Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock UN Climate Summit – ‘Climate Hustle’ To Have Red Carpet Premiere in Paris
The BBC is blitzing us with unadulterated pro-man-made climate change propaganda with green activists allowed free rein on the airwaves to say the most outrageous things….then repeated with sincere, uncritical approval by the BBC presenters.
What we are being told is that CO2 is the cause of global warming…..em…except where’s the proof? Not only is there no proof of that but in fact CO2 is not the most powerful so-called greenhouse gas…water vapour is. Is water vapour a pollutant? CO2 is being denounced as a pollutant, one that the West is guilty of having produced and now we must pay the price for our sins…our moral obligation to fund the corrupt third world countries whose politiicans know a good scam when they see one. Lovely new airport in the Maldives.…shame it will be under water very soon, won’t it?…what optimism those Maldivian politicians must have.
Curious that the world is about to burn if we don’t reduce CO2 emissions to, well, zero, if you believe, and yet, such is the urgency and the danger that nations like China, India and Brazil, which are pumping out huge quantities of CO2 emissions, are to be allowed to keep on pumping. Odd that. Anyone looking on with an impartial eye might think that those demanding the West close down its industry whilst allowing other nations to ramp up theirs might, just might, have an agenda that is completely unrelated to the climate.
Anyway here’s a reminder of just what the BBC produces on behalf of the climate lobby, just one of many, many films the BBC airs in order to manufacture our consent….
‘Climate Change – Britain Under Threat’
And here’s what they don’t want you to see:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Nice to see that an old hero of the BBCs was one of the first to speak on their much publicised favourite subject in Paris..
Is that bastard still alive or is it a double ?
Diane Abbot without her wig. Have you ever seen them together?
Rob, LOL. Need ask Corbyn what Diane looks like without her wig !
The BBC have supported the climate change protesters, filling their heads with climate change propaganda. Today they smashed up the shrine for the Paris victims and thrown the candles at the police. These people are Nazis, ISIS fellow travellers and scum who ought to be denounced by the BBC as enemies of civilization. Bastards.
No prizes for guessing which side the BBC is on.
Has the BBC reported this ?
Not yet. The BBC chose to present the climate ‘activists’ as arty folk who put up some daring political posters. Nothing violent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34958282
See other news. Where is Emma Thomson?
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/11/30/paris-riot-police-clash-with-activists.html
They actually set fire to some of the tributes left at that scene. Scum.
So of course the BBC did not cover it. Birds of a feather …….
Alan: “Not only is there no proof of that but in fact CO2 is not the most powerful so-called greenhouse gas…water vapour is.”
But methane, IIRC, is worse than both of those. Methane pops up in all sorts of places, including as the BBC pointed out last week on R4 {please don’t ask which programme! – may have been EwanYores or WatO/WTW} , from landfill waste that contains discarded food.
Before 2011, apart from Piers Corbyn, we all thought water vapour was the main Greenhouse Gas. But then that still did not produce any answers. Then the paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) proved that Nitrogen must be the main Greenhouse Gas for the Earth, so Piers was correct. Alan, things are much worse than you think. If you abandon the Arrhenius method, you remove the Brainwashing, so the GWPF must take Piers Corbyn seriously, as he was never brainwashed.
But if you can control CO2 you can control the planet. We all breathe out plant food.
Correct Up2snuff- An ecologist and environmentalist for more than 45 years,Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore recently addressed the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London- he has become sceptical of man-made global warming.
The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be sceptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”. But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees. Tonight I hope to turn this dangerous human-caused propaganda on its head. I will demonstrate that human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die in less than two million years from today.
CO2 is the currency of life and the most important building block for all life on Earth. All life is carbon-based, including our own. Surely the carbon cycle and its central role in the creation of life should be taught to our children rather than the demonization of CO2, that “carbon” is a “pollutant” that threatens the continuation of life. We know for a fact that CO2 is essential for life and that it must be at a certain level in the atmosphere for the survival of plants, which are the primary food for all the other species alive today. Should we not encourage our citizens, students, teachers, politicians, scientists, and other leaders to celebrate CO2 as the giver of life that it is?
Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter. CO2 is the giver of life and we should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.’ And he also makes the comment that-carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the stuff of life, the staff of life, the currency of life, indeed the backbone of life on Earth. BUT continually such hogwash as is pushed out by those that want to control our lives one way or another aided by the fabiens edging with stealth their wretched policies.
