Climate: The Movie

This is a brilliant synopsis of the current issues:

https://vimeo.com/924719370

I agree. I watched last week.

I have only watched 33 minutes so far. It is a bit like a Party Political Broadcast; it tries to look objective, but does not remotely attempt to give the other Parties' points of view.

There's clearly a market for people who only want to hear one side of this argument. I think it's human nature to want to disbelieve things the more we're told them.

A lot of old, very old or very very old men (not a woman in sight :rolleyes:) spouting their biased nonsense

Is that a metaphor for the FRA forum nowadays :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

A lot of old, very old or very very old men (not a woman in sight :rolleyes:) spouting their biased nonsense

Is that a metaphor for the FRA forum nowadays :D

---

Aside from making a tired sexist, ageist, totalising dismissal (pleased you didn't add in a racist trope too - well done) of acknowledged experts in their fields, you clearly haven't watched it right through, or you'd realise you're wrong. A genuine case of myopia in both observation and thinking?

So what aspects of the Science quoted do you not agree with or wish to challenge? What do you mean by biased? Why is their opinion nonsense? Please don't say it's because you didn't like their shirts or choice of jumpers.

"It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth."

Milan Kundera

Kundera was cancelled by the Communist too, having been staunchly pro-communist, swallowing the prevailing, orthodox, authoritarian narrative of his time while younger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

There's clearly a market for people who only want to hear one side of this argument. I think it's human nature to want to disbelieve things the more we're told them.

---

Totalling agree. And the market seems to be related to Green $. It's a shame, as you say, we don't hear from other experts and thinkers in the field. I'm pleased this movie gives a perspective often not allowed (literally suppressed) to be broadcast.

I have a background in Science, and a particular interest in the underlying philosophy of Science (PhD research interest). Thomas Kuhn, among others provided an interesting perspective on how Science actually progresses (psychological and sociological pressures) and subsequent shifts in paradigms, as opposed to the often described gradual evolution towards 'the truth'. So, it's always important to be mindful of shaping factors: explicit or less so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

I have only watched 33 minutes so far. It is a bit like a Party Political Broadcast; it tries to look objective, but does not remotely attempt to give the other Parties' points of view.

---

I'd be genuinely grateful if you could direct me to any of the very many 'Climate Crisis supportive' videos/films out there that present a serious balanced, "objective" counter argument, within their production, questioning their main thesis. In what ways do any of these appear to 'look objective' compared to Climate The Movie?

Indeed, the very opposite appears to be true, with unrelenting support for the "Crisis" narrative and agreement to suppress other voices. When an alternative range of explanations are so actively suppressed, even someone with a cursory understanding of 'Science" would surely want to raise questions about such dogged determination to preclude information from being debated. Isn't such questioning supposed to be the very foundation of Science? Well, it was when I went to University, although I appreciate there have been some significant shifts in the search for objective 'truth' and 'knowledge' in those institutions today. With, arguably 'objectivity' now being held as 'toxic' if it doesn't accord to SJW preferred ways of seeing the world.

For example, of blanket suppression, see below:

https://wearealbert.org/2021/11/03/b...ontent-pledge/

https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...-documentaries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

So what aspects of the Science quoted do you not agree with or wish to challenge?

---

The bit of bad science that was most obvious to me was where a graph was shown comparing the very slow rate of ocean temperature increase to that of the atmosphere, and then claiming that this meant that global warming was at a very low level. The heat capacity of the ocean is so much greater than that of the atmosphere, so a slow rate of ocean warming is precisely what you would expect. Most of us don't live in the ocean, so the fast rate of atmospheric warming is of greater concern!

Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation. All the climate models do take into account solar variation and a variety of other influences, before trying to tease out the effect of greenhouse gases. And it was interesting to see a graph showing solar activity and global (rural) temperatures, showing that solar activity could explain the cooling from 1940 to 1970, but that there has been continued warming over the last 20 years despite a decrease in solar activity. And on the subject of graphs, there was a tendency throughout the scientific sections of the film to superimpose plots of quantities with different dimensions, which can give a completely misleading impression of the magnitude of one quantity relative to the other: a classic "bad science" technique.

