A new series of the BBC’s ‘Blue Planet’ and of course we get the adverts, sorry, discussions about it liberally scattered around the BBC.
Interested to hear that they see it as their ‘mission’ to change people’s minds about climate change. Attenborough, now a convinced believer, told us that he thought there couldn’t possibly be any sceptics left…it was abundantly clear that the planet was warming…and that it was Man’s fault. Well, the Sceptics didn’t oppose the idea of climate changing, it always does, it is in fact those who seem to think that it should stay the same eternally that are wrong. The Sceptics were sceptical about what the over-riding cause was. There is still no proof that CO2 is a cause or the main driver of climate change and yet that is the BBC’s accepted narrative. But it is a political if anything narrative…..designed to blame the West and make western countries hand over billions of pounds to the ‘victims’ of our recklessness.
‘Blue Planet’ may be a technical triumph and stunning television but it comes prepackaged with a highly political message hidden within. Great that the climate change lobby has such a powerful and well funded propaganda tool in the BBC.
It’s not just about making developed countries fund others out of guilt – it’s also about preventing developing countries from reaching their potential, making them dependent on our charity.
Yippee I’m second – except for ‘All Lives Matter’ who I’ve never really liked ( joke – not a hate crime at this time – I expect a retrospective knock on the door by the sharia hate police with their coloured nails and rainbow bicycles singing YM fucking CA )
I don’t know about all this global warming stuff – it just seems like an excuse for more taxes and greenies to impose their way of life on decent capitalists.
I am a bit of a Gaya type thought which basically states if we screw the planet it will screw us – which is only fair. Should not mean more taxes but anything which keeps the oil price down thus screwing the SNP and the Saudis is pretty good for me. All that lovely shale just ready for a bit of hot steamy fracking .
Sermons from the Reverend Harrabin are good cause to burn a lot more gallons of diesel eh?
Risk from fracking – quantifiable and manageable. Risk from future energy dependence on hostile foreign entities – unquantifiable and unmanageable. Now should I put my faith in our future in a philosophy propounded by violent lefties with dreadlocks or scientists and geologists? I just can’t seem to decide.
“There is still no proof that CO2 is a cause or the main driver of climate change…”
And yet, without it we would freeze. So what is keeping us warm, Alan?
Edward. Just a little input from the other side
http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/AboutUs/index.html
Edward… seen that big round orange thing in the Sky?
What does it make the oceans produce?
What does it make plant life produce?
Goodness without the invention of the motor car and industry in the 19th century we would have all frozen to death by now! ….. well thought out post Edward!
Edward, the Sun and Air pressure using thermodynamic principals, keeps us warm.
Click to access unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
There are hundreds of sceptical scientific papers, but as Einstein said, it only takes one scientist (Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Zeller etc) to solve a problem.
You wont find any mention of this on the Greenie weenie moronic low IQ W1A BBC, but it was mentioned with great enthusiasm at a London Climate science conference, on the Weatheraction website and in a Mensa publication.
Can somebody, for example a certain Michael Mann, please explain why there ha been no measurable ‘Climate Change’ since 1997/1998?
According to Al Gore we should all be underwater by now – despite his purchase of a mansion ( paid for by his scaremongering on rising sea levels) near to a West Coast beach.
How do you spell the word myth – or should it be called profiteering?
Over to you stewgreen.
“…please explain why there ha been no measurable ‘Climate Change’ since 1997/1998?”
But, as Alan says: “Well, the Sceptics didn’t oppose the idea of climate changing, it always does…”
So, Number 7, the climate has miraculously stopped changing since 1997?
You sceptics are in a balmy world of your own and you disagree with each other even though you don’t realise it.
Durr! Sorry Edward but even your patron saint, Professor Jones UEA, admitted to that fact in an iterview with……..The BBC.
In my ‘balmy world’ I look at evidence not cooked up figures from leftist globalists.
If you want to continue with the Ad Homs I am quite happy to oblige but I would suggest you start with facts.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-072S30wX07w/VcOtmhjoRsI/AAAAAAACIxU/L60a8JoxQ5Q/s601-Ic42/pauseclimatedepot18years7months.jpg
PS. Climate changes – it always has.
Perhaps not in the ‘warmists’ continually describe.
Oh, here we go!
“Durr!”