Oh dear – the Dunning-Kruger Effect writ large. There are so many errors in your post it’s difficult to know where to start, You claim that 2000 ppm of CO2 is the optimum level for plant growth. Can you cite a source? You need to educate yourself about plant physiology and the biochemistry of photosynthesis. Try reading about C3 and C4 plants, photorespiration and the law of limiting factors for a better understanding of the potentially harmful impact of rising temperatues on food crops.
Scientists have proven that our planet had 7000 ppm in the distant past, and look at our luscious green planet today.
it’s in the science Marvin…
Brain the size of a planet…. and yet….
Always interesting who ventures out in the smallest of hours.
Maybe Marvin’s day job is trampling over floral tributes in Paris?
‘Distant past’ is the clue. You have to go back 450 million years to encounter CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, a time when land plants were just beginning to evolve. Since then, evolution and artificial selection have produced crop plants which do not photosynthesise efficiently at raised levels of C02.
Plant quality is impaired by increased carbon dioxide levels.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html
The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77
Thank you for the link. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point that webpage is making. The headline above that quotation is: Climate Myth: CO2 was higher in the past. The content goes on to debunk that claim that high levels of CO2 in the past did not lead to global warming.
‘Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.’
No, I was just testing to see if you were up for this or just passing through.
But hey, funny they should consider the sun has so much influence when CO2 levels are high but temperatures aren’t? Is that part of the ‘settled’ science, like it took Kevin ‘We can’t explain the lack of warming and it’s a travesty that we can’t’ Trenberth and his pals 6 years to decide the last 18 years of warming had disappeared into the oceans, but only after they’d fiddled the data from Schmidt’s brand new temperature-measuring buoys which were showing an inconvenient cooling. Oh, and by the way there is no reliable historical ocean temperature data records to measure against prior to Schmidt’s Argo beginning rollout in 1999 (in fact Southern Hemisphere ocean data was non-existent).
Then there’s the fiddling with the data which gives you the warming you cravenly desire for your eco-socialist agenda:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.Cyulo9cv.lHEJ2imJ.dpbs
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/giss-hockey-stick-adjustments/
But please answer one question: why doesn’t the scientific evidence give you hope that the earth might not be going to hell in a global warming handcart after all? Why are you in such denial of the evidence when it offers so much hope?
The ratio of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere and Oceans in the past has been found to depend on the Atmospheric pressure, as well as the temperature. In the last 50 million years this correlates with a drop in the atmospheric pressure of almost one bar, or in other words a halving of the Earths atmospheric pressure at the surface due to half of the mass of the Earths atmosphere being lost. The 400 ppm today is due to changes in the temperature of the Oceans over a thousand year period. Ice Core data shows that it always correlates with Global temperatures 800 years ago. The medieval warm period peaked about that time.
‘Plant quality is impaired by increased carbon dioxide levels’.
Que ?
This may help:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html
What rising temperatures? Where’ve you been for the past 18 years, practicing with your hockey stick?
I’ve spent a lot of the last 18 years practising with my hockey stick but what does how I spend my Saturday afternoons got to do with anything?
Meanwhile, the world is warming
‘The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.’
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/
‘The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.’
1. Temperature rise in the last 18 years has been statistically insignificant, unless you accept shamefully-adjusted (and adjusted, and adjusted) temperature records as evidence (see post above).
2. The lack of warming was not predicted by a single climate model (you know, those based on the ‘settled science’).
3. There is no proof this is just a pause as opposed to the Earth entering a cooling phase.
4. The gradual warming trend has been evident since the last Ice Age and since the Little Ice Age untampered temperature records show alternate warming and cooling periods but, nonetheless, an overall trend upwards (as you’d expect after a cooling). In fact, do you remember when, towards the end of the post-war cooling, scientists told us CO2 was bringing us the next Ice Age? Or are you too young? Have a dive down the BBC’s Memory Hole and have a good laugh here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
5. There is no proven link between man-made CO2 and atmospheric temperature. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (2001 IPCC Working Group 1 Report)
6. Please point to any statement in the IPCC report, supported by scientific evidence, which states categorically any warming is due to man-made CO2 (and I don’t mean the hysterical and hilarious eco-political ‘Summary for Policymakers’.
7. Climate models have been comprehensively disproven by scientific evidence. According to the scientific method the man-made global warming hypothesis is therefore bust. End of.
