Privileged Rich Rocker Paul McCartney Can’t Understand Climate Denial

Paul McCartney. By Oli Gill – originally posted to Flickr as Paul McCartney, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link. Official White House Photo of President Trump

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Paul McCartney, who rose to fame in the 1960s as a member of The Beatles, has expressed his frustration at our failure to heed the climate message, by writing a song aimed at President Trump and other “climate deniers”.

Paul McCartney on handling crowds, and why he calls Donald Trump “the mad captain”

By Mark Savage
BBC Music reporter
13 September 2018

But the album’s angriest moment comes on Despite Repeated Warnings – a diatribe about climate change deniers, with a lyric that couldn’t be more timely or relevant: “Those who shout the loudest/May not always be the smartest.”

“People who deny climate change… I just think it’s the most stupid thing ever,” says the star.

“So I just wanted to make a song that would talk about that and basically say, ‘Occasionally, we’ve got a mad captain sailing this boat we’re all on and he is just going to take us to the iceberg [despite] being warned it’s not a cool idea.'”

That mad captain, could it be anyone in particular?

“Well, I mean obviously it’s Trump but there’s plenty of them about. He’s not the only one.”

Read more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45482360

Click here for a sound only interview with McCartney talking about his new song.

People like McCartney in my opinion epitomise the kind of out of touch “Champagne socialists” who look down on the deplorables, who don’t understand ordinary people’s reluctance to embrace hardship, expensive green energy and personal sacrifice, so he and his friends can fly about on private jets telling the world how wonderful they feel that we made the “right” choice.

Advertisements

235 thoughts on “Privileged Rich Rocker Paul McCartney Can’t Understand Climate Denial

    • Paul McCartney has smoked too much pot,
      written only a few good songs since
      he stopped working with John Lennon,
      and only one great song, IMHO,
      since the Beatles,
      “Maybe, I’m Amazed”
      (studio version only)
      looks like a grandmother,
      and his voice has significantly
      deteriorated to the point where
      Auto-Tune can’t “fix it”.

      On the positive side, I suppose,
      he gives very long concerts,
      according to a friend
      — perhaps that’s why his voice
      has worn out?

      As an audiophile, with thousands of CDs,
      I am very disappointed with McCartney’s
      output of so many lame songs after the Beatles.

      As a “climate scientist” I can only wonder
      why McCartney doesn’t just wear
      a T-shirt that says”I’m Stoopid”

      In 21 years of reading about climate change,
      I have never read, or heard, anyone
      “deny climate change” — that is
      a false strawman used to attack
      people who do know something
      about climate change”.

      It must be sad
      to peak so high
      in your twenties,
      as a songwriter,
      singer and musician,
      like McCartney did,
      and then fall so far,
      especially his looks:
      — Paul, please get a face lift
      — you can afford it !

      And keep away from climate science,
      where you embarrass yourself.

      • Richard, your too kind to the rat, as like all chancers and baw heeds he jumped on the band wagon and made millions from the people who also thought the sun shown out his !!!! – a bit like Al Gore et al, That’s why the climate debate’s been polluted and hijacked and as the song says; its a rat trap and we’ve been conned. But Rock on Tommy as thanks to WUWT et al the public can be told the truth – but only if the Man will allow them to know that co2 does not drive the climate!

      • This demeaning attack on Paul McCartney says far more about you than it does about one of the finest musicians of the 20th Century.

    • After this senile peacenik’s pop-up concert in Grand Central Terminal the other night, (duly covered by a bevy of security armed with submachine guns), not to mention the next day’s New York Post cover relating his more pathetic than salacious post-adolescent adventures in communal onanism, I think it’s pretty obvious this irrelevant’s publicist told him the best ways to get attention nowadays are:

      (1) Call President Trump nasty names and tout your Wokeness on made-up “issues;”
      (2) Talk dirty.

      Pretty unoriginal on both counts, I’d say. Boring.

    • There is a difference, Paul:

      Skeptic: A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

      Denier: Someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition.

      • The formative years were hard on Paul, he sees things that aren’t there and jumps over them (he likes paisley).

      • Skeptics tend toward being factualists, especially when it pertains to matters of science.

        Definition of factualist – A person whose predominant concern is with facts; Philosophy an adherent of factualism.

        Factualism definition, emphasis on, devotion to, or extensive reliance upon facts: the factualism of scientific experiment. See more.

    • Just self promotional virtue signaling at it’s best….
      …all about making money, and he thinks this will get him attention..and money
      He’s on tour….and so today and relavent

      With any luck..one more face lift..and he can fart out his nose

      • Yeah, must be hard having been one of the original global super stars and having to cope with becoming irrelevant.

