Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist

by Patrick Albert Moore

Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist is Dr. Patrick Moore's engaging firsthand account of his many years spent as the ultimate Greenpeace insider, a co-founder and leader in the organization's top committee. Moore explains why, 15 years after co-founding it, he left Greenpeace to establish a more sensible, science-based approach to environmentalism. From energy independence to climate change, genetic engineering to aquaculture, Moore sheds new light on some of the most controversial subjects in the news today.

Genres: Science, Environment, Politics, Nonfiction, Ecology, Biography, Nature

408 pages, Paperback

First published November 22, 2010

About the author

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a former environmental activist, known as one of the early members of Greenpeace, in which he was an activist from 1971 to 1986. Today he is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, a consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.

He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[2] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[3] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.[4]

Reviews

[Петър Стойков · Rating 4 out of 5]

Еколог по образование, един от седемте оригинални основатели и по-късно председател на еко-движението Грийнпийс, Патрик Муур работи за спасяването на китовете, ограничаване на океанския риболов и лова на тюлени и спиране на тестовете на атомни бомби в океана и атмосферата в продължение на 15 години.

Постепенно обаче възгледите на колегите му от Грийнпийс относно екологията и защитата на природата започват сериозно да се разминават с неговите - до степен той да се откаже от организацията и даже да бъде демонизиран като предател.

Книгата съдържа историята на Грийнпийс от основаването му, акциите в които са участвали и идеите, с които са тръгнали, проследява разрива между "реалистите" в движението (тези, които имат екологично и научно образование и опит) и "активистите" (които имат по-скоро сакрален поглед към природата и за които основната цел е сензация, противопоставяне и революционерство на всяка цена) и завършва с вижданията на автора за екологични политики, базирани на научни данни и здрав разум.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Goodreads considers 5 stars as "it was amazing" which somehow implies to me that it is emotionally unsettling, leaving one breathless, or something. I rate this 5 stars not from a breathtakingly satisfying way, rather so worthwhile, eye-opening, and substantive that it is a must read.

Patrick Moore was one of the founding members of Greenpeace. He describes the credentials he has developed being an environmentalist, an effective and early one, with scars to prove it. He next describes, and in unflinching terms, how he believes this particular environmental entity moved from one exercising worthwhile, brave, and cutting edge challenges to a variety of practices in the 70s (notably whale hunting, toxic dumping, and atmospheric nuclear testing), to an anti-science, quasi-religious, conflict-dependent entity today.

At the same time, Moore describes his own adherence to a set of beliefs: that humans are part of nature; we must account for their presence in resource use; and thus how can we hone and further "sustainable development" that cherishes the environment yet addresses human needs.

From the parting of the ways with Greenpeace as it headed into either-or, pristine and impractical positions, Moore continues to stake his own interests and actions based on the Brundtland report of the mid-1980s, "Our Common Future."

And moving from reminiscence and credentials to issues today - he makes the case for nuclear energy and hydropower as common sense of power and energy needs that will effectively address pollution and reduce fossil fuel use.

He insists on science-based decision making, and scorns the absolutist stances of Greenpeace and other purist environmental groups. He explores anti-chlorine positions of Greenpeace and others, and the indiscriminate use of the term "toxic" in their campaigns. Dangers from chemicals have everything to do with exposure, and the dosage (think salt as a necessity in low doses to lethal in large), the context and controls of usage, and what of course is the next best alternative.

Spraying against malaria, for example, in Africa and other tropical areas, is clearly saving millions, but in absolutist terms Greenpeace and others resisted its usage for decades, pitting themselves against the World Health Organization and other health and development organizations . Again and again, Moore encourages readers to inform themselves as to intelligent, measured, and practical measures of how to address world needs rather than fall prey to uninformed campaign slogans.

Moore looks at all today's issues: biodiversity, global warming and climate change, pollution, chemical use, genetically modified foods, clean energy, population, and describes science-driven, pragmatic, effective approaches he believes move us towards a path of sustainable development.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and eye-opening. I came of age at the end of the 80’s and realized, even then, that the modern environmentalism movement is just a pagan religion, dressed up as science - with clear communistic goals. Mr Moore just confirmed that.