The point that we don't need to worry about warming because the temperature has been much higher over most of the last 500 million years is laughable. Most of us in the Forum live in places where the underlying geology is sedimentary rock: the place was under water for much of the last 500 million years. We might just consider a rapid transition back to those conditions to be an emergency!

It is true, as claimed in the movie, that scientists can feel under pressure to produce results in accord with what their funding sources want. So why was it not mentioned that at least some of the scientists interviewed were funded by the fossil fuel industry?

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments. In fact, most governments have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting that climate change needs to be mitigated. The fact that they are making a hash of it, e.g. by denying poor countries the technology they need, doesn't negate that need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

Aside from making a tired sexist, ageist, totalising dismissal (pleased you didn't add in a racist trope too - well done) of acknowledged experts in their fields, you clearly haven't watched it right through, or you'd realise you're wrong. A genuine case of myopia in both observation and thinking?

So what aspects of the Science quoted do you not agree with or wish to challenge? What do you mean by biased? Why is their opinion nonsense? Please don't say it's because you didn't like their shirts or choice of jumpers.

"It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth."

Milan Kundera

Kundera was cancelled by the Communist too, having been staunchly pro-communist, swallowing the prevailing, orthodox, authoritarian narrative of his time while younger.

---

A film chocka with climate change denialists spouting their Micky mouse climate change denialism, made by a climate change denialist, produced by a climate change denialist and financed by fossil fuels and climate change denialists - I’m totally stunned at the final conclusions :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

There's clearly a market for people who only want to hear one side of this argument.

---

Yes, they tend to have watched the BBC, Sky News, C4 over the years. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Yes, they tend to have watched the BBC, Sky News, C4 over the years. :p

---

So David Attenborough was lying all along :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

A film chocka with climate change denialists spouting their Micky mouse climate change denialism, made by a climate change denialist, produced by a climate change denialist and financed by fossil fuels and climate change denialists - I’m totally stunned at the final conclusions :D

---

Useful, insightful stuff again Brian. You should try name-calling occasionally and avoid such well thought out contributions.

Many of these folk have contributed to IPCC output over the years.

What happens is, every few years there's a clear out of those at the most skeptical end of the argument, therefore shifting the average position further in the "desired" direction.
A method not exclusive to Climate "Science".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

A lot of old, very old or very very old men (not a woman in sight :rolleyes:) spouting their biased nonsense

---

Just like David Attenborough ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Yes, they tend to have watched the BBC, Sky News, C4 over the years. :p

---

The BBC tend to get stick from both extremes of any argument. Partly this is because they go out of their way to be fair, balanced and ensure their claims are supported by evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llani Boy

Just like David Attenborough ;)

---

The difference being he’s not funded by the pro fossil fuel lobby and has nothing but the interests of the natural world and the future of humanity at heart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

A film chocka with climate change denialists spouting their Micky mouse climate change denialism, made by a climate change denialist, produced by a climate change denialist and financed by fossil fuels and climate change denialists - I’m totally stunned at the final conclusions :D

---

You do appear to be fixated, again, on a 'shirts and jumpers' dismissal rather than the Science and data. ;) I think the largest error you make is to completely misunderstand that no one is 'a climate change denier' despite the Tourettes-like repetition in the post. Quite the opposite - they're saying that the climate does, and HAS/IS/Will, always be/been changing as long as there is an atmosphere. When the 'Climate Alarmists' resort to name-calling, denigration, censorship and , claims of 'the science is settled' and brand skeptics as 'deniers' something other than science is going on.

Moreover, there is no real way to falsify alarmist claims and predictions and models as each one relies on the same assumption that human activity is the primary cause.


However,

Fundamentally, the debate is over a series of linked questions, which include.

Whether the climate change is 'natural' or 'manmade'.

Whether the change constitutes a 'crisis' or not.

Additionally, whether we're in a cold/cool period returning to a natural warmer/hotter period, or if we're in an exceptionally hot period which is getting hotter.

If it is a 'crisis', whether it's something we can do anything practical to stop, such as by changing our behaviour as humans globally.

If it is the case that climate change is not man-made, then whether the 'algae bloom' of Green Crisis Capitalism, together with the focus on CO2 as the primary culprit (debatable, if only we're allowed to debate this) and the mass global justifies the impoverishing of ordinary people, particularly the poor here and those in developing countries, in a wastefully futile, unnecessarily cruel and manipulatively totalitarian way.

