Climate: The Movie

[Witton Park]

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.

[Fellbeast]

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

So David Attenborough was lying all along

[Witton Park]

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

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".

[Llani Boy]

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

Just like David Attenborough

[noel]

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

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.

[Fellbeast]

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

[Mossdog]

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

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).

[Witton Park]

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.

[Witton Park]

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
Me and Brian on the Daily Politics

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

[Witton Park]

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.