        “Those who shout the loudest/May not always be the smartest.”

        Yes, well the doomsday alarmists having been shouting real loud for the last 30 years, but they aren’t getting any smarter.

        • and I just bet hes oblivious to the irony of his statement..taint us skeptics who’ve had the loud and strident voices by a long shot
          they make damned sure our voice is a muffled as they can make it.

      • Paul McCartney, Bill Nye and Al Gore are like “three peas in a pod”.

        They are “science illiterates” who have all lost their once noted “claim-to-fame” and have been doing anything and everything they can think up to “attract” another 2 minutes of the public’s attention.

  1. As Dr A Einstein (almost) said ”The shoemaker should stick to his last and the singer should stick to his banjo”.

  2. “Paul McCartney Can’t Understand Climate Denial”

    He prob’ly has trouble understanding flatearthism too.

    • If he led by example, giving up his private jet and car, living in a small cottage rather than an energy intensive mansion, I might take his climate rants more seriously.

      I have no problem with rich people living a life or luxury, but I have a big problem with those rich people telling me I have to make sacrifices while they continue living it up.

      • This is a musician who boasts that he doesn’t understand musical notes.

        How can a person with such disrespect for his own trade be expected to show any kind of understanding, not to say respect for science.

      • You know, this constant “live by example” gets so old. Rock stars need to go to concerts or they stop being rock stars. Climate scientists need to go to science meetings to get grad students and postdocs. It’s business. Until there is an energy neutral way to do that, they both will use jets, that’s the only choice there is no real alternative.

        The other, more important thing, is that by pushing a pro energy neutral agenda, they will have far more effect on changing the earth than sitting in their offices. This is the thing I suspect you dislike.

          • But

            Things improve. Who would have thought a few years ago that on certain days the Iowa and Colombia Gorge turbines produce all the power for Iowa or Washington, respectively, and haf to figure what to do with their overage.

            Someday, in the near future, access energy will be stored in millions of batteries in individual electric cars, for use in the next weeks. An interesting thought.

          • When renewables can produce reliable dispatchable power for a similar cost to fossil fuels, there will be no need for government action, because people will embrace renewables of their own free will.

            I somehow don’t think that day will happen in my lifetime.

          • John Tillman
            I did not know that. How do they interfere.
            Not challenging, I just don’t know.

            michael

          • Mike,

            Integrating wind and hydro requires compromises. There is a limit to how much water can be spilled while still meeting quality standards. When there is oversupply of water or generated power, the water is spilled over the dams without passing through the turbines.

            Adding wind turbines to the same grid means that power oversupply happens more often, usually at night, when power demand is lower. Wind turbines complicate this algorithm.

            BPA denies that there is a problem, but it in fact exists, apart from all the other economic and environmental disadvantages of subsidized wind power.

          • Adding to the complexity is the other TWO requirements for the dam:

            1. Enough water MUST be left in the lakes/reservoir AFTER all power has been generated over the ENTIRE coming season for the irrigation and city water demand that has been approved by each regulating agencies/agency/states/national bodies involved.

            2. Enough “spare room” MUST be left in every lake and reservoir BEFORE the flooding starts each season to allow the lakes to takes up that sudden surge of rain, floodwaters from higher-up lakes and dams and snowpacks, PLUS local rain and snowpack melting.

            So you can NEVER obligate “all of the water” needed to balance the hour-by-minute-by-hour changes of the winds and solar, and you MUST NEVER leave “zero room” in the lakes to take up sudden floods.

          • Mike,

            I should add that when the wind is blowing, the wind turbines get priority, regardless of what would be that right thing to do with the water at that time, ie spill it, run it through the turbines or let it just sit there behind the dam.

            Water ends up getting wasted by not being run through the turbines. The wind turbines make the system less efficient.

          • Forgot to ask reallyskeptical – why do you think rockers deserve a free pass? What essential service do they provide by flying about in private jets which they couldn’t provide staying at home recording a few online videos? What is it they do which is so important that its worth endangering the future of the planet to allow them to continue doing it without making a smidgeon of effort to cut their carbon footprints?

          • Even a troll should be able to figure out that if you have enough of something, even something as unreliable as wind and solar, from time to time there will be enough power, to power everything.
            The problem is today, as it has been for the last 100 years, as it will be for the next hundred years; What do you do when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

            Until you can solve those problems, wind and solar will never be more than expensive, unreliable curiosities.