[Yavor Markov · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a shame books like this are almost obscure, while everyone is exposed to the 24/7 sensationalist news cycle wherein the likes of Greta Thunberg and XR thrive.

I took one star off only because there were a couple of chapters that were boring to me (salmon farming for example).

[Jo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Goodness me. Reading this book was me trying to step outside of my own echo chamber and listen properly to some alternative arguments about the environment. Patrick Moore is the guy quoted by Donald Trump, who was involved in the early years of Greenpeace, and is now a climate change denier. So this was completely outside of my comfort zone. It was a disturbing read.

Why so disturbing? Because of the endless self-questioning it provoked about my own beliefs about climate change and environmental imperatives. Where did I first hear idea X? What convinced me of concept Y? Did I take research Z on trust? Who have I trusted to give me sound information and research? How far have my opinions been formed as a result of propaganda, misinformation, peer pressures and bandwagons, and the simple desire to see myself as a ‘good and caring’ person’? How can I possibly unpack all that objectively? and what knowledge can I treat as reliable? Is this not the dilemma of the age in which we live?

I think it was good for me to reflect on these things, even though it is impossible to resolve them all.

Having said that, I felt the book was a mixed bag. In the first section Moore makes much of his years with Greenpeace, detailing his involvement with their campaigns against unregulated whaling and the testing of nuclear weapons. Too much detail really - I didn’t need to know what they were smoking or playing on the radio on the Rainbow Warrior! But an interesting background for someone who fell out with the Greenpeace organisation and now opposes them on so many issues. In that sense the book clearly has an agenda and sometimes it felt like this got in the way. There was a very bitter tone. I could almost hear him spit on the ground whenever he said the word Greenpeace, lol.

As to the issues themselves, he goes chapter by chapter through a number of areas, arguing for what he calls a ‘sensible environmentalism’. I found myself swivelling in my seat between views that made logical sense to me and views that felt very uncomfortable and unpersuasive.

Things I found myself agreeing with?

1. Wood is a renewable resource, when managed properly. The use of sustainable wood for construction etc., should not be conflated with the decimation of rainforest habitat with its many complex social layers.

2. Hydroelectricity and other renewable energies should be actively encouraged, but until we have affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, we need to consider using nuclear energy.

3. GM crops can improve yield and nutrition, alleviating poverty and the need to clear more land for farming.

4. The chemicals we use to make stuff and fertilise crops, etc., need to be analysed on a case by case contextual basis, taking into account benefits as well as responding sensibly to potential risks.

5. Fish farming, regulated and done well, can take the pressure off depleted wild fish stocks.

6. 'Poverty is the worst environmental problem'. Human population stabilises or decreases as countries develop. If we invest in the advancement and well being of the poorest in the world, a lot of other issues will get solved.

7. Whales and dolphins should be protected.

Things I found disagreeable or difficult?

1. ’There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is always changing’. Moore is not convinced that climate change is caused by human activity. He did a real hatchet job on the scientists driving the global environmental agenda. He made very interesting arguments but they felt one-sided and incomplete. It felt like he wanted to make his points even if it meant denigrating the people with different views, and highlighting only those who had committed mistakes or bad practice. I reckon this is a game both sides play. But it made the book feel less credible.

2. He seemed to be saying that IF the climate IS changing, then so what? Maybe extra CO2 will benefit plant life. Maybe nature will thrive in a slightly warmer world. Maybe the retreat of glaciers will see abundant life appear in their place. The creatures that survive will adapt. If Bangladesh becomes a giant salt marsh, isn't a salt marsh quite a good thing to have, an ecophenomenon in its own right? Not everything revolves around human activities and nation borders. Some of these kinds of comments sounded so blasé and easy to say from his comfortable setting in Canada. So many maybes. Reality is so much more complex. I would love it if the climate was not giving cause for concern, or if the results of climate change were nothing to worry about, and if we could overcome justly its unequal impacts around the world. As I read, it felt like a Siren song, I really wanted to agree, to relieve myself of the burden. But all my spidey-senses were tingling in profound resistance.

This is not the end of the conversation. I have more work to do.

