Is Patrick Moore Credible? His Record Says No

Ireceived a copy of Patrick Moore's book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, from a friend who went down the anti-climate change denialist rabbithole. In this concise work, Moore uses internet news headlines to propagate a series of misleading assertions and flat-out disinformation concerning climate change and related environmental matters. His content is tailored for easy consumption but contains inaccurate information that aims to undermine established scientific principles, particularly when reaching an audience with limited exposure to sound scientific education.

Before diving into a chapter-by-chapter fact check of the book, let's look at the author himself, and ask ourselves: is this the character of someone who is out to honestly report on complex science subjects?

Who is Patrick Moore?

Patrick Moore, born in British Columbia on January 15, 1947, received a forestry degree from the University of British Columbia, and then joined Greenpeace as a crewmember of its original chartered fishing boat.

Over time, Moore’s ideologies began to shift toward ever more radical positions, and he began to fall for far-right ideologies. He became intoxicated with the popular, and often most ridiculous far-right anti-environmental claims that were popular during the various eras in which he was most active.

His transformation coincided with his move to becoming a consultant role for industries that had classic conflicts with environmental concerns - logging, plastics, GMO and oil. His company, Greenspirit Enterprises offered greenwashing services through the deployment of public relations tactics aimed at alleviating concerns or diverting public attention from underlying environmental issues.

 Throughout his career, from Greenpeace to Greenspirit, Moore’s skills have been as a communicator; simplifying ideas; distilling them down to a pedestrian level. 

Patrick Moore’s many dubious claims, adherence to pseudoscience and to extremist, far-right views should be a sign to anybody who may take his claims seriously. Here are some examples:

Encouraging Others to Drink Roundup

On a French television show, Patrick Moore claimed that Roundup was safe to drink, despite being toxic to humans.

During the interview, Moore dismissed the safety concerns associated with the herbicide, and went through his routine of false claims about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

But the host of the show surprised Moore and offered him a glass of Roundup to drink. Moore, cornered, refused the glass of Roundup and said, “I’m not an idiot.”

Drinking glyphosate, of course, can be deadly, and there is evidence that Roundup causes cancer.

Moore often makes reckless claims and statements, but rarely was he caught as openly as in this televised story, which has been shared around the world over multiple news cycles.

Video Shows Patrick Moore Refusing Glass of Roundup

Attacks on Greta Thunberg

Patrick Moore has repeatedly attacked climate activist Greta Thunberg in videos and on Twitter. He has claimed she is incapable of the thoughts and words she says. He has written that, “she is being abused by whoever wrote the words she speaks. She is like a puppet on strings. If she doesn't rebel against her abusers she will be forever damaged and will never be a free thinking person.”

But Greta Thunberg is actually a hyper-intelligent and eloquent spokesperson with a passion for climate advocacy. It is well documented that she in fact understands the science and is an adept communicator, consistently speaking correctly about the complex science.

Attacking a young activist who is genuinely concerned about the planet's future and advocating for a more sustainable world is not a good look.

Moore's criticisms of Thunberg - claiming she was too young to have an opinion, and too autistic, is a logical fallacy. Rather than addressing the science in the language of logic and science, Moore insists on fallacious ad hominem. This is a clear sign that Moore is not interested in constructive debate. 

Greta Thunberg's messages are rooted in scientific consensus and are backed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Her message is basically: follow the science. Attacking her for her stance on climate change disregards the body of scientific evidence that supports her concerns. 

If people under the age of 21 can’t have their own voices or help change history, then what do we think of Joan of Arc, who led the French army at age 13? What do we think of Bob Weir, who helped found the Grateful Dead at age 16? What about James Monroe, who signed the declaration of independence at age 18? What about Malala Yousafzai, who at age 17 won the nobel prize? Or Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein at age 18? Alexander the Great, who conquered the known world at age 18? Or Mozart, who wrote his first symphony at age 8?

Greta Thunberg, like anyone else, has the right to communicate her views on climate science and advocate for addressing climate change.

Thunberg has been very public about her diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. But why would anyone use her neurodiversity against her? Anybody interested in genuine scientific discourse would rather focus on the knowledge, the research and the understanding of climate change that she has communicated so well. 

Those who are interested in true scientific discourse and debate don’t judge individuals by their personal characteristics, but rather the quality and substance of their arguments. Trying to discriminate and silence someone because they are neurodivergent is absolutely counterproductive to informed dialogue and is another direct disqualification of Moore.

Not everyone likes Greta Thunberg’s advocacy, but there are thousands of other eloquent advocates and speakers on the subject of climate change. The reality is that Thunberg has remained one of the most consistently successful speakers about the subject. Moore has referred to Thunberg as evil, as a puppet, a tool. When he was called out for repeatedly pointing out her Asperger’s diagnosis, he explained that he was just trying to compare ‘her masters to Hitler.”  Moore's repeated verbal attacks on Greta Thunberg show his ignorance on climate science, because they undermine discourse without offering anything of substance.

Greenpeace Co-Founder Claim

Patrick Moore has long claimed that he is a co-founder or founder of Greenpeace. But this false assertion has been repeatedly dismissed by Greenpeace and its original members. Even in 2023, in his new book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”, Moore rehashes this false narrative, by opening the back cover with a quote that begins, “Patrick Moore, Cofounder of Greenpeace…” 

In reality, Greenpeace was founded in Vancouver, Canada, as the Don't Make a Wave Committee in 1970 by a group of dedicated activists, including Irving Stowe, Dorothy Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter. Patrick Moore did join Greenpeace  around 1971, and he played a role as a member of the crew on one of their early protest voyages, but he was not a founding member.

