Culture Apothecary with Alex Clark - “Trash Island is FAKE & GMOs Aren’t THAT Bad?” - Debunking Climate Change With Dr. Patrick Moore

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

He used to be one of the biggest environmentalists in the world… until he realized it was all made-up “science.” 🤯 👨🏻‍🔬 Now, Dr. Patrick Moore is setting the record straight on climate change and also GMOs…to Alex’s dismay. In this conversation, Dr. Patrick really challenges Alex’s beliefs surrounding Big Food! Who’s side are you on? 🤔Find Dr. Patrick Moore HERE!Receive 15% off your first month of organic tampons when you subscribe exclusively for Spillover listeners when you visit Garnuu and...

Okay, here we go. I have done quite a few crunchy episodes and it was mostly met with positive reviews from you. There were definitely some complaints from people who said that those were too crunchy, that, you know, they thought they're anti-GMO views and what have you, were anti-farmer. They felt like all that non-toxic stuff is fear-mongering and overblown. I disagree with that, but I get wanting to hear a different perspective. Okay. So I found this fascinating guy who actually is one of the co-founders of Greenpeace Canada. If you don't know what Greenpeace is, it's like a major environmentalist pro-climate change organization that basically makes Greta Thunberg look sane. And so my guest started to realize once he was working with this organization after a while that it was way out of control. Like they were using scare tactics, disinformation.

They had basically abandoned science, he says, in favor of emotionalism. And so he left them in 1986 and is now an expert on debunking things like climate activism. Now, the thing is, he also thinks GMOs are harmless, that companies like Monsanto are innocent, that glyphosate is perfectly safe to be sprayed on our food crops. And even more controversial views than that, that you're just, well, you're going to have to hear them for yourself in this interview. This episode will release the Cracken for sure. He has a new book out called Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. Please welcome Dr. Patrick Moore to the spillover.

Here's what makes me want to scream. Buying a new moisturizer and it's either a terrible gel consistency that sits like really crappily under your makeup and everything just starts to pill and look separated or it absorbs instant. and then my skin is left feeling even drier than when I started. Now, I have purchased and tried everything. I'm talking, I mean, from like $9 to $300. And it wasn't until I tried the Nimi skincare hydrating night cream that I truly met. My moisturizer soulmate. I know that it has night cream in the name and people get hung up on that.

But I use it day and night. I love it. My skin stays hydrated throughout the entire day. It's less textured, and it is so freaking bright. There is a tainty amount of retinal in it, and it just hits just perfectly. I'm telling you, it's enough to brighten and even my skin tone without being overly drying. And the cherry on top is that Nimi's skin care is openly conservative. They support the values of faith, family, freedom, and femininity.

You can get an entire three-step line if you want your cleanser, your toner, your moisturizer for under $100. Or you can just try individual products. If you just want to try one thing, get that moisture. at Mimiskincare.com with code Alex Clark for 10% off. That's N-I-M-I-Skincare.com with code Alex Clark for 10% off or check out the link in the show notes. If you care about what you put into your body through what you eat, you should care about what you put into your body during that time in the month, too. It was not until recently that I learned that basically all the big tampon brands that I'm used to picking up at the store are riddled with toxic ingredients like

chlorine dyes in fragrances. And did you know that most tampon brands fund planned parenthood or support abortion? I prefer Garnu menstrual products. They're one of the only tampon brands that don't support woke initiatives because the only whole a man should use a tampon for is his nose, if he must, okay? They're also 100% organic without the crap. And women have noted less cramping because of that, the word Garnu translates to rescue in Nepali, and they fight human trafficking for girls in Nepal with every single purchase. The packaging is so much cuter than leftist-owned tampon brands, and you can do a one-time purchase or set up a subscription so they can come regular on time to your house, right when you need them every month. No more late-night runs to the drugstore.

Now, they also have period cups and organic pads coming very soon. Customize. Customize. your tampon box to be all super, all light, or a combination, join the girls-only club by going to Garnu.com slash spillover with code spillover to receive 15% off. That's G-A-R-N-U.com slash spillover with code spillover or click the link in the show notes. So you started out being an environmental activist for the other side, right? And now you're fighting against the very people. people that you fought alongside. Why? Well, actually, Alex, they aren't the same people I worked alongside. There was a big turnover in Greenpeace during the years, and it ended up after 15 years. I had led many campaigns to stop the slaughter of 30,000 whales in the Pacific. We succeeded at all

of our campaigns in the early years. We stopped U.S. hydrogen bomb testing. We stopped French atmospheric nuclear testing. We saved all those whales. We stopped the last. capture, attempted capture of an orca whale for a circus animal in zoos, and we did a lot of things. Toxic waste was a huge issue near the end of my term there. But as time went on, we were eventually gobbled up by the political left, who were smarter than we were politically. I'm an ecologist, a scientist. It's not my best talent to have to be in cutthroat politics. And that's what ended up happening. I was one of six international directors for the last seven years, and suddenly I was the only one with any formal science education. Greenpeace was now, along with

the rest of the environmental movement, describing humans as the enemies of nature, the enemies of the earth. That is not where we started. We started to try to stop nuclear war from destroying human civilization. In other words, we had a humanitarian side to us. Because green and peace are the linkage between environment and the human population. Right. And that was thrown out the window. But the sharp end of the stick was my fellow directors, as I say, none of who have had any science education, decided that we should launch a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide.