[Ashley Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book I dip in and out of periodically. Although the author provides his own perspective and opinions on a wide range of environmental concepts, he also brings logic, and balance of various perceptions, and accounts of his own personal journey and evaluates himself as an environmentalist, not afraid to admit he may have been mistaken. I recommend this for anyone genuinely interested in the environment and keen to learn more, as well as those who are knowledgeable in certain areas, and open to reading more about them.

Important to note that this is the 2013 revised version. A lot has happened since then with regard to climate and environmental concerns, worth reading around the subjects of interest to see how the world has changed.

[Ron Housley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short BOOK REPORT by Ron Housley

Now comes the story of Greenpeace, from before its founding, showing us how public outcries were prompted, showing us an impressive string of changes to public policy as the result of amateur protestors who somehow had their hands on the levers of influential journalistic outlets.

Regardless of Greenpeace’s exploit du jour, each expedition always seemed to be well enough “connected” to get its film an international, multi-media hearing — what today would be called “going viral.” It was never clear how they did that, but their success in achieving newspaper and television exposure was extraordinary; and was key to the Greenpeace effectiveness. There must have been a mechanism deployed behind the scenes and omitted from the pages of this book, which always resulted in spectacular world-wide coverage: whales, baby seals, atmospheric nuclear testing, insecticide spraying of forests, large oceanic drift net fishing — whatever it was, they got broad and effective coverage.

This book is over a decade old; I finally read it this week.

Patrick Moore exploded into my awareness long ago when the “global cooling” scare abruptly turned itself into the “global warming” scare. An entire generation has little memory of how that switch happened; even fewer have a memory of how the “global warming” scare ultimately morphed into the notion of “climate change” as an existential threat.

Patrick Moore, with a Ph.D. in ecology, is one of the founders of Greenpeace (1971-1986); only recently has he fallen victim to our new cancel culture, to wit: his enormous contribution to Greenpeace’s founding and early development has been scrubbed off of the Greenpeace website and ad hominem has been attached to his name on the Wikipedia entry.

There are scores (if not hundreds) of other Ph.D. level credentialed scientists, many of them with prestigious academic positions (past and present), who have suddenly become persona non grata after they deigned to question the narratives funded by unending government grants; hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

They are victim of President Eisenhower’s 1961 warning: as government increases its funding of the sciences, grants would go to those who learn to successfully appeal to the bureaucrat(s) in charge of grant granting. All those who threaten the grant granting find themselves, in today’s vernacular, “cancelled.”

Today we see scientific papers published in peer reviewed academic journals (peer reviewed by other recipients of government grants) at an astonishing pace — an increase of 700% from 1970 to 2010. But along with the 700% increase in publication of scientific papers, we see a 900% increase in the number of articles (in Public Health research, for instance) which are retracted by the journals because of false data and dishonest authorship, articles with reports deemed by the journal editors to be fraudulent, inaccurate, unrepeatable. Publishing these articles, even if later retracted, has become big business, representing the flow of hundreds of millions of government dollars into academic institutions.

Those who “blow the whistle” on any of the grant generating authors become “cancelled” — the stakes are too high to not protect these authors, even if their reports are subsequently retracted. The published content is not restricted to climate issues; it extends throughout all of government-funded scientific academia.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Moore was aware a decade ago, in 2010 when this volume was published, that postmodernism was promoting the notion that “objective facts do not exist.” (p. 21) Little could he have known back then that “critical Theory” would expand and propel such a contention to the forefront of our culture — or that it would become entrenched doctrine in our universities, today enjoying widespread approval in both academia and in our legislative bodies(!).

It was thus that the arc of Patrick Moore’s career grew out of such epistemological issues as “facts as non-objective;” “science as consensus;” the notion of “settled science;” the contention that “there is no time for debate” (p. 32) or that “scientific debate is over” (p. 33); and the question of whether science has a place for religion or faith. These issues came to the forefront in all of the various Greenpeace protests; in all of the environmental rule and law-making that followed; all the way down to modern day concerns with carbon dioxide and its impact on earth’s ever-changing climate.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Ultimately, Greenpeace went one way and Moore went another; hence the title “Greenpeace Dropout.” The split came when the Greenpeace launched its global campaign against all things chlorine, in the face of some very inconvenient facts: chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table; chlorine is used worldwide to make water safe to drink; it is in table salt (two-thirds by weight); it is integral to PVC pipes, used globally in plumbing and heating; 75% of pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry.

