More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

“And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children. And then you’ve got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials. And then you’ve got the green businesses, the rent-seekers, and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this. And then, of course, you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants.”

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/201...-corrupt-scientists-hooked-government-grants/
 


A science professor needs to attract major money grants. With those grants, he or she can offer fellowships to doctoral candidates to do research under his or her tutelage and sponsorship. A science professor who cannot bring federal and related grants to his or her university will not have great graduate students to mentor or the money to conduct great research that can be published in respected professional journals. To qualify for that money, the professor must submit grant applications that persuade funders of the value of the proposed research. So let us be brutally honest here: A professor who seeks serious funding for environmental-science research that questions or debunks aspects of the Theology of Global Warming/ Climate Change will not get funding. He or she will die professionally much sooner than twelve years hence. By contrast, a “scholar” who writes a grant proposal for research to advance the Theology of Global Warming/ Climate Change will get the funding. That is the reason that so many more “scientific” papers advocate the inevitability of it all ending in twelve years. Follow the money.”

https://spectator.org/on-climate-ju...9hZa71xnU9N8fw30XW9i45LI6v-lA-RhipdPy7U15dyMM
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Sir David Attenborough’s long career as a presenter of BBC natural-history programmes first began in 1953 with a three-part series called “Animal Patterns”.

In the seven decades since, he has fronted dozens of iconic series filmed and broadcast around the planet, helping to earn him the status as one of the world’s most respected and influential science communicators.

In 2005, a TV reviewer in the Times even described him as the “most trusted man in Britain”.

Writing in the Independent in 2005, he said:

“I was sceptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf…But I’m no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world. I have waited until the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate.

“The thing that really convinced me was the graphs connecting the increase of CO2 in the environment and the rise in temperature, with the growth of human population and industrialisation. The coincidence of the curves made it perfectly clear we have left the period of natural climatic oscillation behind and have begun on a steep curve, in terms of temperature rise, beyond anything in terms of increases that we have seen over many thousands of years.”

Last month, the Sunday Times interviewer Bryan Appleyard wrote:

“Like the Queen, Attenborough must resist being too opinionated. For a while, this meant he was wary of taking sides in the climate-change argument until he was sure of the facts. About 15 years ago, a lecture by an American scientist, the late Ralph Cicerone, convinced him the evidence was beyond argument and his shows since then have often concluded with a nod to the certainty of global warming.”

In an interview with the Times in 2017 to publicise the Blue Planet II series, the interviewer Andrew Billen wrote:

“After years of pretty taciturn scepticism, Attenborough finally presented two BBC programmes on the subject, Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth?, in 2006. He dates his conversion – and he checks the date in his Filofax – to a lecture the American chemist Ralph Cicerone gave in Liège in Belgium on November 8, [2004]. It was important to speak out only when he knew he had the facts right. It can also be argued that when he did speak out, his warning had more impact as the considered judgment of a cautious man.”

Arguably, the fullest account of Cicerone’s influence came in December 2006 when Attenborough was giving evidence in the House of Commons to an Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee hearing (pdf) on climate change and the “citizen’s agenda”. He was asked by the committee chair, Michael Jack MP, what led him to make the two programmes in 2006:

“One quite precise thing: in November 2004, I went to a lecture given by Prof Cicerone from the United States, who is an expert on atmospheric chemistry. He showed a series of graphs showing world temperature and, critically, population as well as ingredients within the atmosphere. The congruence of those things convinced me beyond any doubt whatever that not only was the climate changing, but that humanity was responsible for that. Until then, one knows that the climate has changed over geological history, and I was not totally sure that this was not just an aberration within the parameters of their ability, but Prof Cicerone’s graphs convinced me beyond any doubt at all.

“It is not my job, of course, to make judgments on these things, my job is to make programmes about wildlife. When the BBC was discussing this I, of course, said, ‘Yes, I believe absolutely so that this is the case and if you want me to go and investigate and talk to people, I will gladly do so.’ The only inhibition I had was that people might think I was setting myself up as an expert on climate technology and climate science, which I am not. Therefore, the programmes were very much an investigation from people such as Dave Reay [Dr Dave Reay of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Geosciences, who was also giving evidence that day], for example, who appeared in one of them and other people to talk about climate and the reality that really is taking place and, secondly, what we can do about it.”



And, so, I didn’t publically go out about climate change – I went public about that we were losing certain species of animals, yes, of course, because you could demonstrate that was the case, and we did – but the issue about climate change was [that] perfectly responsible people were doubting that it was true. So, if you dealt with it, you had to put both voices. Now, if I was in charge of a network or in charge of a programme, it would be irresponsible of me to prejudge that issue while it was controversial.

“In my private capacity, of course, you did something else because you were involved in all kinds of other charitable organisations, or whatever, or indeed academic organisations which took different views. That was proper, too. But the issue of the reality that the temperatures of the world have risen over the past 100 years has been demonstrated beyond question. And, so, it was right and proper that one should assume that and say so. But, of course, there’s a grey area in the middle about what time do you change from being controversial to accepted fact? And that’s up to your own conscience.”