Well, oh, really, guys, did you realize that table salt, an essential nutrient, is sodium chloride? Like, let's get a little bit more, you know, define it a little bit better if you want to ban something with chlorine in it. Because chlorine, adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health. Watch the Bridge on the River Kwai movie, which is about that. And 85% of all our pharmaceuticals are made with chlorine chemistry and 25% of them have chlorine in them. If you look at the ingredients on your flu and cold medicine, just for example, you'll see a little CL there. That's chlorine. And all of the halogens, which are fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and there's one other that starts with any that I forget how to pronounce.

But they are some of the most important elements in the whole periodic table. They're all in the same category. They're very powerful and very strong. So this became a huge concern for you. They're saying, we want to ban chlorine. You're like, now, wait a minute. This is a really important nutrient and ingredient in a lot of things in everyday life. Yes.

So I had to leave. I had no choice. And in a way I was happy to because the organization had turned into something I didn't want to be involved with anymore. They were basically saying things that were pure misinformation, sensationalism, and fear mongering. And that is not where we started. I mean, we did start with the fear of all-out nuclear war, which was a pretty real thing. And we helped to de-escalate the Cold War at that time in the early 70s.

The Vietnam War was raging. The number of nuclear tests were at a maximum. The number of nuclear weapons being created were at a maximum. It all peaked them. And we were just... Go ahead. How... How profound of a moment was that for you to sit there and decide this is something that I've dedicated my entire life's work to, this organization, and now I feel this pull I need to leave because it doesn't fall in line with my beliefs anymore.

That's a really scary risk to take. Well, no, actually, I had already decided what to do next. I grew up on the north end of Vancouver Island. My mother's father and three brothers were salmon fishermen, fishing for wild salmon. And this was just when salmon farming was coming in. Norway had been very successful at developing this technique of farming salmon in pens. And I saw salmon farming as something that would be really interesting to get involved in.

Like it's a whole new culture that, nobody had ever done before and it was brand new in British Columbia. And salmon farming for me satisfied all three of the sustainable development goals, which are the environmental, the economic, and the social. Salmon farming gives work to people in coastal communities in remote areas where a lot of the labor had been lost due to the mechanization of the fishing industry, the forest industry, the mining industries, where people were out in small towns. So it had a social benefit.

It also had an economic benefit, but in that it was a money-making operation and supported people in communities. We've got a huge coastline in British Columbia. It's a fjord land just like Norway is and like Chile is, and that's where the biggest salmon farms are today. And it also has an environmental benefit in that it takes the pressure off the wild stocks.

everybody knows the ocean is overfished in many cases. I mean, the amount of fish being taken out of the ocean in the wild has not increased for the last 20 or 30 years. When I started our salmon farm in the mid-70s, there was only 5% farmed fish and shellfish in the global market. Now it's over 50%. And it's not just salmon, it's tilapia and cod and many other species of shellfish.

And this has been good for the health of people because seafood is generally very healthy, the Japanese diet and the Mediterranean diet prove that. And it tastes good. It tastes good, and it's taken pressure off the wild stock so that we can let them flourish a little bit more. And first thing that happens, I'm being attacked by Greenpeace for being a salmon farmer.

Well, right, because the green people, I'm just saying environmentalists in general, they really are into wild caught fishing, right? They don't like farm-grown salmon and all that. Yeah, well, they're stupid. That's the problem with them. If they don't like farming, I mean, look what's happening now. Sri Lanka, they're starving to death because they've banned nitrogen fertilizer. I mean, the air is nearly 80% nitrogen.

I know. And I want to get into. I really want to get into a lot of these lies. Your book outlines all of the fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom. That's the title that we're told by climate activists. We're told that they're all inevitable. But despite the alleged inevitability, it seems like no one on the left can even clearly define what exactly climate change is. So what is the actual definition?

Well, climate change is a change in the average weather and weather it has many components, of course. It's wind and waves and tides and rain and drought and sunshine and clouds. Weather in itself is an infinitely complex system. And we, of course, are not able to predict it into the future for more than about five days accurately. maybe two weeks we can get some of it right, but that's how complicated it is. You see, even the inner governmental panel on climate change has admitted that it is impossible

to predict future climate states. Really? They said that in their old text. They bury it deeply in the big volume, and then when it comes to the one for people to read, they take it out. But the reason you can't predict the future of the climate is because it is, Because it is multivariant, in other words, there are many factors involved, all of which are operating at different times levels and then it's also nonlinear. These things aren't just straight line calculations.