Nevertheless, Greenpeace activists campaign for a “100% chlorine free” world, even to this day (2010); they continue to garner astonishingly positive press coverage, even as their anti-chlorine claims are scientifically problematic.

Greenpeace then campaigned against aquaculture, particularly against the new salmon farms. What today has proved to be safe and effective was then strenuously opposed: activists complained that salmon escaping from the salmon farms would wipe out the wild stocks, overlooking the fact that the salmon farms were launched in the first place BECAUSE the wild stocks were already (nearly) wiped out by overfishing.

And then there’s the story of Golden Rice and genetic improvement of food world-wide, both in quality and in quantity. Right out of the gate, there’s Greenpeace (and others) opposing nearly every improvement in food crops. What they do is to invoke the “precautionary principle,” which boils down to substituting an arbitrary claim that maybe a genetically modified crop will someday be harmful, somehow; no evidence, just assertion.

The often used “precautionary principle” is at the center of the bad epistemology which has come to rule over many public decisions. It was the principle that led to 2-million annual Vitamin A deficiency deaths, plus a half-million annual cases of irreversible blindness, when genetic engineering created a rice rich in Vitamin A --- which would ultimately go on to save an unprecedented amount of life.

All these Greenpeace attacks against a new technology, whether it be salmon farming or Golden Rice or pest-resistant corn, are based on two things: (1)treating an arbitrary claim as though it had cognitive status; and (2)recruiting the coercive hand of government to force the innovators to stop innovating.

In the case of Greenpeace vs. Golden Rice, millions of east Asian peasants died in the year when Greenpeace threw up roadblocks to allowing the life-saving rice to be grown and consumed by the world’s poor. Patrick Moore laments that the organization he resigned from has gone on to ever more unscientific activism predictably hurting (or killing) millions.

Moore’s story is as much about epistemology as it is about Greenpeace or any of the activist targets over the decades. In each of the protests there is a central issue: the question is always “What do we know” as true and “How do we know it?”

* * * * * * * * * * * *

What Patrick Moore gave us in this 2010 volume was a historical accounting of the entire ecology/environmentalist movement, along with an accounting of the scientific status of each of the Greenpeace protests —assessments ranging from the outrageous all the way to the scientifically vetted and entirely justified.

The environmentalism story was rich with impressive detail long before “climate change” was cast as an environmentalist issue. Moore’s story has a much wider angle view of the entire environmentalism movement, and even more generally a view of the way our culture processes claims of new knowledge. His insights require us to focus on methods of thinking, and to separate the dubious from the proper.

Historically, we get the interesting perspective of how the Ecology movement (as it was known in the beginning) got its first big influx of adherents when the fall of the Berlin Wall left masses of activists looking for a new cause. The question of where they would go was answered by the bourgeoning Ecology movement — a movement where eager activists could use the new “green language to cloak their agenda (p.5)” to campaign against industry; they could move forward under the guise of protecting the environment from mankind itself.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

By the time I arrived at the end of the final chapter, my own personal fear was that our stock of Patrick Moore caliber scientists is on the wane.

The census of dedicated professional scientists appears to be at an all-time low, as many are replaced with activist “scientists” driven by the billion dollar government grant apparatus.

Whenever a scientific paper questions predictions of climate catastrophe, the activists immediately invoke their favorite smear: “climate denier.” The smear is leveled not over questions about earth’s ongoing history of climate change, but “climate denier” is the opprobrium for any question about all those predictions of imminent catastrophe.

Patrick Moore has given us a book packed with accountings of what happened in the many environmentalist protests over the decades; and it is packed with over 400 foot notes citing sources, just as one would expect from any scholarly work. He has treated each issue with even-handed assessment, never one with an air of irrationality about it. I regret that I took so long to give this book my attention.

[Meg Orton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is one hell of a ride. So much so that it has taken me about 3 years to read it in its entirety. This is not because it was bad or unreadable but mostly because there is a lot to take in and absorb. Patrick Moore has a lot to say and he is going to tell it all, no matter what the popular or public opinion may be. This book is something that everyone should read, regardless of how you feel about the global environmentalist group Greenpeace. It is mostly with a concern for the general state of planet Earth that I suggest you read this book, and yes you should care. (Also as a sidenote before I begin to discuss this book I will let it be known that I am a huge fan of Greenpeace and their work.)