          • RACookPE1978 September 16, 2018 at 6:15 pm

            In the Columbia-Snake system, besides spring runoff, water quality, irrigation and other uses, we also have to factor in fish migration and barge traffic.

            It was a complicated algorithm even before wind, and now solar, mixed and muddied the waters.

        • I personally wonder why people like you will go thru every hoop possible to make excuses for this jet set.

          But i will give you there are exceptions: When Al Gore came to Oslo to receive the Noble, he traveled by train from the airport to Oslo, the large number of people accompanying him though, they all traveled in black limousines.

          • When at Cannes one year, Gore drove the half mile from the hotel to the convention center is a limousine, then left the limousine running while he gave a speech.

          • Nobel prize = foreign meddling.

            Trump should do something. (Possibly invade the place and take the oil.)

        • Really,

          If Sir Paul wanted to reduce his carbon footprint, he, his band and roadies would fly in a normal commercial airliner rather than a private jet. That’s what “climate scientists” do.

          There’s also the issue of his extensive real estate holdings. I don’t begrudge him any of his ranches, farms and urban mansions in the US and Britain, but he really ought to practice what he preaches.

          https://www.elledecor.com/celebrity-style/celebrity-homes/a7347/paul-mccartney-buys-manhattan-triplex/

          He hasn’t been seen on his farm in Scotland for about a decade, and may have sold it.

        • reallyskeptical

          “You know, this constant “live by example” gets so old.” Yes it does how often must it be repeated before it sinks in?
          Lets start, Rock stars, no they don’t is you said they would cease to be globe trotting stars, but if you are going to take a stand take the stand.
          Now “Climate scientists, NO they don’t. Grad students come to the department. No one has to hunt them down.
          They go to attract attention, to control the flow of information to the public.
          They are no longer scientists merely carnival barkers selling snake oil.
          If they really believe in AGW they must live by example. This is a must, people do not follow those who say do as I say not as I do.
          Hope that clears things up for you

          michael

          • What? Me worry about the opinions of Paul McCartney. Not likely.

            Definition of factualist – A person whose predominant concern is with facts; Philosophy an adherent of factualism

        • Really sceptical: we don’t need prodding from people who don’t know the first thing about science. We need respect for skeptics who have a valid reason for doubting the conjecture that a slight increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere will cause the world to come to an end. I’m sure that if you told Sir Paul that there is 25 times more argon in the atmosphere than there is carbon dioxide, he’d be surprised, assuming he knows what carbon dioxide and argon are.

          • He also might not know that enjoying a fourth molecule of the essential trace gas per 10,000 dry air molecules has greened the planet, and that more would be better for C3 plants and other living things.

            OTOH, wind turbines and solar arrays massacre millions of birds and bats, benefiting crop-devouring insects, which must then be killed with pesticides.

          • But Sir Paul would not be surprised with the balance of his many investments, which he undoubtedly pays to have monitored very, very closely.

          • John Tillman said,”He also might not know that enjoying a fourth molecule of the essential trace gas per 10,000 dry air molecules has greened the planet, and that more would be better for C3 plants and other living things.”

            You should put a fourth molecule of the essential trace gas CO per 10,000 in your house. I think it might be essential.

          • You should put a fourth molecule of the essential trace gas CO per 10,000 in your house. I think it might be essential.

            What an ignorant comment. The debate as to sensitivity due to a fourth molecule of a trace gas in no way gives you license to urge someone to put a known poison in their home and breath it. What a ridiculous case of false equivalence.

          • reallyskeptical September 16, 2018 at 5:26 pm

            CO is not an essential trace gas. That you imagine it to be so suggests that you’ve inhaled too much of it, destroying essential brain cells in the process.

          • The claim that cars kill more birds than do windmills has been refuted many times.
            Though I’m not surprised to see that RS is still passing off any convenient lie.

          • reallyskeptical September 16, 2018 at 5:22 pm

            Please provide a source for an estimate of the number of birds killed by cars each year. Thanks.