All of these factors are nonlinear, which means they're not predictable in any way. And the most important one is they are chaotic. Chaotic means unpredictable. That's the definition of the word chaotic. And the IPCC admits that the climate is nonlinear multifactorial. Well, I got to tell you, Dr. Moore, nonlinear sounds a lot like my dating life. Yes. But I think it sounds like just about everybody's life.

Because there is no crystal ball. It is a mythical object. And they are behaving as though computer models are a crystal ball. When did this environmental activism really run? ramp up in the United States. When did you start seeing this change of this almost became like a political issue all of the sudden? In the early 80s is when the transition took place. And there were all these people dressed in military sort of uniforms coming into Greenpeace and wanting to be part of it. You know, the revolution has been going on for a long time, I guess,

since the beginning of politics. But this one is really dangerous. Why? This idea that we can actually end the use of 80% plus of our energy when we have nearly 8 billion people that depend on it every day for their existence. And then we come to agriculture. They forgot all about that. They forgot that nitrogen and natural gas are combined in a process called the Haber-Bosch process.

It was invented in the 1930s. and it allows us to make nitrogen fertilizer. It's a very complex process, and it won two Nobel Prizes for coming into being Haber and Bosch, each won a Nobel Prize. And the world depends now on nitrogen fertilizers for at least half the food that is being produced every year. And food is only about 50 days out. If you stopped growing food today, you'd run out of food

in 50 days, the whole world population would. So we're 50 days away from chaos. Yes, precisely. And now the Netherlands, which is the biggest producer of food export into the rest of Europe, and now Belgium are talking about drastic reductions in the use of nitrogen fertilizer because it involves the production of carbon dioxide. Well, almost everything that is, good involves the production of carbon dioxide. Yes, I have so many questions about that.

Cement manufacturing is 10% of our CO2 emissions. At agriculture is a big part of our CO2 emissions and fossil fuels is the largest part. Oh, fossil fuels. And that's shoved down our throat. So that's evil and this horrible, terrible thing too, which we're going to get into. Would it shock people to know what a salary is of an average climate change activist? Well, there's a lot of, of people making six figures, that's for sure. It's a very lucrative business these days. From what I understand, the antifossil fuel industry, if you want to call it that, is twice as big as the entire fossil fuel industry. Whoa. In terms of the people that are talking about it and in the political mix, of course, the fossil fuel industry is a lot bigger than the environmental

industry, but that's just money and fuel. Well, what is it that these climate change activists really want? Like, let's just be honest here. Well, if you understand exactly what they're asking for, they want the end of human civilization quickly. That appears to be, and that's what I go back to when they decided that

humans are the enemies of the earth. It's like original... But they tell us they want to save humans. They tell us this is all about saving humans. So how could they... No, they don't. They tell us it's all about saving the environment. Not the humans. Whoa. Okay. Nobody could say that

that ending the use of 80% of our energy is going to save humans. Never mind ending agriculture or cutting it in half. I mean, there's no way. But let me just describe to the audience the reason I call it fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom. Nearly all the scary stories are based on things that are either invisible, like carbon dioxide, radiation, and the supposedly bad thing in GMO agricultural products

Actually, it doesn't exist because it would have a name if it did. There is no bad thing in GMOs. It's fake. Invisible and fake. Whereas radiation and CO2 are invisible, but not fake. But you can make up any story you want about something that is invisible because people can't see it with their own eyes. Observation is the foundation of scientific discovery.

And after you observe something, you go, wow, maybe this is causing that. then you do it over and over again, which is really trying to make sure that you're not got an anomaly there, that it's not a fluke. And once you've done that and verified, so right from the beginning, observation, then verification, then replication where you give it to the rest of the world and say, this is what I did, here's how I did it,

you try it and see if it works for you. So you go from a hypothesis to a, theory and that science. It's as simple as that. There's also methodology, which is usually the biggest part of a science paper, and that's how you try to figure out to keep other variables from interfering with what you're doing. That's one of the main functions of methodology. And so the scientific method is just being thrown out the window all together here. And the other thing, though, is it's also about things that are remote, not just invisible. Like things that are far away from you?

Yes, because they are basically invisible. And that's why polar bears and coral reefs are the two biggest icons to scare people about the climate. When in fact, they never tell the public about the treaty that was signed in 1973 among all polar nations to end the unrestricted hunting of polar bears. But I don't understand something like the catastrophe in Ohio. That is not far away. That is near. and yet it seems like climate change activists ignore that. Yeah, they ignore it because it's real.

