6°C–1.8°C between 1961–2010. The annual number of hot days have increased in southern Africa over the last four decades and there is increasing evidence of increased heat stress impacting agriculture and human health.
The IPCC reports have highlighted the impacts of climate change on plants and trees in arid regions as well as specifically in Africa. So, broadly, we understand several things about climate change and the botany of arid regions like those suitable for the African Baobab.
Arid regions, as we know, are characterized by low and irregular rainfall. Climate change is exacerbating these conditions, leading to increased drought stress on plants and trees. This can result in reduced growth, lower reproductive success, and increased mortality in these species.
Climate change can lead to shifts in the distribution of plant and tree species in arid regions. Some species may be unable to adapt or migrate quickly enough to survive in changing conditions, while others may expand their ranges into areas that were previously unsuitable.
Changes in the abundance and distribution of plant species can have cascading effects on arid ecosystems. This can impact the availability of food and habitat for wildlife, including herbivores that rely on these plants.
Climate change can make plants and trees in arid regions more susceptible to pests and diseases, which can further stress these species and lead to population declines.
Climate change can alter the availability of water in arid regions, affecting the ability of plants and trees to survive and reproduce. Changes in precipitation patterns, as well as increased evaporation due to higher temperatures, can impact water availability for these species.
The cumulative effects of climate change on plants and trees in arid regions can lead to a loss of biodiversity in these ecosystems, as some species may struggle to adapt or survive. So, hypothesizing that climate may be behind the death of these giant baobabs is the right place to start.
Respected science journalist John R.Platt interviewed the lead researcher from the baobab team, and in Scientific American, explained the link between climate change the future of baobabs:
It turns out that rainfall patterns in Africa, where all baobab trees can be found, have completely changed as a result of global warming. Since towering baobab trees require and often store enormous amounts of water, this has put them into a dangerous situation at critical times of their annual cycle. As lead researcher Adrian Patrut told Ed Yong at The Atlantic, “If they don’t have enough rain when they flush their leaves or produce their flowers, they die.”
This isn’t the only climate-related threat to baobabs. Research published in 2013 revealed that global warming will soon make many current baobab habitats unsuitable for many of the big trees, and not just the gigantic elders. Not only that, the research also showed that rapid human development has already restricted where baobab trees can grow, leaving them with nowhere to go once their last-remaining habitats can no longer support them. As a result, at least one of the eight baobab species could be pushed into extinction.
Is Patrick Moore correct that the Media Exaggerated the Brief?
Patrick Moore claims that the media exaggerated this story as an environmental scare tactic. That the media wrote exaggerated doom and gloom headlines because there is a conspiracy between, ‘the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists, all of whom have a huge financial and/or political interest in (fake doom and gloom).”
He then stated that many of the articles showed baobab trees without leaves, because they wanted to falsely illustrate that they were ‘dead or dying.’ In fact, baobabs only display leaves in late summer, and are considered by some to be leafless trees because they are so often bare. And even when they do have leaves, visually, it’s difficult to see the leaves in a photo until they have fully leafed out. Showing a leafless baobab is not an editorial strategy to deceive an audience. Rather, that’s how baobab’s actually look!
So, to put a nail in the coffin, I am going to show you the most read headlines about this brief, and whether the photo(s) were of a leaved or leaveless baobab. Clearly, these headlines (and the articles themselves) accurately reported on the contents of the brief.
The original brief headline in Nature Plants:
The demise of the largest and oldest African baobabs
CNN:
Ancient Baobab trees in Southern Africa are dying. Scientists suspect climate change
Images: Actual images of the fallen trees. Leaves and no leaves.