All praise the Year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Seven,
For it was the year that Our Lord, Jesus, halted the climate change,
And He exalted Himself unto the divine plan, that it was to be.
Naysayers alike turned face to The Truth,
That Man hath no rule over the firmament,
Nor the heavens above such firmament.
Since the Year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Seven,
Is the sacred event of all environmental stables,
Stability amongst all elements.
And the lamb shall rest with the lion,
For the climate shall reflect God’s will,
And the fishes shall rest happily on the salty plain.
Unknown to them; the deliverance,
Until the awakening, unto the realm of God climate,
They shall see.
—
Just for you, Number 7. Hope that makes more sense of God’s plan.
Edward you poor soul.
The planet hasn’t ‘miraculously’ stopped changing since 1997, we notice the ‘miraculously’ word for a bit of exaggerated gusto!
The planet no having a noticeable warming trend since 1997 doesn’t mean that the planet should be constant in its temperature forever, it is just static for what is no time at all in mother Earth’s cyclic changes.
One thing we know is that earth will warm or cool in due course regardless of human habitation.
Science knows no more than that.
“…it is just static for what is no time at all in mother Earth’s cyclic changes.”
Hence no notable period of time to prove anything. So you might want to ask Number 7 why he/she brought it up in the first place.
Edward
Geological evidence going back billions of years is what we have…. dear boy! It’s the proof we have that mother earth has changed both gradually and catastrophically throughout it billions of years life.
I think its because Climate changes in 22 year Hale Magnetic Cycles. So we have a Hiatus, Pause or Peak from 1997 to 2019. The one before that was a Global warming period, and according to Solar Astronomers, the next one is a Global cooling period.
Alan
What a great point that as far as I know has never been mentioned before in that it’s the ‘warmists’ who are wrong in thinking that the planet should have a constant temperature, I like that and will use it myself !
Attenborough to be ageist now is way to old for programe making in that he is nearly as incoherent in speech as he is in thought!
I know I shouldn’t encourage Edward, but re his last post, what the hell is he on?
Deborah
I’m so glad you posted, I thought it must be me… but thankfully it is indeed Edward!
I’m on the same crazy shit that those who wrote the Bible and the Quran were on. :o)
It’s the blatant propaganda that infests virtually all BBC output, which prevents me watching any of it. I’m sure Mr. Attenborough’s films are largely (though not entirely) convincing in their own right, but when it comes to pushing an ideology (particularly one which is demonstrably false), the rest of the production is lost on me because I’m inwardly seething, and turn it off.
What I fail to understand about this program and many others is that it seems to be a given that every endangered species should be preserved no matter the cost. Species have been made extinct for as long as we can trace the record of life existing on this planet; new species have formed ditto. Why does that process have to stop? Have we humans decreed that all is now perfect? And yes, I know that this “rule” means that we have to preserve specimens of some truly deadly (to humans) viruses.
“What I fail to understand about this program and many others is that it seems to be a given that every endangered species should be preserved no matter the cost.”
So why on earth does that blood thirsty Attenborough keep shoving down our throats (though I rarely watch UK TV ) TV Video images of one predator after another ripping their prey to pieces only to repeat the kill in slow motion just so’s we see it and his thirst for blood is satisfied? Clown!
As you can see, there aren’t any white clouds on that poster. It’s the contrast between the Blue planet and Cloud Albedo that is the main driver of Climate Change, more so than Solar Irradiance.
Also if W1A is a real representation of BBC staff, there couldn’t possibly be any sceptics left at the BBC.
Also I would like to confirm that it is abundantly clear that there is a Hiatus, Pause or Peak in temperature which is about one degree Kelvin lower than the peak of the Medieval Warm period.
From the correlations with Climate Change produced by Eigil Friis-Christensen, who started it all, its now developed into a science that uses the effects of planetary motion on the Solar Barycentre wobble and its effects on the speed of plasma in the Sun, to predict Climate Change on the Earth.
That’s why the Labour party has got the wrong brother as its leader.
Planet Earth II was very good but the whole political subtext and ‘you humans are bad’ guilt just gets too much for me. Can’t they just show me the wonder of the world without the constant finger pointing?
Still I’m sure the Beeb will make a ton of cash from the DVD/Blu ray sales and selling it to other networks around the world. Strange that the financial performance never reflects on the bottom line. No mention that the Beeb used tax payers money to film the series but then neatly trouser all of the profit.