They only deal in things that are fake and invisible and remote. That fire, I mean, what are they going to do about it? They actually are completely useless because they're campaigning against fossil fuels, but they're not really doing anything. you know, they're just trying to screw up the whole economic system and the whole human civilization. And that's exactly what I don't understand. It's telling everybody to drive this certain car and don't use this and don't buy this and, you know, don't use plastic straws. But, I mean, have climate change activists even had any sort of positive impact on our environment truly in the last several decades? No, they have not. You know, for example, they're against forestry. They always occasionally.

accuse me of being a tool of the forest industry, like as if wood isn't the most important renewable material or is in the whole world. Yeah, that's a criticism of you as they say, well, he's paid from all of these different, you know, sectors, the genetic engineering people and the logging industry, whatever, is that true? I'm paid for my advice, not for my submission. I try to help them deal with the situation they're dealing with, which is irrational. opposition. And when it comes to forestry, let's just look at a few facts about that. By about

1750, the forests of Europe had been reduced to less than 10% of the land area because wood was the only fuel. There was no fossil fuel yet. When fossil fuels came in, the forests began to grow back because they were disappearing, silviculture, tree farming, in other words, was invented in Europe. See, we started farming for food 10,000 years ago, but because there were so many forests in the world, there was no need to learn how to farm trees. There was enough of them to last forever until European civilization emerged and started using wood for steel mills and glassworks and metal fabrication in every building for heat. And so the forests of Europe began to disappeared. So in central Europe, in the eastern European countries, silviculture was born. The silviculture

being forestry, the science of growing trees and breeding trees. And you do, and you agree with this or you don't agree with it? Today, 43% of Europe is forested from less than 10%. And that's because first, we did stop using wood for steel mills, and secondly, we learned silviculture. And that's being practiced all over the world. And you will find that Greenpeace and their allies are generally against forestry. As a matter of fact, they are against fire in all its terms. How can somebody be against fire? I mean, the cavemen had to set fires to survive.

Isn't that just a basic passage of human life and survival? revival is fire? In fact, control of fire was probably the beginning of human civilization. And they're against it. You just look at it. They're against fossil fuels, which are basically burning material that used to be alive. All of the fossil fuels are made from life. The coal is made from trees and forests.

The oil and gas is made from marine deposits of life, sinking to the bottom into the sediments over the many millions of years. And so they're against that. They are against burning wood. They are against burning waste. They are against fire, period. It just seems like, I mean, you're right. Everything that they are so against, it doesn't even make any sense. When you really look into it, it's just common sense. Why would you be against that? And you brought up fossil fuels. And could you explain like you would to a kindergartner, what is a fossil fuel? And what is it about them that is driving, you know, supposedly climate change? Well, fossil fuels are basically the remains of life that have lost their oxygen.

So they are hydrocarbons. Much of life is carbohydrates, which means carbon hydrogen and oxygen, like sugars, for example, and many of the parts of our body are made with hydrocarbons. There's proteins which have nitrogen in them, but also have hydrocarbon base as well. And the fact is, is that every time we burn fossil fuels, all we are doing is putting carbon dioxide back into the environment where it came from in the first place. All of those hydrocarbons were made with life. And is that where the hang up is with these environmentalists is putting carbon dioxide back into the environment because they're so against CO2? No, but they behave as though it's something new.

Okay. They behave as though we're adding more carbon dioxide to the environment. environment when in fact all we're doing is replacing what was taken out over the millions of years. CO2 has declined by more than 90% in the long term of life on this earth, going back 500 million years when life exploded in the Cambrian explosion and that eventually came onto the land. During that 500 million years, CO2 has gone from 10,000 parts per million down to 180 during the most recent glacial maximum, which peaked 20,000 years ago. And we've come out of that into this interglacial period, but we're still in the place

to see an ice age. This is the irony of what the, we are in one of the coldest periods in the last 250 million years. I mean, it snowed in Hollywood. It snowed on the Hollywood sign. Exactly. And I'm about halfway to the North Pole, and it's like a freezing desert up to you a lot of the time.

So it is. just ridiculous and CO2 is lower now than it has been through almost the entire history of life. And so if we got rid of fossil fuels like these environmentalists want, how would that negatively impact our life every day? Half of us would die. A very thorough paper by William Happer and Richard Linson and Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 coalition, all of which Will Happer is the chairman, Richard is a director Greg is the CEO I'm a director of the CO2 coalition

it's by invitation only because we only want people who actually understand this to be involved in it there's scientists engineers geologists the whole thing about 93% or whatever it is of scientists agreeing with climate change is

absolute rubbish it if you well when I when I when you go on Twitter and you look at the replies to people who are talking about CO2 going to destroy the world, most of them are negative against these people. And Twitter is supposed to be leftist in a majority.

Yeah. People are afraid to talk about this. If you're employed in any kind of large corporation or even small corporation, or even if you're in sports, you cannot take the position that CO2, is good, which it is because it's the basis of life. It is what we are made of. We are carbon-based life. All life is carbon-based. And the carbon all came from CO2. There's no other place to get it. We cannot eat coal, which is full of carbon. We cannot drink gasoline, which is full of carbon. We take in the CO2 that the plants took in to make themselves. I mean, the only reason there's any

animals is because there's plants. Animals can't be here without plants. The plants are what take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and incorporate them into their bodies and then we eat the plants or we eat the animals that eat the plants. It all starts with plants. I mean, there are a lot of, there are a lot of moms that listen to my podcast. There's a lot of young women who want to be moms one day that listen to this podcast. And I think they really want to know once and for all, do we really need to stop having kids because of the threat of overpopulation? No, and that sorts itself out. The reason there are 8 billion people now is because of fossil fuels and fertilizer.