If it is man-made, and we can practically intervene, whether the espouse policies currently being promoted now are ... mass global impoverishing of ordinary people, particularly the poor here and those in developing countries, in a wastefully futile, cruel and manipulatively totalitarian way. Especially if 3/4s of the global population by their clearly evident behaviour are hoodwinking the West into 'degrowth' policies and de-industrialisation. How far are we willing to degrade our society, and for how long, and massively weaken our industrial and energy securities in the face of some very nasty regimes doing the opposite and building up their capacities in these areas?

Other questions we should be considering - if only open debate was permissible - is even if we were to accept climate change to be wholly natural, and that we're in a cold period returning to an more warmer/hotter average, over which we have absolutely no control, what impact is this going to have on modern technological societies and human wellbeing globally? How, if possible, could we mitigate or accommodate the change for future generations (without default to another neo-Marxist dystopia).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

The BBC tend to get stick from both extremes of any argument. Partly this is because they go out of their way to be fair, balanced and ensure their claims are supported by evidence.

---

The BBC get stick from me because they go out of their way to NOT to be balanced.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rong-too-often

6 years ago Noel.

I've linked to Brian's favourite paper, so it must be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

The difference being he’s not funded by the pro fossil fuel lobby and has nothing but the interests of the natural world and the future of humanity at heart

---

I bet he's rocked up some airmiles over the years.

I remember watching Life on Earth with amazement. Great programme and should be compulsory viewing for school kids.

Is the source of funding a relevant issue? I would tend to think as he's paid by the BBC he has the interests of the BBC at heart.
If we looked at funding streams before we allowed anyone to pontificate in public on Climate, I'd probably jump towards the top of the list of eligible bookings :D
Me and Brian on the Daily Politics :D

Back to the Guardian, George Monbiot - I imagine you have a poster on your wall :D - believes Attenborough has betrayed the world he loves and has "generated complacency, confusion and ignorance"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

You do appear to be fixated, again, on a 'shirts and jumpers' dismissal rather than the Science and data. ;) I think the largest error you make is to completely misunderstand that no one is 'a climate change denier' despite the Tourettes-like repetition in the post. Quite the opposite - they're saying that the climate does, and HAS/IS/Will, always be/been changing as long as there is an atmosphere. When the 'Climate Alarmists' resort to name-calling, denigration, censorship and , claims of 'the science is settled' and brand skeptics as 'deniers' something other than science is going on.

Moreover, there is no real way to falsify alarmist claims and predictions and models as each one relies on the same assumption that human activity is the primary cause.


However,

Fundamentally, the debate is over a series of linked questions, which include.

Whether the climate change is 'natural' or 'manmade'.

Whether the change constitutes a 'crisis' or not.

Additionally, whether we're in a cold/cool period returning to a natural warmer/hotter period, or if we're in an exceptionally hot period which is getting hotter.

If it is a 'crisis', whether it's something we can do anything practical to stop, such as by changing our behaviour as humans globally.

If it is the case that climate change is not man-made, then whether the 'algae bloom' of Green Crisis Capitalism, together with the focus on CO2 as the primary culprit (debatable, if only we're allowed to debate this) and the mass global justifies the impoverishing of ordinary people, particularly the poor here and those in developing countries, in a wastefully futile, unnecessarily cruel and manipulatively totalitarian way.

If it is man-made, and we can practically intervene, whether the espouse policies currently being promoted now are ... mass global impoverishing of ordinary people, particularly the poor here and those in developing countries, in a wastefully futile, cruel and manipulatively totalitarian way. Especially if 3/4s of the global population by their clearly evident behaviour are hoodwinking the West into 'degrowth' policies and de-industrialisation. How far are we willing to degrade our society, and for how long, and massively weaken our industrial and energy securities in the face of some very nasty regimes doing the opposite and building up their capacities in these areas?

Other questions we should be considering - if only open debate was permissible - is even if we were to accept climate change to be wholly natural, and that we're in a cold period returning to an more warmer/hotter average, over which we have absolutely no control, what impact is this going to have on modern technological societies and human wellbeing globally? How, if possible, could we mitigate or accommodate the change for future generations (without default to another neo-Marxist dystopia).