Phys.org:
‘Shocking’ die-off of Africa’s oldest baobabs: study
Image: No leaves
The Atlantic:
Trees That Have Lived for Millennia Are Suddenly Dying
Image: leaves
Popular Mechanics:
The World’s Ancient Baobab Trees Are Dying, And We Don’t Know Why
Image: Small leaves
Earth.com:
Famously resilient baobab trees have been dying off
Image: leaves
USA Today: Africa’s oldest baobab trees are dying at an unprecedented rate, and climate change may be to blame
Image: Leaves
National Geographic: Africa’s Oldest Trees are Dying, and Scientists are Stumped
Image: Leaves
BBC:
Scientists shocked by mysterious deaths of ancient trees
Images: Leaves
New York Times:
Scientists shocked by mysterious deaths of ancient trees
Images: Multiple photos of leaved and non-leaved baobabs taken by New York Times photojournalists. Bravo!
Did Patrick Moore bamboozle his readers in Chapter 1 of his book? You bet he did! Sign up for the newsletter and we’ll address chapter 2 soon.
Chapter 2: Patrick Moore’s Suspicions about Coral Bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef are False
Patrick Moore’s second chapter of Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom focuses on the coral bleaching that occurred in the Great Barrier Reef in 2016. He says that because coral reefs are underwater, they are invisible to us, and so they are a perfect example of how the media can fabricate catastrophes by hiding them in places we cannot see.
Patrick Moore’s claims, falsehoods and straight out glaring mistakes speak to his complete ineptitude on these subjects, and are a reminder that it’s better to rely on mainstream science journalism from credible publications over these dubious, discredited prophets.
Patrick Moore tries to pull the wool over your eyes on the state of the Great Barrier Reef.
What is Coral Bleaching?
Coral bleaching is a phenomenon that occurs when coral reefs lose their vibrant colors and turn white or pale due to the expulsion of the symbiotic algae, called zooxanthellae, that live within the tissues of the animals that construct corals – polyps.
These algae provide corals with a significant portion of their energy through photosynthesis. The relationship between corals and zooxanthellae is mutually beneficial; corals offer a protected environment and compounds necessary for photosynthesis, while zooxanthellae provide sugars and oxygen to the corals.
Coral bleaching can be triggered by various environmental stressors, with the primary factor being elevated sea temperatures. When water temperatures become too high (typically just a few degrees above the normal summer maximum), corals become stressed, causing them to expel their zooxanthellae. Without these algae, the corals lose their color and a vital source of nutrients.
I spent years reporting on coral bleaching during the period in which we were still learning about the effects of coral bleaching to coral reefs around the globe. During this time, I was focused on writing about the other stressors that can contribute to coral bleaching, like runoff and land pollutants from overdevelopment, ocean acidification, disease and overfishing. But the reality is that elevated sea temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change is the primary culprit of the global phenomenon, including at the Great Barrier Reef. There is no disagreement on this among scientists.
Coral bleaching is a significant concern for the health of coral reefs worldwide, as it can lead to coral mortality if the stress is prolonged. While some corals may recover if conditions return to normal, severe and repeated bleaching events can have long-lasting impacts on the overall health and biodiversity of coral reefs.
This explanation of the threats posed by coral bleaching is a great summary.
What Percentage of the Great Barrier Reef is Dead?
There is a big difference between a coral bleaching event, and dead corals, and even dead coral reefs. I have witnessed coral bleaching events in the northern Bahamas during warm summers in the late 2000’s. These affected corals, which tended to be individual corals rather than an entire reef, turned a color that is almost translucent white. It is honestly truly a scary sight. But those corals were able to bounce back from coral bleaching events, which was welcome news at the time, because nobody really knew what would happen. Now, we know that corals can bounce back sometimes, but that repeated, severe warming events are a death sentence to any reef.
So, you can have coral bleaching, which does not immediately mean the death of corals. You can have dead corals, from coral bleaching, but that does not necessarily mean the coral reef ecosystem has died. For our purposes here, a dead coral reef means the coral reefs are dead, most of the biodiversity is gone, and the limestone structures created by corals that have existed for thousands of years are covered in macroalgaes that make any comeback impossible any time soon.
Many corals do not recover from coral bleaching, and that is exactly what happened to the Great Barrier Reef in 2016 when 30% of the corals of the Great Barrier Reef died.