            Your number appears to be off by orders of magnitude. Par for the alarmist course, I guess. To be ten times more than wind turbine deaths, cars would have to kill over three million birds a year in North America, based upon Audubon Society estimates.

            https://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds

            Other estimates of bird and bat deaths are much higher.

            http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million-birds-bats-a-year.html

          • Hello reallyskeptical September 16, 2018 at 5:22 pm

            Please list 5 separate studies that give a number for bird deaths due to autos, trucks cars.
            They must not, cite one another and have done their own independent counts. No extrapolating, just confirmed deaths, physical counts.
            by the way after over 40 years of driving I have never had a bird hit my car just once, along with Fido and squirrel nutkin
            Good luck

            michael

          • RS, please cite date for bird death by cars, because as someone who has been driving for decades, I call BS. In all my years of driving I’ve only ever had 1 bird hit my car (it did a number on my side mirror), while I assume it died from the hit, I could not verify as I have no idea where the body flew off to. Of all the people I know (with centuries of driving experience between them) I know of only 1 other person who had a bird collision (also damaging their side mirror). 1 windmill manages more bird deaths than that in 1 month of operation.

        • Really[snip]:

          You know, this constant “live by example” gets so old.

          What really gets old is the hypocrisy of the “elites” who demand the rest of us restrict our lives in ways they refuse to do.
          “Lead by example”.
          They refuse to do so. They and what they say are to “important” to be hindered by the restrictions they’d impose on us peons.
          “Us peons? You know, those of us who live in reality and don’t just imagine things.

          [Please refrain from offering insults through “clever” adjustments to usernames. -mod]

          • [Please refrain from offering insults through “clever” adjustments to usernames. -mod]

            Three cheers for the mooderator.

          • Sorry about that. I’ve been around here long enough to know better.

            Reallyskeptical, sorry I had a bit of fun with your screen name here. Really!

        • “This is the thing I suspect you dislike.”…

          nope, I dislike pompous ignorant know it alls…telling the rest of the world they should adopt their religion

        • Here is a link to a near-real-time (5 minutes) chart of BPA balancing the various power sources.

          https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx

          Note that wind (green line near the bottom) went to near zero in each of the last 3 days.
          We are in the center of the State and 100% of our electricity is from falling water.

          The brown line (fossil/biomass) is low but steady (more so than wind). Read carefully what those sources are.
          Some of the BPA power goes to California via the Pacific DC Intertie (Path 65).

          • John,

            Thanks.

            As you know, power also comes back from California, but the former regular exchange of our power to them in the summer for air conditioning with theirs in winter for our heating has broken down in recent years.

        • So they get a pass because they’re “saving the Earth”?

          Sorry, no. That leads directly to “…but some animals are more equal than others.”

        • The hypocritical always have reasons why they shouldn’t be held to the same standards that they demand of others.

          That RS joins his Gods in supporting this type of hypocrisy doesn’t surprise me.

        • reallyskeptical,

          You misunderstand! It is the “Don’t do as I do, do as I say” attitude that makes them seem arrogant and hypocritical. If they really think having a minimal carbon footprint is so important, then they should make the hard choice of whether they want to continue to make money, or to make a sacrifice and set an example.

          There are alternatives to flying, such as taking a bus or train, or a ship across the pond. Its that those aren’t as convenient and quick. So, you and they rationalize flying as the only alternative.

          If they stay in the limelight, it is true that they may have more influence. But then that puts them in the position of the animals in Animal Farm where some are more ‘equal’ than others.

          If they can’t “walk the talk,” they shouldn’t be singing about it.

        • Ah yes, they always have excuses for themselves. “Rock stars need to go to concerts or they stop being rock stars.”

          Well about that. So what? He doesn’t need to be a rock star. He doesn’t need to work. If he tried his damnedest he couldn’t spend one tenth of his wealth before he dies.

          Well guess what, that excuse works for us little people too, and we do need to work. A logger couldn’t be a logger if he couldn’t run those big diesel burning machines. An airline pilot needs his plane to keep burning jet fuel or he’d stop being a airline pilot.

          “Live by example” gets so old for you because it hits a nerve, and it’s valid. None of the prominent global warming alarmists actually believe what they preach. If they did, they would act like they believe. If the Pope demanded that all of his flock obey each and every one of the 10 commandments while breaking them all himself, would you think for one second that he believes what he preaches?

          Oh, and “by pushing a pro energy neutral agenda, they will have zero effect on changing the earth, but instead will affect changing of the economies of the western capitalist nations for the worse and that, I suspect, is what your real hope is,.

        • They always have excuses for themselves. “Rock stars need to go to concerts or they stop being rock stars.”

          About that: He has no need to be a rock star. He has no need to work. If he tried his damnedest he couldn’t spend a tenth of his money in his lifetime. Surely the planet is more important than his rock star ego.

          Climate scientists never heard of video conferencing?

          And that excuse works for us little people too, even more so because we need to work. If a logger didn’t burn diesel in that big machine he couldn’t be a logger. If an airline pilot didn’t burn jet B he couldn’t be an airline pilot.