First of all this can be seen as an ‘anti-Greenpeace’ book, but it’s not really (other than a few snarky comments every now and then). Sure there are references (and plenty of those) to the radical approaches the group has taken over the years and it is very clear that Moore is not (no longer) a fan. However he was one of the founding members and a third of the almost 400 page book focuses on the history of the historical environmental group’s humble beginnings and their (initial) noble visions for its future.

After helping form the group and involving themselves in several campaigns that included saving the whales, the annual seal slaughter and the threat of nuclear war, Moore left Greenpeace in 1984. He often reasons his exit with his intolerance of the group’s employment of sensationalism. His aversion to their methods in achieving public support bothered him, and very often their own aversion towards certain campaigns which included ant-oil, fish farming, etc were not issues that he necessarily supported. In fact Moore has been very vocal in his support of such controversial topics such a nuclear energy, farming of genetically modified foods and the so-called oil crisis. That being said Moore gives practical solutions and sensible approaches to these issues without being seen as too contrite.

Moore is also very aware that the average reader will not want to be weighed down by too much scientific jargon, numerous facts and figures and countless graphs. His terminology and writing prose is such that I was kept interested from page one (without having any scientific background other than high school chemistry). This makes for an ‘easy’ read when considering that almost the entire book is about ‘the environment ‘.

The author refers to himself as a ‘sensible environmentalist’ and I will agree with that wholeheartedly. The reader is made to realise that economics versus idealism is a very real conflict, especially when we are still relying heavily on the very resources we wish to eliminate. This no-nonsense approach to radical environmentalism is also I guess a form of radicalism in itself. His ideas and notions and possible solutions are definitely controversial, but perhaps that is because of the mass hysteria the media has caused. In his approach to the mass hysteria he brings to light the popular phrases such ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ and challenges us to research those phenomena rather than reacting to them. Without critical thinking the public have accepted opinion over fact and that can be very dangerous in all avenues of life.

All in all I think that this book is deserving of praise but should also be read along with an enormous amount of in-depth resources if one is going to start quoting and quit worrying about the future. I mean, there is no need to believe that the end is nigh, but it is definitely not an excuse to sit back and let the world choke.

[Ronald J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Patrick Moore left Greenpeace 15 years after he helped create it. He became a sensible environmentalist while “Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is antiscience, antibusiness, and downright antihuman.” Greenpeace started by campaigning against the bomb-makers, then moved on to the whale-killers, polluters, and anyone else who threatened civilization or the environment. Moore has a PhD in ecology from the University of British Columbia. In the early 1980s two things happened that altered his perspective on the direction in which environmentalism, in general, and Greenpeace, in particular, were heading. First, his introduction to the concept of sustainable development. Second, adoption of policies Greenpeacers he considered extremist and irrational. By January 1986 he left the organization for good.

Moore, like Bjorn Lomborg and many economists, understands the real environmental problem is poverty, and that wealth-creation is the only known antidote. A well-fed person has many problems, a hungry person has but one. The same is true for development, or lack of it. Moore also confirms that when the Cold War ended and the peace movement was largely disbanded, many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. On the charge of antiscience and antihuman, Moore recounts many examples. Without including climate change, here is a list of things that Greenpeace opposed that should make us all think real hard about why and how anyone could support this organization, or even how it has any credibility whatsoever:

• Its campaign to ban the element chlorine worldwide, dubbed the “devil’s element.” “It didn’t matter that about 85 percent of our medicines are manufactured with chlorine chemistry, or that the addition of chlorine to drinking water represented the biggest advance in the history of public health.” For Moore it was proof enough that their fundamentalist position was antihuman in nature.
• It opposed forestry even though it provides our most abundant renewable resource.
• It has zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition.
• It continues to oppose nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• It campaigns against hydroelectric projects despite the fact that hydro is by far the most abundant renewable source of electricity.
• It calls polyvinyl chloride (PVC), often simply referred to as vinyl, PVC “the poison plastic.” Moore writes: “PVC is the most important plastic used in the construction of buildings. particular important in health care facilities, where it is used for blood bags, intravenous tubing, gloves, caps, flooring, and wall covering. Because it is smooth and impervious, it can easily be disinfected, making it easier to control the spread of staph infections and super-bugs.”
• It has never addressed population growth or poverty as key environmental issues.
• An agronomist from the U.S. Midwest, Dr. Norman Borlaug, would eventually win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for the Green Revolution.
• During the time DDT was banned as many as 50 million people died from malaria. Greenpeace never has to say I’m sorry.
• Greenpeace and its friends succeeded in getting the precautionary principle enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol, the international treaty that sets out the rules for adoption and trade in GM seeds. This principle is not a principle and would strangle innovation and dynamism in its crib.
• Greenpeace dubbed Golden Rice “fool’s gold” and claimed you would have to eat nine kilos of it to get enough Vitamin A to prevent blindness. Moore again: “This was a lie, of course, but it was picked up by media around the world merely a front for multinationals like Monsanto who were using it to gain acceptance of their evil plot to control the seed industry. Golden Rice has not been developed by and for industry. Industry does not benefit from it.”
• It opposes all mining projects that can offer employment in both the construction and operational phases of development. How senseless is it to oppose all mining when it is the lifeblood of civilization?

And this not a complete list from the book.

Moore is a “climate skeptic,” not in the sense that he denies climate change, but that we simply don’t know how much humans are causing it. He believes the climate—like and economy—is far too complex to model, especially 50 to 100 years out. This should be common sense, but unfortunately it’s not. Moore believes global cooling is a bigger threat. He writes about the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in Vienna in 2007. Led by atmospheric scientist Dr. Fred Singer, the NIPCC published “Climate Change Reconsidered,” a comprehensive scientific critique of the IPCC’s findings, in 2009. signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and concluded, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
“The fact that both CO2 and temperature are increasing at the same time does not prove one is causing the other. To be able to replicate the same cause-effect sequence over and over again. This is not possible with the earth’s climate as we are not in control of all (or any of) the factors that might influence climate. It’s clear the climate changes over the past billions of years were not caused by our activities. So how credible is it to claim we have just recently become the main cause of climate change?

He cites James Lovelock an enigmatic scientist who used to be profoundly pessimistic about the future of civilization and the earth’s environment. In an interview in 2006, he stated, “We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma…Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable…a broken rabble led by brutal war lords”. Speaking at the London Science Museum in March 2010 Lovelock said, “It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon emissions, far from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice age…. If we hadn’t appeared on the earth, it would be due to go through another ice age and we can look at our part as holding that up. I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson is also a skeptic. A feature article that made his views on climate clear appeared in the New York Times Magazine in March 2009: “The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models,” and “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.” He explained, “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now, and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.” Dyson referred to Al Gore as climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and as someone who preaches “lousy science, distracting public attention from more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.” May 29, 2010, Britain’s top science body, the Royal Society, “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect—there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” All the predictions based on computer models in this world can’t change history or manufacture the future.

Moore quotes two people that appear to have been prescient:

The late Dr. Michael Crichton: “Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.”

Bob Hunter who became a lifelong friend of Moore’s: “Pat, this is the beginning of something really important and very powerful [the founding of Greenpeace],” he predicted. “But there is a very good chance it will become a kind of ecofascism. Not everyone can get a PhD in ecology. So the only way to change the behavior of the masses is to create a popular mythology, a religion of the environment where people simply have faith in the gurus.”

Moore says, “Today I shudder at the accuracy of his foresight.” So do I.

This is a rollicking good read, a great balance of storytelling and common sense based on experience and real science. Well worth the read.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book.

This is a refreshing discussion about how we can get to sustainable systems for energy production, food production and environmental management. The author’s journey from the founding of green peace to his departure was really interesting. It seems that the environmental activists have lost touch with science and logic and have chosen to be zero tolerance propaganda machines. I hope a lot of people read this book.

[Helge Raymond Solhaug · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful book,

By reading this book you will understand that no science is settled and brave scientists.
Will continue to challenge the so called settled results as we always should do.
And that we should demand high standards for our scienctists.
And personal or political beliefs or agenda should not influence the results of study’s or reports.
Thanks for a wonderful book.