---

My offer to those concerned is to crack on with an expansion of Nuclear.

It's green.
It's reliable.
It covers us for 60 years once up and running.
It would allow us to export to the EU and maybe beyond, turning around the current capital flows linked to energy.
It would allow us to increase grid capacity so more folk could chose to buy EVs if they like.

But I almost always get a no, with excuses, mostly claiming it's too expensive.

That suggests to me this is not a pragmatic "let's do the best for the planet" but a Malthusian reaction viewing the human race as a virus on the planet, which brings us back to David Attenborough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

The bit of bad science that was most obvious to me was where a graph was shown comparing the very slow rate of ocean temperature increase to that of the atmosphere, and then claiming that this meant that global warming was at a very low level. The heat capacity of the ocean is so much greater than that of the atmosphere, so a slow rate of ocean warming is precisely what you would expect. Most of us don't live in the ocean, so the fast rate of atmospheric warming is of greater concern!

Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation. All the climate models do take into account solar variation and a variety of other influences, before trying to tease out the effect of greenhouse gases. And it was interesting to see a graph showing solar activity and global (rural) temperatures, showing that solar activity could explain the cooling from 1940 to 1970, but that there has been continued warming over the last 20 years despite a decrease in solar activity. And on the subject of graphs, there was a tendency throughout the scientific sections of the film to superimpose plots of quantities with different dimensions, which can give a completely misleading impression of the magnitude of one quantity relative to the other: a classic "bad science" technique.

The point that we don't need to worry about warming because the temperature has been much higher over most of the last 500 million years is laughable. Most of us in the Forum live in places where the underlying geology is sedimentary rock: the place was under water for much of the last 500 million years. We might just consider a rapid transition back to those conditions to be an emergency!

It is true, as claimed in the movie, that scientists can feel under pressure to produce results in accord with what their funding sources want. So why was it not mentioned that at least some of the scientists interviewed were funded by the fossil fuel industry?

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments. In fact, most governments have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting that climate change needs to be mitigated. The fact that they are making a hash of it, e.g. by denying poor countries the technology they need, doesn't negate that need.

---

Anthony - a thoughtful response and I appreciate that.

I'm going to try and re-watch it myself over Easter weekend. I'll take on board your comments when I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

Fundamentally, the debate is over a series of linked questions, which include.

Whether the climate change is 'natural' or 'manmade'.

---

Let's start with this one. I think there's a lot of evidence on this. Who do you trust to give you an answer on this? Have you looked at the evidence? What are your concerns about the existing body of evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonykay

The bit of bad science that was most obvious to me was where a graph was shown comparing the very slow rate of ocean temperature increase to that of the atmosphere, and then claiming that this meant that global warming was at a very low level. The heat capacity of the ocean is so much greater than that of the atmosphere, so a slow rate of ocean warming is precisely what you would expect. Most of us don't live in the ocean, so the fast rate of atmospheric warming is of greater concern!

Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation. All the climate models do take into account solar variation and a variety of other influences, before trying to tease out the effect of greenhouse gases. And it was interesting to see a graph showing solar activity and global (rural) temperatures, showing that solar activity could explain the cooling from 1940 to 1970, but that there has been continued warming over the last 20 years despite a decrease in solar activity. And on the subject of graphs, there was a tendency throughout the scientific sections of the film to superimpose plots of quantities with different dimensions, which can give a completely misleading impression of the magnitude of one quantity relative to the other: a classic "bad science" technique.

The point that we don't need to worry about warming because the temperature has been much higher over most of the last 500 million years is laughable. Most of us in the Forum live in places where the underlying geology is sedimentary rock: the place was under water for much of the last 500 million years. We might just consider a rapid transition back to those conditions to be an emergency!

It is true, as claimed in the movie, that scientists can feel under pressure to produce results in accord with what their funding sources want. So why was it not mentioned that at least some of the scientists interviewed were funded by the fossil fuel industry?

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments. In fact, most governments have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into accepting that climate change needs to be mitigated. The fact that they are making a hash of it, e.g. by denying poor countries the technology they need, doesn't negate that need.

---

NOT A DUPLICATE Yes, thanks for that reply Anthony and some interesting issues/points raised, some of which I want to return to, and to look at the original sources to check out and ponder. But for now, with my Sally session ticked off; too much screen time racking up; and the indoor rower beckoning, I have to log off.

