He makes a good case that humans are responsible for a lot of the increase of CO2, which is exactly what mainstream science is also claiming.<p>He goes on to say that this is a good thing, since high levels of CO2 are necessary for plants to develop. He also claims that we are in a long-term downward spiral, and that the fact that humankind is intervening is a lucky coincidence to avert mass starvation in the medium term (geologically speaking).<p>I like this, but I have a couple of questions:<p>- what is the mainstream science critique to this theory?<p>- how come that, even though CO2 cycles have happened in the past, we are now in a final CO2 crisis? The Earth has done great without massive intervention from humankind, why is this needed now? We even have fungi now to break down lignin!<p>- how can he foresee the effects of an externality (release of CO2 by non-natural means) massively affecting the environment?<p>Basically his argument is that the Earth is, right now, in need of terraforming, and that we have arrived at the right moment to do it. Isn't this too much of a coincidence? Sounds too good to be true.
Not really sure why this is news now. According to Wikipedia, Moore has been spouting off on global warming (among other things) for quite some time now, and not without plenty of controversy and criticism.<p>As for the lead-in: just because he was president of Greenpeace decades ago, doesn't automatically make anything he says about modern climate science credible (unless, of course, he's saying what you want to hear...)
> Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is credible and authoritative.<p>Eeehh, no.<p>And the rest of his lecture is the same things debunked time ago