[Jani-Petri · Rating 1 out of 5]

Few random nudgets of wisdom in a huge pile of excrement. Waste of time.

[Wade · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having worked in California as an environmental professional for 30 years (1990-2020) with a degree in Environmental Policy from UC Davis, I can definitely say this book correctly challenges the status quo with clearly constructed evaluations and conclusions grounded in actual scientific method and logic. While many of the longstanding environmental organizations like Greenpeace did some great work in the 1970s and 1980s, they have lost there way, according to Patrick Moore. Instead of campaigns based in science and logic, many environmental organizations have decided to 'put their thumb on the scale' (my term) and make outrageous assertions without any real supporting scientific evidence. Personally, I had my suspicions on a number of issues while I had accepted others as reasonable, but realized after reading the book that many status quo issues are based on junk science. Unfortunately, as many environmentalists at the top of the pyramid have shed any attachment to traditional organized religion, they have also moved on from principle-based beliefs of right and wrong, in favor of 'the end justifies the means' and 'by any means necessary' and 'if the computer model says it is so.' Especially with regard to the latter, lying with computer models is still lying, even though it might not feel like it with all those exaggerated inputs and algorithms. A great example in the book is Germany "committing over $100 billion (yes, billion with a "b") for solar energy only to get under one (1) percent of their electricity from solar. These type of programs (solar) are allowed to rise, decline, and eventually fall because they were conceived by people using other people's money (OPM) based on junk science and finance. Consider that some of the solar investments in the UK won't even be paid off for 45 to 290 years! Patrick Moore asks good questions based on science. Even if humans have some role in climate change (difficult to really determine), Patrick Moore explains that warmer would be better overall for plants, animals, and even humans. Read the book and draw your own conclusions. You will see the world more clearly.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding book that addresses many of the issues with the modern enviromental movement. Dr. Moore really explains things in a way that leaves out all the psudoscience and melodramatic nonsense we see in the media today regarding climate change and explains where we are, how we got here and what his recommendations are for the future. As a founding member of Greenpeace in the 1970's, he has far more knowlege and "street cred" than a million Greta Thunbergs. This book describes his journey from stopping nuke tests and saving whales in the arctic to his break with the very organization he helped found because he believed they had lost their way. His grasp of the science behind planetary ecology , climate change and where we need to go in the future is very reasoned and very well explained without being overly compicated. His understanding of the economics, engineering and science behind energy systems is especially impressive and useful as it give illustration to where we need to go in the future in spite of what all the doomsayers in the modern ecomovement say. The book should be a must read to every high school and college student as it debunks most of the misinformation out there in the mainstream media regarding climate change and sustainability for the future.

[Murray Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting critique of orthodox environmental

The book started with establishing the environmental activist credentials before it became popular. It also gives insights into how politics and individual agendas have shaped the modern Greenpeace movement. This reads more as a personal memoir. I think the author did a good job of remaining at a professional distance when discussing events and actions of others that at the time probably at the time the reactions would have been much stronger and less open to other points of view.

The second part of the book does a deep dive into individual issues and the science against the established environmental stance. While I no longer work in science, this section reaffirmed many of my own observations around topics and raised several points that I will have to critically investigate more thoroughly. I found the section on climate change and the behaviour of the researchers involved in particular needing further critical research before I decide where I sit.

Highly worth a read if you want to get a different perspective in order to make a more informed personal decision on key items on the environmental agenda.

[Andy May · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent and informative book. I was intrigued by Moore's story near the end of the book about something his friend Bob Hunter said as they made their way back to Canada after trying to stop nuclear testing in Alaska in 1971. Hunter told Moore:

“Pat [Moore], this is the beginning of something really important and very powerful. ... But there is a very good chance it will become a kind of ecofascism. Not everyone can get a PhD in ecology. So, the only way to change the behavior of the masses is to create a popular mythology, a religion of the environment where people simply have faith in the gurus.”