FOR SOME REASON I WASN'T ABLE TO REPLY DIRECTLY UNDER ANTHONY'S POST...hey ho

Yes, thanks for that reply Anthony and some interesting issues/points raised, some of which I want to return to, and to look at the original sources to check out and ponder. But for now, with my Sally session ticked off; too much screen time racking up; and the indoor rower beckoning, I have to log off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Let's start with this one. I think there's a lot of evidence on this. Who do you trust to give you an answer on this? Have you looked at the evidence? What are your concerns about the existing body of evidence?

---

All good questions. I'll say for now (gotta dash) "Karl Popper" and his theory of scientific falsification is a good starting point, but not without reservations.

https://youtu.be/5Peima-Uw7w?si=HXhslSNtOcP_Yl0q

A massive debunk straight from the movie’s Twitter page :D

https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1771...SbaMdViefg5XqA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

A massive debunk straight from the movie’s Twitter page :D

https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1771...SbaMdViefg5XqA

---

Let's just think a mo... there's an eminent group of world-renowned scientists and researchers, examining climate topics for many years, amongst them: Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) as well as Dr Roy Spencer, Prof Ross McKitrick, Prof Henrik Svensmark, and Dr Willie Soon.

And then there's Maarten Keulemans. Would that be the same Maarteen Keuleman who describes himself as a Dutch science journalist and writer.

Keulemans studied Cultural anthropology (one of the early adopting subjects of self-flagellating postmodern wokism) and History.

And is he the Maarten Keulemans who is also the author of the website exitmundi http://exitmundi.nl/ "a collection of end-of-the-world scenarios"? That is, a fully paid up member of the 'We're Allll Doomed, I tell ye' club. In his own words "Welcome to the outskirts of reality. Welcome to the place where theoretical physics and philosophy meet, and where religion and science loose their meaning. Better fasten your mental seatbelts. What we�re about to tell you is just too weird. Too mind-boggling. And quite disturbing, really."

He's got Twitter form in other areas too:https://virusvaria.nl/en/ongehoorde-...lemans-deel-2/

I'm amazed, surprised and saddened that grown men on this forum do not believe that Global warming is happening and that it has a human cause. Ignoring an overwhelming body of sound scientific evidence, and signs all around us. Please don't bother replying to my post, as you can't push water uphill - just keep your heads in the sand. What a legacy we are leaving for our children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattPo

I'm amazed, surprised and saddened that grown men on this forum do not believe that Global warming is happening and that it has a human cause. Ignoring an overwhelming body of sound scientific evidence, and signs all around us. Please don't bother replying to my post, as you can't push water uphill - just keep your heads in the sand. What a legacy we are leaving for our children.

---

Well said!

It’s like a self feeding cult of bullshit shouters and bullshit believers, and I’m fast losing track of what came first and what nutcase idea will come next. Donald Trump and Boris and loads of others have proven that you can pretty much say anything, anything at all, and there are no end of zealots that will buy the message hook line and sinker and spread it :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Well said!

It’s like a self feeding cult of bullshit shouters and bullshit believers, and I’m fast losing track of what came first and what nutcase idea will come next. Donald Trump and Boris and loads of others have proven that you can pretty much say anything, anything at all, and there are no end of zealots that will buy the message hook line and sinker and spread it :(

---

Seconded

So the last 3 posts sum it up.

MattPo who wants to come in and not be challenged while straw-manning certainly me and I would say Mossdog and the film makers.
And really being careless with his words - "it has a human cause"
Only a human cause?
Or humans have contributed?
You can reply if you like and clarify.
I don't comment on such matters lightly as I have 3 children and 5 grandchildren. Disagree by all means, but deal with the issues.

Brian - for yet again just having a little hissy-fit but not making a cogent point.

Stanley - well you've seconded a word salad :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

I am reminded of a junior doctor who worked with me many years ago. Medicine was their second degree, so they were several years older than most juniors at their level of medical experience. An excellent doctor - I would have been happy for them to look after me and my family - good company, fun to be with - and yet they were one of those who believed in the literal truth of the bible, and that, for example, the earth was only a few thousand years old.