That's allowed us to make more food. Now, the way the environmentalists go at it is they just say, well, there's too many people. It's destroying the earth. So the best thing would be to ban the... ability to make this much food. That's what their strategy will result in if people panic and agree with the idea that we should stop using fertilizer and that we should stop using fossil fuels. I just wanted to talk about plastic for a minute because that's one of the most egregious

situations that we have is people wanting to ban plastic. The campaign against plastic is just a proxy war against fossil fuels because they are nearly all made from fossil fuels. They are solid materials that are made with fossil fuels rather than fuel. So two completely different categories. But they act as though it becomes toxic when it goes in the ocean.

Do they do they know it? Yeah, they say it's going to ruin the coral reefs and everything. Yeah, yeah, except why do we wrap? The sea turtles and the straws. Why do we wrap and containerize all our food in plastic? But is that really what's best for us, though? Is that not a little bit toxic for human beings?

Because it's non-toxic. No, it protects our food from contamination. That's why we do it. And if it goes in the ocean, it's no different than driftwood. I mean, it looks different, but it's just something in the ocean. And there's nothing wrong with things drifting around in the ocean because lots of marine species benefit from this. Barnacles grow on them. I think that's going to be something really hard for people to accept.

You saying that plastic floating around the ocean is, is, good for marine life. Well, how about... Well, I'll give you the facts. There are millions of marine birds, albatross and all the others, petrels, millions of them. Every single one of those species of marine birds

uses appropriately sized and shaped bits of plastic as a digestive aid for their chick and then for their whole life after they fledged and start flying around by themselves. I've never heard of them. that in my life. It's been going on for 50 years. And it's being described as dangerous by the greens saying it'll hurt the birds. No, they're doing it on purpose. They're doing it because there's no pebbles in the sea. Land birds all use pebbles. You see, birds have two stomachs,

one like ours, which has acid in it for the softer stuff. But birds have no teeth, so they can't chew a squid up into bits. They have to swallow it whole. That goes in the gizzard, where bits of hard objects, including pebbles on land, but in the sea, they prefer pumice because it's undersea volcanic rocks that float,

so they look for appropriately sized and shape pumice bits. But there's not always undersea volcanoes around. When there is, that's what they used. But they also use, when a squid goes into the gizzer, the beak of the squid is kept, digest the flesh, and they keep the beak as part of the grinding material in their gizzard. They also use hard bits of wood, and they use pieces of plastic. See, you're talking about basically garbage, and I know that we make a lot of garbage as Americans, but where is it really going, and is there a better way that we could be getting rid of our garbage?

Yes. It would deprive the birds of one of their important digestive aids at this point in history. But the truth is that in Europe, 50% of their waste is burned for energy. So they take the 50% that is recyclable and recycle it, and they have waste to energy plants. And there are some in the United States, but the green movement is against waste to energy plants because they're against fire. and so they don't want that to happen. But in Europe, there are no landfills in most of Western Europe, Germany, France, Sweden, they take all of their waste, paper, their combustible waste,

because most glass can be recycled, most metals can be recycled fairly easily. But the organic materials, wood, paper, and plastic, they are all organic and will burn. They can be used to make energy, and they're clean plants. There's one in Minneapolis. There's one on Long Island.

Nobody knows about them. Greenpeace is against them. And so the United States and Canada had a landfill 50% of their garbage because it isn't useful for recycling. And, you know, construct your waifs. This is, recycling is one of my favorite wormholes

to go down because is it actually a scam? Well, it's not, it's not a scam if you actually take a piece of wood and burn it for energy. But what I'm saying is the little triangle that we see on plastic bottles and stuff saying that it was recycled, does that even really matter? Well, it's not the question of whether it matters, it's a question of whether it was recycled. Okay. And much plastic is recycled.

There is a lot of plastic recycling, but there's also a lot of plastic that isn't suitable for recycling. And the same thing goes with construction weights. with bits of wood full of nails. You're not going to recycle that. And then there's, you know, pizza boxes. The paper is fine, but nobody wants to have ketchup all over the. Okay, so another thing that people are very confused on,

especially my audience, is nuclear energy. What is it? Should we prefer it? And why are people so afraid of it? Well, again, it's the fake invisible catastrophe of radiation. there are 100 and some odd nuclear plants between the U.S. and the United States. No one has ever been injured by them, never mind killed. Chernobyl was a bad design Russian reactor that they did a stupid experiment with.

Chernobyl didn't blow up during normal operations. The other three reactors on that site continued to operate for years after that one blew up. It blew up because engineers came from nuclear central in Moscow, told the operators to shut off the safety system so they could do this experiment, and it went critical. That's the only nuclear reactor in the history of nuclear that has gone critical. Wow. That was actually a nuclear explosion, whereas Fukushima was a meltdown of the core of the reactor due to loss of coolant water after the reactor shut down. and that's a long story, but the Japanese just didn't learn anything

when they built those four reactors that, well, three of them blew up. The other one wasn't running it at the time. But those were meltdowns of the core. That could have easily been designed into them that that wouldn't happen. And also they put them eight feet above sea level where they knew there'd been tsunamis in the past.