          “Live by example” gets so old for you because it hits a nerve. It’s rather obvious all the prominent promoters of global warmunism don’t actually believe what they preach or they’d act like it. Actions speak louder than words. If the Pope insisted that each and every one of his followers obey each and every one of the 10 commandments while at the same time, breaking every one of them himself, nobody would think he believed what he preached.

          Oh, and they will have zero effect on changing the earth, but will definitely have an effect on harming the economies and lives of the majority of citizens in the successful capitalist countries, which is, I suspect, what you really want.

        • There are alternatives, reallyskeptical. The Climate Scientists can hold their meeting virtually (using only solar and wind energy powered electronic communications, of course). Rock Star can travel by other means then Jets and limos. Sail boats & electric cars come to mind. Heck they could get some of their groupies to man the oars and row a Viking-style longship for them if they cared enough about the environment. Oh, but those things would require sacrifices from them (and their hangers on), and you wonder why people don’t take them seriously because they refuse to “live by example” yet want everyone else to be the ones making the sacrifices.

        • “What about her emails” = “gets so old” = “we are fed up with the real world and want to go back to riding a unicorn over a rainbow”

        • reallyskeptical writes “This is the thing I suspect you dislike”

          Non-scientists preaching science is amusing. I love DiCaprio preaching the danger of sea level rise while building a fabulous resort in Belize at sea level.

          What I dislike is leftists sneaking yet another tax on my labor using any kind of pretext.

          I would be thrilled to have useful alternatives to coal and oil whose remaining supply dwindles daily.

        • reallyskeptical,

          If McCartney has such a strong moral commitment to his belief system, why doesn’t he dedicate his vast wealth to subsidize “weather-dependent” power sources and lessen the burden on poor people who made him wealthy by buying his records? Alternatively, he could invest in power technology to try to achieve breakthroughs such as improved efficiency in photovoltaic cells. Putting his money where his mouth is, instead of music, would elevate him from being an honorary knight, to being a saint. But then, words are cheap.

          • “weather-dependent” power

            I like that.
            Man using fossil fuel for power upsets the weather so to stop Man from upsetting the weather Man must turn to “weather-dependent” power to keep Man from upsetting the weather.
            What could go wrong?

    • Because he keeps looking for denialists and all he can seem to fundare skeptics, and, well, that’s just really confusing to him.

    • Be fair to him, he is only a glorified pop star. They are not normally blessed with being the sharpest knife in the drawer. His own level of intelligence is in the self belief that he thinks he is intelligent.

  3. McCartney has stuck me as being a compulsive trendoid, being a vegetarian and such. Vegan airhead usually strikes me as redundant.

  4. If we are all supposed to be worried about warming I’m having trouble with his image that disaster will be in the form of an iceberg.

    • Its difficult to make warm weather seem scary, thats why global warming films usually bomb unless they include a few episodes of deadly cold like “The Day After Tomorrow”. I guess the same principle applies to music.

  5. Desperate fo attention,any attention, poor Paul.
    Plugging his “New song” aging artist sucks in media..?
    Maybe we should start addressing him as Sir Yoko.

    However is quite funny that his accusation points directly at him.
    Those who know the least are loudest to proclaim their knowledge..

    • Maybe we should start addressing him as Sir Faul, or as Billy Shears.
      It’s one thing that really drives him up the wall.

  6. Paul, stick to what you were good at, stay away from things you know little about preaching from the pulpit of your fame.

  7. Why is it that the famous often think they know more than others? Even specialists in climatology acknowledge that we don’t know all natural causes of climate change so how can we possibly attribute the affect of so called man made CO2 climate change with any accuracy at all? Personally I think CO2 is a bit player and natural systems are far more important- but I’m not famous. Anyway, I much prefer “Queen” and at least Andy May has a PhD in astrophysics.

  8. He may have been pushed into doing this by friends who are activists. it’s unlikely it was purely a personal impulse—although he may just be repeating what he’s read in the sort of magazines and newsletters he subscribes to.

    • PS: Other celebrities may also have been nudged into speaking out on this issue. Perhaps this nudging of celebrities is a tactic in the activists’ playbook. If not, it would occur to any of the celebrity’s friends who are activists.

    • Rich people get a free pass if they genuflect to the green god and splash a bit of cash in the right direction, kind of like the old corrupt practice of buying indulgences.