Their other degree? Physics! We used to discuss relativity and quantum mechanics.

Disagreeing strongly with somebody on an important topic does not make them a bad person.

And when it comes to green issues, climate change "deniers" - a very loose term I know - are probably not trashing the planet any more than climate change believers. Look at some of the founders of The Green Runners - huge carbon footprints.

Regarding whether climate change is problematic, I started out as an agnostic, but as an agnostic I’m sceptical when a group of people claim ‘certainty’. For example, when we have the likes of The Guardian, and other largely Left-wing rags, claiming:

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans: Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...used-by-humans

Even Kim Jong Un would blush to have claimed such overwhelming near unanimous support in his North Korean Socialist paradise.

But just like Kim Jong, and his mate Putin, we read from the Guardian, of an urgent need and “calls to curb ‘disinformation”, that is, to closedown the debate on Science so profoundly that you have to ask whether the climate alarmist agenda is maybe a radical cypher for something else going on - politically and economically ($trillions in maintaining the narrative).

If the climatists’ belief is wrong, this policy’s implication has/is having catastrophic implications for ordinary people on this planet. We see already top-down, we-know-better-than-you-Proles, imposition of policies and the intrusive micro management of our live. Strangely, no referendum here offered to people on policies that will drastically alter their standard of living and their kids. These policies dictate control of what we can eat; how many children we can have; how we travel and how far; what choices we have in the goods we buy; etc.

All justified in the fight to overcome the ever present, just over the horizon, existential crisis. Odd how these often appear to eminent from a negative view of humankind. And just in case you’re getting too confident, just today I heard on the BBC that…wait for it…the climate crisis is ”slowing the earth’s rotation’. If that carries on dogs will walk backwards; bananas will grow straight; we’ll all be doomed to watching contest repeats of It’s A Knock Out.

These radical environmentalists even plan to criminalise large-scale industrial enterprise (but only in the West - so China, India and elsewhere get a free pass to keep on polluting and gaining global power). To be more precise, they plan to categorise wealth-producing and job-creating activities as a crime known as “ecocide,” a transgression that activists want legislated internationally as “the fifth international crime against peace.” Ecocide would equate large-scale development activities with genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity – actions that could land their perpetrators in the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The “ecocide” movement pretends it aims to prevent pollution, but it is really a spear aimed at the heart of capitalism, intended to throttle human thriving in the name of “saving the planet.” Indeed, it is important to note that ecocide would not be limited to punishing polluters. Rather, practically any large-scale human enterprise that makes use of the fruits of the Earth would qualify as a potentially heinous “crime against peace.” The stop-ecocide website https://www.stopecocide.earth/ includes not just polluting but non-polluting industries. Some environmentalists even include electricity-generating windmills, because they kill millions of birds each year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

I am reminded of a junior doctor who worked with me many years ago. Medicine was their second degree, so they were several years older than most juniors at their level of medical experience. An excellent doctor - I would have been happy for them to look after me and my family - good company, fun to be with - and yet they were one of those who believed in the literal truth of the bible, and that, for example, the earth was only a few thousand years old.

Their other degree? Physics! We used to discuss relativity and quantum mechanics.

Disagreeing strongly with somebody on an important topic does not make them a bad person.

And when it comes to green issues, climate change "deniers" - a very loose term I know - are probably not trashing the planet any more than climate change believers. Look at some of the founders of The Green Runners - huge carbon footprints.

---

Someone I know is a world authority in his field. Cambridge Double First then a PhD, hundreds of publications, many published books, etc. Respect.

He is also a devout Catholic by choice (ie not because he was brought up in that non-sensical, mumbo-jumbo faith). So clearly a fruit cake.

He is also my brother and we get on well together.

Life is a rich tapestry.
















faithsie . coice aions etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mossdog

Regarding whether climate change is problematic, I started out as an agnostic, but as an agnostic I’m sceptical when a group of people claim ‘certainty’. For example, when we have the likes of The Guardian, and other largely Left-wing rags, claiming:

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans: Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...used-by-humans

Even Kim Jong Un would blush to have claimed such overwhelming near unanimous support in his North Korean Socialist paradise.