Keep practising with that Hockey Stick – I believe they’re very good for digging holes.
Am I missing something?
Given all the publicity by Al Beeb and the rest of the MSM for the case for ‘Global Warming’, ‘Climate Change’ or whatever you wish to call it, why are we not experiencing any global warming trolls or ‘pro warming’ scientists posting on this site?
Are they being blocked or are they afraid to challenge the common sense posters?
Over to you Jason, Scott, anyone?
At first I used to get trolls that where obviously very confident scientists, then they just faded away.
Censorship is now the policy: They insist that the debate is over, the science is settled.
But there seems to be another tactic. An attempt to gain credibility while at the same time holding back the more dangerous information, by paying bogus climate sceptics to infiltrated the Luke-warm believers.
The bogus sceptics can be identified by the fact that they never bring up the existence of the “Pause”, what “Pause”, I have never heard of the ” Pause”?
Yes, I have also noticed the sceptophobic response is now rarer than it was (but see ‘Marvin’ above), and is now more often ‘sceptomimic’ output. But even this is uncommon – I think the carbophobes are tiring of losing the actual arguments, and having their scientific pretensions repeatedly exposed for what they are.
The BBC – sceptophobic, apostaphobic, dextrophobic and photophobic.
Climate fascists have refused to engage in ‘debate’ with informed sceptics. They are cowards, intellectually and morally. They are running scared, knowing full well that the moment they face up to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the science and a media-savvy presence they will be outed as the serial frauds they so clearly are.
This is why the BBC hides behind it’s duplicitous ‘due partiality’ clause when refusing to air the opinions of informed sceptics. It is pure scientific cowardice – there really is no other word for it. The BBC talks about ‘having a debate’ – as if just saying it can somehow make it real – the truth is that the BBC (along with almost all of the rest of the msm) does not want a ‘debate’ about so-called ‘climate change’. They run a mile from ever – ever – engaging with informed sceptics because they know very well that when the grubby little rock they and their pro-CAGW pals are hiding under is turned over and exposed to real scientific fact and method their entire house of cards will very quickly come tumbling down.
This is why CAGW is a mass deception. It relies on the willing, complicit maintenance of censorship to survive – luckily for the eco-zealots all the msm and most western governments have all signed-up to the collusion. They’ve all agreed that the best way to keep the deception alive is by refusing to engage with informed critics; by declaring falsely that the ‘science is settled’ (it isn’t, not by a long mark) and that anyone who dissents is a heretic, to be ostracised, to be excommunicated.
Liberal fascism, writ large. So much for the ‘debate’.
Climate fascists have refused to engage in ‘debate’ with informed sceptics. They are cowards, intellectually and morally. They are running scared, knowing full well that the moment they face up to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the science and a media-savvy presence they will be outed as the serial frauds they so clearly are.
Like this one, OW?
The verbal gymnastics aka squirming like a skewered pig – from a so-called scientist – are something to behold. But like most of us on here you will ask yourself the inevitable question: ‘How DO they get away with it?’
More CO2 and warmer would be better for agriculture. More food = less hunger. But hunger = control of the population and that is the game in town.
‘More CO2 and warmer would be better for agriculture.’
No it isn’t. Sorry to debunk your conspiracy theory but I’m sure you have others at hand.
Wow! Your debunking skills are just awesome.
P.S. Where is you’re appearing in pantomime this year?
Tell that to the salad crop producers, in the Almeria region of Spain, who artificially raise the CO2 levels in the poly tunnels to improve yields. As I said, it is not about the science and “saving the planet”. It is about controlling the masses.
Liberal fascism, writ large. So much for the ‘debate’.
Most scientists agree that Climate Change “has nothing to do with Islam”, though some politicians believe that Climate Change caused the growth ISIS and not vice versa. The science is not yet settled though.
BBC’s Matthew Price has flown to Vanuatu to stroll on a beach emoting about climate change, and it is alllll over FaceBook. Every single BBC page is sharing every other one.
However, looking at the comments, things are not quite going to plan.
Just to lighten things up, has anyone else noticed that Roger Harrabin is consistently introduced as ‘our environmental analyst’.
Analyst?
Anyone remember any?
‘Navel Gazer’ is a higher pay grade, but he has his pride.
Posted this on another thread. Seems more appropriate here.