Replace "gurus" with "the science" and you have today. A sadly prophetic statement. BTW Moore has a PhD in Ecology.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

I actually have hope for the future now

This is a really informative book for anybody interested in environmental topics. I think he makes some really good points on a lot of things. I feel way more informed, and way less apathetic about the future of this world. He breaks down arguments on species extinction, global warming, ice caps and glaciers, fish farming, other farming, the effect of poverty on the environment, fossil fuel free sources and methods of power and energy, to name a few. I definitely had a shift of viewpoint on a number of environmental topics. Just a really interesting read in my opinion.

[Tim Solés · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a good book. I especially enjoyed the stories about Greenpeace's first campaigns, and Moore's occasional rants make you feel like you're just having a beer with him.

However, the fact that it was written 11 years ago really does affect the validity of the thesis: we have more data about warming, solar panels are much (much) cheaper, and I'd say Greenpeace has been moving away from the "unscientific activism" he denounces so heavily.

Read it if you like stories about hippies saving whales (who doesn't?), but keep in mind that science & engineering have moved on since 2010, making the "let's just build more dams" argument much weaker.

[Carey Vandenberg]

If you believe there is a climate emergency only because you have heard it to be so you need to read this book.

There were a few things I don't agree with here but those have more to do with Moore's philosophy than his facts. Much of this makes so much sense its amazing that the majority of people don't think for themselves things like.... I'd actually like it if where I lived was warmer, never mind how it is being caused. This shows how humans are driven be fear and their own self interest by completely twisting science.

[Jan Breslow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Environmentalists transition to sustainability

This is a brilliant book explaining an environmentalists personal journey to advocating for a type of sustainability that promotes human flourishing as well as the natural environment. Although originally published in 2010 it is fresh, vivid, and not at all out of date. It is a prescient precursor to recently published books by others to quell climate alarmism and point the way towards a sensible, intelligent energy strategy for human betterment.

[Sandy Tulloch · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started this book with the intention of dissing it and complaining about it and hating it. None of this has happened, I’m a reformed Green now. I have lots of unanswered questions, of course, and need to do some further reading given that the book is over 10 years old. My main peeve is the seal hunt. He really seemed to have taken up the cause against sealing because the animals are so darn cute. It infuriates me that 50,000 hogs in a horrific barn and factory farming in general is not worth as much attention as seals being harvested in their natural habitat, SUSTAINABLY, at that.

[Roberto Pesce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro assolutamente da leggere. Per fare chiarezza su tanti temi importanti per la nostra "sopravvivenza" sul Pianeta Terra: energia, riscaldamento globale, prodotti chimici, ogm, etc. L'autore, ex militante di Greenpeace, si discosta dalle visioni catastrofiste e antiumane degli estremisti ambientalisti ed analizza con razionalità i problemi, mettendo in luce le incongruenze di chi ha bandito senza motivo alcune risorse (es. centrali nucleari, golden rice,...) in nome di idee senza fondamento scientifico. Perde un punto di valutazione a causa dei numerosi errori ortografici e/o di traduzione.

[Cody · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I’ve read in a decade! If I could give 10 stars I would. This should be required reading in all high schools and anybody with a passing interest in the climate, especially politicians...

This is not the run of the mill climate change panic porn we too often see. This is a fact based sensible approach to environmentalism.

Enjoy the book!

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written experience and insights from within the environmentalist's movement, and thoughtful experience and opinions as a reasoned and pragmatic environmentalist. This should be required reading of anyone who feels they are an environmentalist or cares for the environment.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A man who helped start the early 70's environmental protection movements. He saw first hand how Greenpeace and other organizations became filled with zealots. people who have no problem hurting you and me for "the program".

[Lauren Pumpkin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this book to be condescending to Greenpeace supporters and donors, all the while full of contradictions. The author's ineffective worldview is full of wishful thinking and perpetuates the crisis we face today.

[David Thoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read, Patrick really brings across his views well and articulates them in an easy-to-understand way, which makes it an engaging book to dive into.

[Zoe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Out of date and contradicts itself

[Aron Klassen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Agree or disagree, presents the other side of the story well. As a man and true scientist who’s lived both sides of the environmental movement I tend to agree with most of what he says

[Norjak · Rating 4 out of 5]

(skipped the greenpeace biography bits), didn’t shy away from nuance, well argued.