  9. While I like (liked) Paul McCartney I think all celebrities should stay out of Politics as a platform through their performances. They of course are entitled to their personal opinions, but I don’t want them pushing it from the stage in words or in song. He did the same with his new wife regarding the seals in Canada without any knowledge about what he was talking about. However, him along with Pamela Anderson used it as a ‘cross to die on’ for a couple of years, then moved on to Climate Change. All attention getters. Maybe they do that as a cover up for fading talent.

    • I liked the Fab 4 when they were hot but never looked to them to solve my problems (poor college guy with just a few bucks). But the final straw was when the Library of Congress decided to give him an award. It was presented in a ceremony presided by BHO and McCartney made the absolutely stupid remark that he was glad he received it from a president who knew what a library was. News Flash Paul, Laura Bush was a Librarian.

  10. Oy.

    When will celebs come to terms with the fact that real people don’t give a flying duck about their opinions on any subject?
    QUACK!

    Bob

    PS: Paul, stop with the facelifts. You look like somebody’s grandmother.

  11. Paul McCartney is a musical genius, but he knows nothing about human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change, obviously.

    I remember when the Beatles first couple of songs came out on the radio. They definitely had a unique, different sound from what we were hearing at the time. They were Very Good! Well, you’ve heard them.

    Paul should stick to singing and song writing. The “Mad Captain” has everything well in hand. Don’t worry about a thing, Paul.

  12. They should not be allowed to birth the baby and a-bort her, too. It’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The end of the world is Nye. You will pay for redistributive change whether you deny or believe their Profits-y.

  13. I’d say the biggest “denialists” are those who deny that there is room for serious doubt about those who exaggerate 1) man’s influnce 2) global warming Paul, you are one dumb pop music guy.
    Stick to things you know something about, whatever that might be.

  14. The reason Sir Paul “can’t understand climate denial,” is that there’s no such thing. It’s a straw man. Nobody denies there’s a climate, or that it changes. The difference of opinions come in over the propaganda message that carbon dioxide is going to destroy the world. CO2 is allegedly the control knob that allegedly can be tweaked to preserve the alleged perfect climate we have now, or had in 1940, or 1750 or 1400 B.C. or some climate or other that isn’t going downhill fast like the rotten situation we’re now faced with. In 30 years of hand-wringing, the alarmists haven’t made much of a case, but they’re very emphatic that combustion fuels should be drastically curtailed whether or not practical alternatives are devised. For good measure, they’re against non-combustion fuels like nuclear and hydro, too. So what if dismantling the electric grid harms the poor most.

    “Well, then, the poor are just going to have to get poorer,” sayeth the rich, “Until we come up with something.”

    People don’t like getting poorer. Especially in service to pie-in-the-sky promises that may never come true. Fellows like Sir Paul, who expended considerable energy getting rich, should understand that much.

    • Like many (most) of the chattocracy in our blessed isles, Macca has probably sub-contracted-out all his political thinking to the likes of the BBC and The Guardian (the ‘thinking man’s newspaper’ – “We tell you what to think, so you don’t have to!”)

  15. As a bassist myself, my opinion of him has dropped to zero. He is clearly using Trump and climate change scare to promote his new album.

  16. Just a sad old man grasping at the past.

    Great in his time but retirement is long since past. Like all the aged rock stars trotting out clichéd numbers, stop hogging the airwaves and give younger generations a chance.

    If the desire to work still burns, there are lots of local pubs that would welcome a guy with a guitar.

    And bleating about climate change is just a sure fired way of getting on the BBC.

  17. The “Greats” should shut up when their career runs down. I think its hard for such to grow old gracefully, realizing theirs was another age, another culture even, and even if it weren’t, they don’t have it anymore. He couldnt write a four line nursery rhyme now. If he is still writing, its obviously not getting any press. Pontificating on topical things he knows nothing about is a last straw-grasping grab at being relevant. Climate worriers in the trade get no lift from a Sir Paul. They know they have all these designer-brained types in the bag already. Whose surprised deCaprio, fading Meryl Streep and hundreds of other stars are of “one mind” on the issue?

    Look at how sadly Stephen Hawking went from super star to an object of pity just before his death with a highschool, zero informaton diatribe about climate change. A celebrated physicist should have had something pithy to say. He was an embarrassment to AGW proponents, too, as well as himself.

    The PR machine for the Vietnam War trundled doting Nobel novelist John Steinbeck out to support a war that he may not have remembered was happening.

    Advice for failing celeb bandwagoneer-me-toos#: If you really want to regain relevance, come out as a sceptic! Shout out that AGW alarmism is a crock. Notoriety is the only game left ro you. This will put you on the TV talk show curcuit and the world news. You wont find much love out there, but they would have to acknowledge you have courage. Its easy to be a safe nonentity by buying the trend. You need cojones to be a sceptic.