So it was, you could call it a common, of errors if it wasn't so not funny, but no one died from radiation in Fukushima or in Three Mile Island. No one was, no one was even harmed in Three Mile Island and no one had radiation, a radiation related problem in Fukushima. They didn't need to evacuate all those people. They could have just said, don't grow any food in this area for a while. Right. But you're fine. The radiation, background radiation, is not high enough to be of any harm. But the nuclear industry is regulated on the basis of zero tolerance to radiation. Whereas in fact, we're exposed to radiation every day. The sun is radiation. But if we started implementing more nuclear

energy in the United States, what would improve for us? Like, why is that important to be supportive of nuclear energy? Well, if you are in favor of reducing fossil fuels, it is by far the most effective way to do it. It doesn't work with wind and solar because they only work a third of the time. So you have to have fossil fuel backup for wind and solar. There's no way out of it.

But with nuclear energy, you have 24-7 power and all the shutdowns to refuel are planned in advance. It isn't as if the wind just stops. like it does with wind energy. The wind and solar is one of the biggest wastes of money that has ever happened in the history of technology. Yeah, what's up with the wind farms? It's ridiculous.

And now, well, what's up with the wind farms? They kill 85,000 large birds every year. The fish and wildlife, national fish and wildlife people have a bird morgue. I remember, you know, it's funny you bring this up because I remember President Trump bringing this up in a speech when he was president. And everybody made fun of him for talking. about how the wind farms kill birds. They were like, what is he talking about?

President Obama specifically let the wind industry off killing birds. They have, they have us. They're the only industry that is allowed to kill all these birds. You know, the fossil fuel industry in Alberta had 500 ducks fly into a oil pool. They've stopped the ability to do that now. but they got heavily fight and blasted all over the world. There's 10 million ducks in Alberta, you know, and there aren't 10 million bald eagles,

but the wind farms are allowed to kill bald eagles with no penalty, and hundreds of thousands of bats are killed by the wind turbines as well, and now they're going to build them offshore New York and New Jersey and down the coast, probably down the coast, nearly as far as Florida, off Georgia. they're planning to put 1,500 huge wind turbines in the ocean where the endangered northern right whale lives. There's less than 400 of them left and thousands of humpback whales. So somebody's listening and they're like, well, I don't really care about the, you know, endangered animals. But how does wind farming affect farmers?

What would you say? Well, lots of farmers make a lot of money with it. because they can put them on their fields and still farm on majority of the land and get a fee from the wind farm company for using their land. So that's one of the reasons why it makes it possible for them to do that. But putting in the ocean, all they need is federal authority to do that. And whales are sound-oriented animals, and they're using sonar to map the bottom of this whole offshore area.

But that's not the worst of it. You have to excavate a massive hole in the bottom of the ocean for the concrete. You can't just stick these things in the ground like a bopsicle. They're five megawatts of energy pushing on those towers. You've got to have a massive concrete base underwater sunk into the earth. So it's all sedimentary type material. So for years, the waters will be muddied. And these are filter feeding animals.

So isn't it ironic? Greenpeace sides with the whales, sorry, with Greenpeace sides against the whales and for the machines. Yeah. Machines are not, whales are the largest animals that have ever lived on earth by far. No animals have ever been larger than that. Now, one chapter in your book that I have to tell you I vehemently disagreed with, and so I'm wanting to learn more, is your defended use of GMOs in our food and even Monsanto. And I understand that using them allows us to grow more food more quickly. The FDA says that they're safe.

But sometimes I think our gut instincts kind of tell us that something isn't right. And, of course, the FDA has been wrong about a lot. I mean, they also co-signed that OxyContin wasn't addictive. So I don't see how there is a defense of GMOs, but I do want to hear you explain your view on this. Well, first, as I say, the thing that's bad in them hasn't got a name. There is nothing in them that is bad. And this has been proven that the European Union, where they're still illegal,

did massive science research on this, more than anybody's ever done on food before in the history of the world, and they concluded that GMOs are possibly safer than non-GMOs because they have been so much more thoroughly tested in trials. There's nothing in GMOs that you should be afraid of. You are a GMO. See, this is the use of language here. The Greens and the political environmentalists use language in propaganda ways.

we are all genetically modified. We are not identical to our parents. And we could have mutations that happen aside from the genes you get from your parents. But are these not compromising nutrition? No, of course they're not. Why would they do that? Because I fail to understand how

coming up with some type of food scientifically and not letting it grow naturally from the earth would be better or more nutritious? All our foods are hugely genetically modified. Corn used to be a thing about an inch long. Why aren't we eating the natural corn? We have bred food, animals and plants for 10,000 years, at least. And we have changed them into something completely different from anything in nature.