Moore uses the claim that he founded Greenpeace as a way to bolster his credibility—leading many who follow him to see that as a sort of credential for his extremist views. Moore's association with Greenpeace was relatively brief, and he later distanced himself from the organization, evolving into a vocal advocate for industries and positions that were almost always directly at odds with Greenpeace's original environmental mission.

Moore’s involvement in Greenpeace was about the straightforward and immediate environmental issues of the early 1970’s, like protesting nuclear testing in the Pacific and  the protection of whales through direct action campaigns. Climate change requires expertise in climatology, environmental science, and other related fields, which Moore has never possessed.

A Career of Paid Industry Advocacy

The greenwashing work I mentioned above isn’t a footnote to Moore’s career — it is his career. Through Greenspirit Strategies, the PR firm he’s run since the early 1990s, Moore has been a paid spokesman for the very industries whose environmental records he now spends his time defending: logging, mining, chlorine and PVC manufacturing, aquaculture, and Canadian oil sands.

In 2010, Asia Pulp & Paper — an Indonesian logging conglomerate repeatedly accused of illegally clearing rainforest and peatland, and of pushing critically endangered species like the Sumatran tiger closer to extinction — recruited Moore to represent it publicly. Greenpeace itself, in an official statement responding to Moore’s continued use of its name, put it plainly: Moore “has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries,” and has “worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.”

That’s not a smear from a rival group with an axe to grind. That’s the organization whose name he still trades on, on the record, correcting the story.

A Paid Spokesman for the Nuclear Industry

Before you read Moore’s Chapter 8 defense of nuclear power, it’s worth knowing who signed his checks. From 2006 to 2013, Moore co-chaired the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an advocacy group formed and funded almost entirely by the Nuclear Energy Institute — the nuclear industry’s own trade and lobbying arm. He also worked as a spokesman for Vermont Energy Partnership, a nuclear-industry-backed group that fought to keep the Vermont Yankee plant open, and as an adviser to a similar lobbying group pushing to relicense New York’s Indian Point plant.

None of that automatically makes his nuclear arguments wrong. But it does mean he isn’t a neutral scientist weighing the evidence in Chapter 8 — he’s an industry advocate who was paid, for years, to reach the conclusion he reaches in his book.

Chairman of the CO2 Coalition

Since May 2019, Moore has chaired the board of the CO2 Coalition, a group built from the remains of the shuttered George C. Marshall Institute, whose core message is that rising CO2 is good for the planet. This is the same organization behind the misleading extinction graph Moore uses in Chapter 5 of his book — the one that the IUCN’s own red list authority called a reversed version of the real data.

The CO2 Coalition isn’t a scrappy band of independent scientists. Public tax filings show it has taken in more than $2.4 million from conservative and fossil-fuel-linked funders, including the Mercer Family Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and Koch-affiliated foundations. Moore doesn’t just cite this group’s work uncritically in his book — he runs it.

Patrick Moore is a January 6 Insurrectionist Sympathizer

Patrick Moore's sympathetic views toward the January 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol, which involved the storming of the Capitol building by a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump, have been widely criticized as antithetical to his credibility on complex scientific topics like climate change. His support or sympathy for the insurrection is concerning for several reasons.

The January 6 insurrection was a highly dangerous, violent and unlawful event that sought to undermine the democratic processes of the United States. By expressing support for the insurrection, Moore aligns himself with actions that fundamentally undermine the rule of law and democratic institutions, which are critical for addressing complex issues like climate change through proper legislative and policy mechanisms.

Second, embracing or sympathizing with actions that promote disinformation, conspiracy theories, and political extremism can erode public trust and rational discourse. The same disinformation tactics that have fueled political extremism in some contexts can be found in climate change denial, which hinders constructive dialogue on this complex and scientifically established issue.

Moore's support for the insurrection undermines his credibility when discussing climate change, as it suggests a willingness to disregard facts, evidence, and the democratic processes that underpin sound scientific and policy decisions. It can lead to doubts about his commitment to rational and evidence-based discourse, which is essential when addressing the complexities of climate science and policy.

What Expertise and Evidence does Patrick Moore Have in Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom?

Patrick Moore’s book is largely a climate change denialist book. In this book, Moore responds to various sensationalist internet headlines and uses the wording chosen by the editor as a means to try to discredit various foundational aspects of modern ecology.

Take his claim that ocean acidification is “a total fabrication” and that it’s chemically “impossible” for rising CO2 to lower the ocean’s pH. That isn’t a matter of scientific interpretation — it’s basic, settled ocean chemistry, and Moore gets it flatly wrong. It’s the same pattern you’ll see throughout this book: a confident, simple-sounding claim that falls apart the moment you check it against the actual science.

• He interviews no experts or scientists
• He has no formal education in climate science
• He has never published peer-reviewed studies or been involved in climate research
• His pseudoscientific statements on climate change are not supported by the scientific community

None of this settles whether any individual claim in Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom is right or wrong on its own merits — that's what the chapter-by-chapter fact checks below are for, starting with the media outlets that promoted the book in the Chapter 2 fact-check. But it's useful context before reading them.

Read my rebuttal of the other Patrick Moore chapters here:

Exposing Patrick Moore
Patrick Moore Credibility
Chapter 1 Fact-check: Baobab Trees
Chapter 2 Fact-check: Coral Bleaching
Chapter 3 Fact-check: Carbon Dioxide
Chapter 4 Fact-check: Polar Bears
Chapter 5 Fact-check: Estimated Threats to Biodiversity
Chapter 6 Fact-check: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Chapter 7 Fact-check: Genetically Modified Foods
Chapter 8 Fact-check: Nuclear Radiation
Chapter 9 Fact-check: Wildfires Chapter 10 Fact-check: Ocean Acidification Chapter 11 Fact-check: Walruses