  18. The Left has embraced using celebrity propaganda to push their message. Sports figures, actors/actresses, politicians, singers, anyone who is recognizable and presentable. All people that live a life disconnected from reality with a life of fame and fortune. Who cares what their opinion is? Some are paid to make you believe something that isn’t real. Some are paid to give you vicarious experience with their physical prowess and give you a sense of being on a “team”. When you don’t have a valid message every little trick helps.

    • When you have a solid message, you push the message.
      When your message sucks, hire celebrities to push your message and hope the myrmidons don’t notice.

  19. An ‘expert’ outside of his field is just a layman. Paul McCartney knows no more about car maintenance and quantum mechanics than the average citizen and probably less. His brilliance at music is not a portable skill, and he should shut the flick up.

    BTW I’m a massive fan of his.

  20. Wealth is a poor substitute for clear-eyed intelligence. That’s not to say Sir Paul isn’t musically talented, but like Leo DiCaprio, the wealth and fame from their talents for acting or singing does not impart on them to critically discern the Liberal propaganda on climate that is their bubble.

    • DiCaprio? Didn’t he fly 6000 miles in around trip to collect some enviro award , plus fly loads of his buddies in to watch him receive it?

  21. If you play the song backwards do you “get back to where you once belonged”? I figure Homo habilis showed up at the drum circle with long hair a bit more than 2 millon years ago while CO2 had been running since around 4 – 2 million years ago at an estimated 400ppm.

    Sir Paul can’t deny their extinction happened when CO2 levels declined. Didn’t he stop to think of the children?

  22. “Those who shout the loudest/May not always be the smartest.” – Paul McCartney

    Those who are the most famous may not always be the smartest. – me

    I don’t know if he is “the smartest” but Dr. John Christie is undoubtedly very smart. He reminded our Congress in expert testimony that the way we come to believe that we actually understand how a physical system works is by making successful predictions about it. The people who make climate alarmist predictions are infamous for being wrong. They predicted that CO2 at today’s emission levels would cause huge amounts of warming, that it would cause a hockey stick to actually occur. But that isn’t happening. The only reason we’re seeing something akin to a hockey stick shape is because the dishonest gate keepers of the official data are cooling off the past, eliminating the high peaks of the 1930s and the medieval warm period. They eliminate proxy data post 1960 to hide the fact that their earlier proxy data was suspect and probably wrong. These lying liars understand nothing about how CO2 concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere effect global temperatures over very long periods. And they certainly don’t understand the economics of so-called renewable energy in the generation of large electricity grids, nor the actual monetary and human costs of artificially squelching the use of fossil fuels, which is among the best, most dense source for transportable energy at a reasonable cost. Nuclear fuel would be good too, but the environmental movement has made the regulatory environment so toxic that there can no longer be a positive economic use of nuclear power.

    Bite me, Sir Paul.

  23. I hold the Beatles responsible for much of the tragedy of the drug culture today, in that they were very influential to young people and pushed the “virtues” of using drugs. They have a lot to answer for, much more than complaining about a few extra molecules of carbon dioxide. So just shut up McCartney and go play your guitar.

  24. In the BBC article McCartney also gives inspirational credit to Taylor Swift for resisting internet bullying. She has also very publicly refused to be bullied into expressing political opinions about Donald Trump and the Me Too campaign.
    What her thoughts really are is not well known (though she has previously directly criticized people in the music industry for bad behavior). However, she sets a good example by making it clear that her opinions are her own and she will express them in a manner of her own choosing at a time of her own choosing, and not have opinions foisted on her by other people in the media.
    Paul McCartney, and a few other celebs, could probably learn something from her.

  25. No one should be paying any attention to these hypocritical, one-dimensional celebrities because their knowledge and opinions of various world events is inevitably no better than the man-next-doors’. The real irony is that they’re among the last ones on the planet to cut back on their profligate lifestyles to combat climate change.

    • That was such a funny read. Boys sitting in the dark doing things to themselves. But what about Paul and John in matching sunglasses? That look way to odd! And John wasn’t the man he made himself out to be in the media. He didn’t get on at all very well with his son for instance.

  26. Gene Simmons gives his take on fellow rock n’ rollers and their political opinions.
    “I think celebrities should basically shut their pie holes and do what they do best—act, sing, tap dance… all that kind of stuff,” Simmons told the FOX Business Network’s Charles Payne (December 3, 2016).
    “President-elect Trump is the president. You can like it, you cannot like it. He’s the new president, that’s the end of the story.”