David discusing a few subjects, including climate change, adressing "died in the wool" climate change disbelievers, would he accept an invitation to speak to president Trump amongst other things. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/20...e-change-science-storytelling-blue-planet-ii/
 
Last edited:

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
A perfect example of critical thinking that allows one's self to examine information or data that may or may not conflict with one's beliefs, and coming to a subjective, rational conclusion...what scientists do. Not looking at all facts with the same enthusiasm or objective criticism is shorting both the scientist, or the amateur, and makes neither trustworthy. Conspiracy theories have an insincere connotation for a reason, yet as "enlightened" as the human species is supposed to be, we, as individuals, still desire an embracement of the irrational beliefs that "someone is out to take from me what is mine".
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
...NOT LOOKING AT ALL THE FACTS with the same enthusiasm or objective criticism is shorting both the scientist, or the amateur, and makes neither trustworthy...
Then, given the fact that "the majority of scientists" [we're TOLD] who've declared the facts are, in effect, all in...the "man-made global warming/climate change science debate is OVER"...those who've declared MMGW/CC is settled science...those who've declared MMCC/GW is real and anyone who disagrees is a "science denier" with whom they refuse to debate at all - THEY are, according to the above standards, "untrustworthy"?

Well...finally... ;-)
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
Not at all. The facts will never be all in. A doctor who says you've got terminal cancer based on initial testing and current knowledge of the disease, is logically reviewing the information in front of him. His beliefs of whether a supreme being will save you should have nothing to do with the interpretation of that information. If 9 out of 10 doctors all come to this same conclusion, would you believe the single dissenting opinion only because it aligned with your beliefs, your untrained interpretation of the data? Neither you nor I have enough formal education to make informed statements of the climate issue. What we do is state our opinions on the information that makes us comfortable, which is not science.
Most people believe the earth is round because there is overwhelming evidence that it is, yet some still believe it is flat. These few that believe earth is flat can provide convincing evidence that it is flat if they pick and choose what they present for evidence...but that still doesn't make it true. Round-earthers can do the same, but the evidence is much more extensive and broad that the earth is round, and thus looking at both views and all current data critically, one should come to a conclusion that reflects reality, if one is open to consider all evidence with the same bias or through the same lens. I don't lose any sleep on this other than what we are providing to our grand-kids. They won't have any choice in living in a world resulting from us being too ignorant, narrow sighted, or greedy to preserve the things we enjoyed (clean air, water, vast species diversity, etc).
So I know you're concern about money and all in the cost of attempting to fix our "perceived" climate issues. Take a look so far at what the increased volatility in weather has cost us, and that will be cumulative year after year. This expected result of the warming was in our models decades ago, and those costs are not sustainable. So do we throw our hands up in the air and say, "it's gonna happen anyway, so why change"? Be sure to tell your kids or grandkids that, while they are still too naive to respond intelligently.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
But...but...but, according to multiple MMCC/GW proponents, we're all going to be DEAD in 12 years...and all the MMCC/GM 'cures' proposed to date will take about 100 years to have any effect...so...


"...while they are still too NAIVE to respond INTELLIGENTLY."

I note you've chosen to close with the ole standby, fall back assertion that "all MMCC/GW deniers are stooopid, unedjahmuhcated, science-denyin' dullards".

Well, at least we're intelligent enough to know that no matter how many of the MMCC/GM crowd's theoretical environmental 'cures' might be forced upon the USA, as long as the REST of the world isn't subject to 'em there's not even a >remote possibility< that said 'cures' will accomplish a THING other than bankrupting the USA.


'Nuff' for now. 'Have to finish repairing/restoring the section of fence that the wind leveled a couple of weeks back. :mad:
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
But...but...but, according to multiple MMCC/GW proponents, we're all going to be DEAD in 12 years...and all the MMCC/GM 'cures' proposed to date will take about 100 years to have any effect

:mad:
Larry,

I have never read anything where "multiple MMCC/GW proponents, say we're all going to be DEAD in 12 years". Was it Nostradamus? :)

If you click on the video link I posted above Sir David Attenborough concurs with the majority of the points Terry made, and in fact specifically addresses many of the points and concerns you have been raising on this thread. For example the point that it will possibly take 2 or 3 generations to have an effect, and why all of the world needs to be united on climate change policy. Also, why with explanations, in his opinion it will be more expensive not to do so.
 
Last edited:

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Sir David Attenborough, another pompous windbag of the left. Who cares what this Jurassic Journalist spouts off about?
Quite a few more from all political persuasions than care about you or me!!

David Attenborough's underwater documentary series Blue Planet II was the most-watched TV show of 2017. The 29 October episode - the first of the series - attracted more than 14 million viewers to BBC One. Blue Planet II occupied the top four slots in the end-of-year top 10.

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby,
If you don’t recognize the perspective of the people who do not share your opinion then healthy debate can’t occur and you just become a TROLL.
Ron,

At the risk of proving a pompous windbag myself, (although that may not be all bad, Captain Mainwaring is still held in great affection over here) reluctantly after 10 years I have to agree with you and have reached the conclusion that Bob is actually not interested in debating at all so there is no point trying any more.

Sacré bleu the world may very well stop revolving after that revelation, although I am sure it will bring joy to many ;)
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
Sir David Attenborough, another pompous windbag of the left. Who cares what this Jurassic Journalist spouts off about?
Now that certainly benefits the discussion here. This comment well illustrates the notion that you don't have any intention of promoting debate for the seeking of understanding or truth, but rather to mock or dismiss all who don't agree with your opinion in the matter (let me put on my "shocked face"), It conveys to me you willingly embrace perception over reality, when both are brought into clear focus.

Imagine a world in which everybody did this...wait, it's already headed that way.
 
Top