Well given that CO2 makes up 400 parts per million in our atmosphere at 0.04% and only 15 parts of that 400 parts per million is man made, human carbon dioxide emissions can’t be a massive driver on the climate.
Added that the UK’s contribution to the 15 parts is 0.18% of that miniscule part, you begin to realise how barmy this all is.
If the earth’s atmosphere is represented as a linear one kilometre line the UK’s co2 emissions are equal to the width of a single human hair on that line. Go figure.
Here’s a porky pie to keep an eye on.
COP21: People of Kiribati ‘may have to relocate’
30 November 2015 Last updated at 23:08 GMT
Kiribati has been called the conscience of the climate conference in Paris. The island in the Pacific is one of a number of countries most affected by rising sea levels. President Anote Tong told the BBC’s environment correspondent Matt McGrath that any possible deal was already too late for his country. He said they were planning “migration with dignity”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-34967633
Five years from now, let’s see how this one plays out… Anyone care to make a wager?
I will – I bet they’ll have a new airport by then.
COP21: People of Kiribati ‘may have to relocate’
They seem to have an awful lot of airports to relocate with at least, fortunately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Kiribati
The Shuttle services with The Maldives are apparently quite regular.
Alan rightly highlights the bombardment of this garbage from the bBC.
We must , however, accept their right to free speech.
With one proviso.
Scrap the Liocence Tax and they can go on their merry way saying whatever the f**k they like.
Funny, but one thing the climate alarmists don’t ever seem to want to mention are the three major factors which really do cause the weather to change.
The first major one is the tilt of the earth, which although it might be nice, isn’t constant and ‘wobbles’.
Then there’s the activity of the sun which is rarely mentioned.
Lastly there’s the fact that the Earths orbit around the sun isn’t circular, it’s elliptical. Sometimes we are closer to the sun than others
This year (2016) perihelion (the closest we come to the sun) is January 2nd, so if you are wondering about ‘mild’ winters, this is probably a contributory factor !
Don’t forget the oceans. The justification for the Argo temperature buoy project – which was only begun in 1999 – was the construction of a more accurate temperature record so they could ‘begin to understand the effect the oceans have on the Earth’s climate’.
But if you want a real laugh, go to the Argo website and see how many contradictions you can spot. Here’s a starter:
We are increasingly concerned about global change and its regional impacts. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrumental records began, were in the past decade.
and then…
Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?
Not much of a ‘settled science’ eh?
I don’t give a crap whether Earth is warming or not, but I do believe ‘climate change’ is a conspiracy.
Are you a shareholder? Are you paying into a pension? Do you run your own business? Are you investing in property? If you are any of those (and more) you will be looking to the future for generous returns on your investment. However, the only way to increase security on future returns is to embark on a more sustainable path to future energy requirements.
Here’s the problem; the only way capitalism can survive is to ensure relentless population growth. But that requires relentless increased demand on energy consumption.
So, we have to make a choice – do we allow our population level to fall to a more sustainable number and suffer an economic downturn (without having to make changes to our sources of energy), or do we carry on allowing more immigrants into our country to ‘fuel the economy’ by pushing up our population BUT pushing up our energy consumption?
This isn’t about climate change – this is about accommodating a world population explosion that will wipe us out!
Is the climate changing? Yes! It is always changing.
Are the climate change advocates right or wrong? I don’t know and I don’t really care.
Asking people not to have kids is taboo. We all know how China dealt with overpopulation. Even they have relaxed their one-child laws now they’re on the capitalist bandwagon. So the only option for governments worldwide is to push for more sustainable energy production, because they cannot bring themselves to say that the world is becoming seriously overpopulated.
I certainly agree that overpopulation is a taboo subject.
Ban ki Moon is over the moon so to speak. All that lolly pilfered from the Western taxpayer, will need to disbursed through the UN. Lovely jubbly – 20% of the loot will stick in the UN’s corrupt offices around the world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-34980884?
I wonder why the ‘quotes’. It either has or has not been hacked, surely?
‘ABC quoted unnamed officials blaming China for the alleged hack’
Ah… the BBC is quoting ABC quoting unnamed officials making allegations.
Got it.
Alex Jones radio/tv program Wednesday 02 December also available as radio podcast at http://www.infowars.com/
Lord Christoper Monckton exposing the climate change fraud from Paris.
Fast Forward 1 hour and 38 minutes minutes into the program.
Also the interview with Donald Trump is worth a listen starting 22 minutes into the program.