What about how GMO... Those are genetically modified. But with the GMO crops, how they have to use more herbicides and pesticides, stronger ones to test. Okay, so you say they don't. They don't have to use more. They use less. They, there are the insect-resistant GMO crops that don't need to have pesticide. The pesticide, but not this, you know, insecticide and herbicide is a pesticide is a general term,

meaning either plants or animals or birds or whatever. But insecticide is for killing predatory insects. Herbicides are for killing weeds. And when you have a combination of roundup-ready genetically modified crop, which means it's a crop that glyphosate does not kill, whereas all the weeds are killed. So you don't have to plow the soil every year. And that results in a very positive situation

where the soil continues to build up rather than being exposed to the air every year and decomposing. So the combination of using these two plant and a herbicide makes it much better for the environment. But you don't think that it's because of companies like Monsanto, obviously now owned by Bayer, that glyphosate is being used on our crops? It was always used, but it couldn't be used while the crops were growing.

It could only be used before the crop was planted. Glyphosate has been proven, you know, it's less toxic than vinegar, and it's way less toxic than salt, which is an essential nutrient at a low level. the whole issue of toxicology I mean in the same way that in medicine the maxim is do no harm that is the top rule of medicine

do no harm that's why this whole COVID thing has contradicted do no harm because they did stuff without knowing enough about what the side effects might be I had some really severe side effects to the Moderna booster

I'm so sorry. No, I'm okay now, I think. I'm worried about it because I hear what's going on. And now the truth is coming out. Yes, and the fact of the matter is glyphosate is hardly, it's only toxic to plants. It's not toxic to animals. And it's not toxic to genetically modified crops that have been given a gene from a soil bacteria. It's not as if we made these things up ourselves.

And nowadays, with the CRISPR technology, you actually don't have to inject other genes to create a modified plant. See, the word modified, I mean, we're all modified. That's the fact they're using language this way. Genetic modification, as it is done in plants, is a very specific procedure. and it's one way of modifying plants.

There are many ways to modify plants. When you brought up vaccines, I had no idea about this, but the issue of GMOs being used in our food is actually more polarizing than vaccines with voters, which shocked me. Yeah, well, that's because of the propaganda that's been spread about them. All of the science shows that they are absolutely and perfectly safe.

And in many cases... But they've only been around for two decades. I mean, how have we had enough time to really see? See what? If there's going to be a negative effect. There is no negative effect. It's been gone over and over and over. It isn't as if what you will.

Take the corn, for example, that has been genetically modified to reduce the predation of insects. Most of these insects are butterflies and moths that lay their eggs in the crop. and then those eggs burrow into the crop and take toxic molds with them, whereas the genetically modified corn is immune to that, and is healthier than the normal corn. It's better for you because it doesn't have the molds in it.

Those molds have all kinds of toxins in them. So this is a known fact. I just wanted to mention go back to plastic again for a minute because people have been so duped on this. there is no plastic garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean. What? Well, turn to the page in my book where it shows the satellite image of the Pacific Ocean. All of the Pacific Garbage Patch depictions on the Internet are paintings.

They're all drawings. That is crazy. Yeah, they say it's twice the size of Texas and growing 16 times faster than the air of it. And it doesn't even exist? No, it does not exist. There's plastic in the ocean, but it's spread out all. all over the place. My head hurts.

No, it's, it's a, it's a, it's the truth. So when I speak about this, people come up to me after incredulous and they say, well, maybe it's just the clear plastic. That's why you can't see it from space. Well, where did the pictures come from, the drawings? People make them up. Go and look on the internet and look for the Pacific Garbage Patch images. Okay, so leave us with one thing, Dr. Patrick Moore.

The, if somebody could only choose one thing to change their mind on when it comes to the crazy climate change environmentalist agenda, what is the most crucial thing? Carbon dioxide is entirely beneficial. It causes no harm. It causes life. It is the basis of all life. We are putting it back where it came from. We are not adding something new to the environment. The carbon was always here. It's just that it got turned from CO2 into fossil fuels and sediments in the sea. See, people don't realize that limestone, marble, chalk, the white cliffs of Dover, are all made by life. The shells of marine creatures, the coral reefs, the clams, the barnacles, the crabs, anything

that has a shell, which back in the day when life exploded in its diversity in the sea, they were just like jellyfish. And they learned to make armor plating for themselves out of carbon dioxide. and calcium. Calcium carbonate is what limestone is, and it's made from the shells that have fallen to the bottom of the sea and turned into rock. Yeah. And so there's a hundred million billion tons of carbon in carbonaceous rocks. It all came from the oceans and the air, where it is available to life. But it's not available to life when it's locked up in a rock in the sediments under the sea, or when it's in fossil fuels in the sediments. Those were all life origin,

not like granite, which came out of a volcano. The carbonaceous rocks came from marine creatures and even land snails. There are some shell-making species on land, but most of them are in the sea. besides reading your book, fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom, what else would you tell people that are critics of you or naysayers of the advice that you're giving? Well, just do your research. I mean, just reading my book, there's over a hundred references that demonstrate what I'm saying is true. So you can go behind the book to the references. It's all on the internet. You can access every one of my references directly from your computer. and you will see, well, I think people should read the new paper by Linson and Happer about what the effect of ending fossil fuels and fertilizer would be. It's a 41-page paper.