According to The Smithsonian Magazine,
Nine months (after the bleaching event, scientists) assessed the reef again via satellite and in the water to see how many of the corals had survived and regained their color after the heatwave. According to a press release, what they found is that 29 percent of the 3,863 reefs that make up the GBR lost two-thirds of their coral, mostly in the north of the reef. Averaged over the entire 1,400 mile-long GBR, about 30 percent of the corals died off in the 2016 event.
Corals can potentially recover from coral bleaching events, but the likelihood of recovery depends on several factors, including the severity and duration of the bleaching, the health of the affected coral colonies, and the environmental conditions. If the bleaching is short-lived and mild, some corals can recover. But longer exposure to above-normal temperatures kills the corals, and most importantly, continued exposure to severe or prolonged bleaching events can have more damaging effects. Corals that remain in a bleached state for an extended period will ultimately die. This can lead to a decline in coral cover and biodiversity on the reef, and, ultimately, the long-term death of the coral reef itself.
The panic around the world, among scientists and the general population, when a third of the corals of a reef (technically, many reefs) the size of Italy all died in a single year.
In 2017, a similar sea temperature warming caused a further twenty-percent of Great Barrier Reef to die off, meaning that 50% of the Great Barier Reef was…dead.
Some good news came in the early 2020’s, when scientists began to see fast-growing coral recovery on the Great Barrier Reef. The problem, however, is that the diverse, slow-growing corals were being replaced by a monoculture of fragile, small corals. This is akin to a healthy forest being chopped down, and then recovers with a monoculture of eucalyptus or acacia – not a recovery of the forest at all.
And so, despite this good news of a partial recovery, the Great Barrier Reef is still under severe threat from coral bleaching events, including another severe one in 2022, and at least one-third of the reef, one of the largest and most important sectors of biodiversity on Earth, remains dead, and the multiplying factors of reef death will continue with successive coral bleaching events.
Moore’s Claim that 93% of Great Barrier Reef is Affected by Coral Bleaching Study Does Not Exist is False
Patrick Moore Claims that the study which triggered the 2016 headlines about 93% of the Great Barrier Reef being affected by coral bleaching, which is the foundation for his Chapter 2 argument, did not exist.
He claims that these 2016 headlines are a false narrative, without any report to back up the the following typical headlines from that news cycle:
National Geographic: 93 Percent of the Great Barrier Reef is Suffering
Scientific American: Bleaching Hits 94 Percent of the Great Barrier Reef
CNN: Coral bleaching affects over 90% of Great Barrier Reef
Time Magazine: A New Survey Says 93% of the Great Barrier Reef Has Undergone Bleaching
British Columbia journalism professor Sean Holman fact-checked Patrick Moore’s claim in this excellent summary published shortly after Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom was self-published by Moore. Holman found that many of the articles that reported on the news did indeed reference the source. He found the work of Terry Hughes and the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce, an Australian government entity which exists to coordinate research around Australia’s coral bleaching events, to be responsible for the report.
Holman writes:
When I emailed Hughes, the distinguished professor who leads Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, about Moore’s allegation, he forwarded me a news release distributed on April 20, 2016. The release, available to anyone searching his research centre’s website, announced the “results of extensive aerial and underwater surveys reveal that 93% of the reef has been affected” by the coral bleaching that was then unfolding on the Great Barrier Reef. Hughes was even quoted as saying only seven per cent of the reef had escaped that bleaching, a condition that corals can recover or die from. The complete survey findings were later published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.
Patrick Moore’s Claim that Warming in our Ancient History Shows that Coral Reefs will be Resilient Today is False
Patrick Moore writes that coral reefs are not under threat, because, he claims, “they have survived three ice ages…and many other cataclysms far more extreme than anything happening in the present era. The modern corals have evolved from their ancestors 225 million years ago when the climate was far warmer than it is.”
The research and evidence that coral reefs around the world, including the Great Barrier Reef, are under extreme threats from climate change and other human-caused stressors, are not disputed by marine scientists.