But just like Kim Jong, and his mate Putin, we read from the Guardian, of an urgent need and “calls to curb ‘disinformation”, that is, to closedown the debate on Science so profoundly that you have to ask whether the climate alarmist agenda is maybe a radical cypher for something else going on - politically and economically ($trillions in maintaining the narrative).

If the climatists’ belief is wrong, this policy’s implication has/is having catastrophic implications for ordinary people on this planet. We see already top-down, we-know-better-than-you-Proles, imposition of policies and the intrusive micro management of our live. Strangely, no referendum here offered to people on policies that will drastically alter their standard of living and their kids. These policies dictate control of what we can eat; how many children we can have; how we travel and how far; what choices we have in the goods we buy; etc.

All justified in the fight to overcome the ever present, just over the horizon, existential crisis. Odd how these often appear to eminent from a negative view of humankind. And just in case you’re getting too confident, just today I heard on the BBC that…wait for it…the climate crisis is ”slowing the earth’s rotation’. If that carries on dogs will walk backwards; bananas will grow straight; we’ll all be doomed to watching contest repeats of It’s A Knock Out.

These radical environmentalists even plan to criminalise large-scale industrial enterprise (but only in the West - so China, India and elsewhere get a free pass to keep on polluting and gaining global power). To be more precise, they plan to categorise wealth-producing and job-creating activities as a crime known as “ecocide,” a transgression that activists want legislated internationally as “the fifth international crime against peace.” Ecocide would equate large-scale development activities with genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity – actions that could land their perpetrators in the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The “ecocide” movement pretends it aims to prevent pollution, but it is really a spear aimed at the heart of capitalism, intended to throttle human thriving in the name of “saving the planet.” Indeed, it is important to note that ecocide would not be limited to punishing polluters. Rather, practically any large-scale human enterprise that makes use of the fruits of the Earth would qualify as a potentially heinous “crime against peace.” The stop-ecocide website https://www.stopecocide.earth/ includes not just polluting but non-polluting industries. Some environmentalists even include electricity-generating windmills, because they kill millions of birds each year.

---

More reactionary rubbish!
You should spend more time outside - you live in a lovely part of the world. Count your blessings.

Many who attempt to conduct any debate on these important questions have become particularly concerned how what was and should be primarily a debate about the science, has descended into a name-calling, yah-booing, foot stamping and, sadly, much worse, aggressive attack on anyone, even the most eminent of scientist in the field, who has the temerity to raise questions about the prevailing orthodoxy. It really has become a fascistic doomsday cult.

Andy West’s, The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grip-Cultur.../dp/1838074740

explores the rise of this new faith – of climate catastrophism, which he argues is instinctively accepted or rejected.

Likewise, the rise of this doom-cult and it’s acolytes has been noticed by such eminent scientists as Professor As Professor Judith Curry, professor emerita of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Curry observed how the now unscientific Cult of the “climate crisis” and its “existential threat” extends its tentacles to all aspects of our lives and economies, science and reason has left the room in our thinking about this issue!

I'm grateful to those who have contributed an apposite demonstration which proves the above point.

Many who attempt to conduct any debate on these important questions have become particularly concerned how what was and should be primarily a debate about the science, has descended into a name-calling, yah-booing, foot stamping and, sadly, much worse, aggressive attack on anyone, even the most eminent of scientist in the field, who has the temerity to raise questions about the prevailing orthodoxy. It really has become a fascistic doomsday cult.

Andy West’s, The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grip-Cultur.../dp/1838074740

explores the rise of this new faith – of climate catastrophism, which he argues is instinctively accepted or rejected.

Likewise, the rise of this doom-cult and it’s acolytes has been noticed by such eminent scientists as Professor As Professor Judith Curry, professor emerita of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Curry observed how the now unscientific Cult of the “climate crisis” and its “existential threat” extends its tentacles to all aspects of our lives and economies, science and reason has left the room in our thinking about this issue!

I'm grateful to those who have contributed an apposite demonstration which proves the above point.

Thanks Matt for the edit and advice.

“Debate???”

There is nothing here to debate despite all the yard long diatribes from mossdog and WP. This is all about proven and overwhelmingly scientifically accepted research and known facts vs a half arsed video that purposely re-constructs and re-charts facts (or chooses to include charts ignoring the past 20 years :rolleyes:) or just down right invents new ones to fit the bill :D