It's pretty accessible to just about anybody who has an inkling of science. It's not hard to read. The abstract is only one page and explains the whole thing very clearly. But many countries in the West are adopting policies that will kill half their population in short order if they go ahead with it by 2050 and all this stuff. So there's no doubt about that. I mean, fossil fuels are the basis for our energy. And the only way to change that in a big way is with nuclear, which is the energy of the future. Russia, China and India are all going full bore on nuclear power.

The United States, Canada, and Europe are shutting them down. Anything you want to say to Greta Thunberg? Grow up. Dr. Patrick Moore, absolutely incredible. I feel like my brain has done a full workout during this conversation. I've learned a lot of new things. Thank you so much for coming on and sharing. I wish you're definitely one of those people that I know you could easily talk to for eight hours.

It's true. Yes, I believe it. Thank you so much for coming on. the spillover and everybody should buy your book, fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom. Very, very important. Thank you so much. Thank you, Alex. Anytime. It can be really hard to make friends as an adult. That's why Turning Point USA has made it easy for you with events like our young women's leadership summit. It is a massive weekend in Dallas from June 9th through 11th this year where thousands of women get together from all over

the country, all 50 states, to meet each other. begin lifelong friendships with people that share your views and hear from the biggest females in the conservative movement. So far, some of the speakers that have been announced are Riley Gaines, Kaylee McEnany, Laura Trump, Erica Kirk, and Candice Owens. I speak to, and I'm focusing on the lies the feminist movement has told women for decades. So start putting together your 70s-inspired outfit now and come to Dallas this June for the Young Women's Leadership Summit. Spots are not guaranteed. Go to tpUSA.com slash YWLS with code Poblitics for a discount. That's TPUSA.com slash YWLS with code Poblitics. All ages are welcome, but tickets are limited. Find the link in the

description. You're going to lose it when I tell you this. Some states have been working to make MRNA vaccines mandatory for their cattle in pigs. Good ranchers has never and will never source meat from any farm that uses unapproved experimental treatments of medicines in their animals. This is precisely why I roll with good ranchers and only good ranchers. It just gets worse because most of the beef at the grocery store is coming from China. There are two options for you, okay? I'm just going to give it to you straight.

either keep feeding yourself and your family, who knows what that's full of who can really say. Or place an order with Good Ranchers today to enjoy 100% American meat with 0% MRNA vaccine. You can take their pledge to the bank, or better yet, take it to your fridge. I'll give you three more reasons to subscribe to Good Ranchers, okay? Right now you're going to get $240 of free bacon in your first year. That is a pound in a half of American-made and conservative-owned bacon. in every single box when you go to good ranchers.com slash Clark and use code Clark. Plus, that code is going to get you $20 off any box.

Whatever it costs to start your Good Rancher subscription at this very moment is what it will stay for as long as you're subscribed. You can lock in your price and avoid meat inflation with the Good Ranchers price lock guarantee. Enjoy the highest quality meat in America today with discount code Clark for $20 off any box. That's Good Ranchers.com slash Clark with code Clark or click the link in the show notes. Good Ranchers, American Meat delivered.

Here's where I'm at after this interview. I thought everything Dr. Patrick Moore had to say about the climate agenda was spot on. I was completely blown away by him saying trash island is fake. And then as far as his stance on glyphosate and GMOs, I don't think I'm on board with that. I'm not sure that I believe that a majority of these studies, like the ones that claim GMOs and her food are no different than conventional foods, I'm not convinced that those aren't being conducted by biotechnology companies or their associates.

I don't see how anything man-made could be better than God's design when it comes to natural food. Maybe I am alone on that. Maybe you listen to this interview with this guy. And you were like, okay, compared to all of the really anti-big food, crunchy people you've had on this year, Alex, this guy has me convinced the most. I don't think any of this stuff is bad. I think our worries are overblown. or maybe your mind was completely changed or you vehemently disagree and think everything he said was kooky.

But I do hope that if you were one of the anti-big food people that you feel satiated and satisfied by this interview, that's what she said. Next week will be with someone who has an insane story, but also incredible expertise on big food. She became a vegan as a child, and her health became so destroyed that her teeth started to rot out

of her head as a teenager. She is responsible for a massive expose on how the food pyramid we grew up with was government-funded propaganda. And she has a lot to say about the dangers and failures of fad diets. Best way to support this show is to leave a five-star review every single week, even if all you say is glebe, which is a word I made up. The spillover is back every Thursday at 9 p.m. Pacific, midnight Eastern. Anywhere you prefer to listen to podcasts, each episode is uploaded to one.

watch on the Popplics YouTube channel. I'm Alex Clark, and this is The Spillover. Love You Mean It. Bye.