    • I’ll never forget John Howard’s media slap-down of Bono when Bono demanded (via media bullhorn) to meet with Howard to discuss stuff. When asked if he would meet with Bono, Howard looked surprised and simply said, “The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not take advice from pop stars.”

      And we never heard from political Bono again.

      Grandstanding belongs in grandstands.

  27. Like Leo DiCaprio private jetting from Europe to America and back to accept a climate change advocacy award, McCartney had his so-called green eco friendly car flown to him rather than waiting for a ship. They don’t act as if climate catastrophe is around the bend.

  28. How ironic the main man from the Beatles rock group who made his money by selling vinyl records made from fossil fuels now sings about global warming.

  29. “I call it treason against rock ‘n’ roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics. … When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I’d run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick. …. If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”
    ― Alice Cooper

  30. Why would anyone care about what a terrific musician thinks about Atmospheric Physics? What could he possibly know, other than what he reads? What are the chances that he knows the difference between a Dipole Moment and an Induced Dipole Moment? Virtually zero.

    That is two minutes out of my life I will not get back…

  31. McCartney is no different than many people who think of science as a belief system, and who blindly accept most anything said in the name of science.

    What they don’t fathom is that practitioners of real science are at all times skeptical, demanding proof and access to the data supporting the assertions.

    But for many, science is just another faith—like deities and statism. Many of the same people believe in Harry Potter economics.

  32. Paul McCartney makes a song where he admits climate disaster believers are wrong as they have shooting loudly for long time and are the ultimate deniers of climates changing.

  33. Those freaks was right when they said you was dead
    The one mistake you made was in your head
    Ah, how do you sleep
    Ah, how do you sleep at night
    You live with straights who tell you, you was king
    Jump when your momma tell you anything
    The only thing you done was yesterday
    And since you’re gone you’re just another day
    Ah, how do you sleep
    Ah, how do you sleep at night
    A pretty face may last a year or two
    But pretty soon they’ll see what you can do…

    John may have been more right than he knew…

  34. I prefer this Beatles lyric:
    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution
    Well, you know
    We’re doing what we can
    But if you want money for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell is brother you have to wait
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be
    All right,

    • Yes, I always liked those lyrics — actual common sense in a not-very-common-sense time. Back before the group got fried one too many times.

  35. I understand how a musician understands climate data better than a guy like me, with a science PhD and 30 years in R&D.

    OK, yes I lie. I don’t understand how he believes thermageddon is imminent. The data I see suggests nothing much is happening. Maybe I wasted those 30+ years.

  36. Warmist minions are a strange breed – they typically have a soft degree in the humanities, majoring in English, Journalism, Sociology, Psychology, Gender Studies, Witchcraft, etc. and have no clue about the Scientific Method.

    Nevertheless, warmist minions will scream their belief in man-made global warming catastrophism and climate change hysteria – all based on what they heard from their idiot friends on Facebook and Twitter or over a “Venti, Soy, Semi-Caf, No Foam Latte” at Starbucks – and they will verbally or physically assault anyone who disagrees with their imbecilic position.

  37. ‘Occasionally, we’ve got a mad captain sailing this boat we’re all on and he is just going to take us to the iceberg [despite] being warned it’s not a cool idea.’

    I thought all the icebergs had melted, Paul

    • When socialists take over; the rich who have the most loose the most, the intellectuals get killed because they can see how wrong it is, and the rest get rounded up and put to slavery, sorry I mean work camps.

  38. “Those who shout the loudest/May not always be the smartest.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Every time I see a Leftist protest, this is the thought that pops in my head. It always some person (usually with a bullhorn) shouting out a stupid chant that is mindlessly repeated by the assembled mass of morons.

    • Since the like button is currently gone (at least on my browser), Reg, you’ll just have to settle for an old fashioned +1

    • Agreed. For the second time in my life the leftists are running amok, chanting inane slogans and damaging and destroying private as well as public property, and threatening lawfully elected public officials and private citizens alike with violence. Now after 50 years I finally have something good to say about the Chicago Seven and the other rioters in 67-68: at least they were not afraid to use their own names and were not cowardly hiding under black masks.

  39. Not exactly sure why we’re referring to “reality” as climate denial here.

    Seems like congress to me. (opposite of progress)

  40. The Left continues to makes fools of themselves.

    What’s hilarious, is when this “stupid” CAGW ho@x is officially disconfirmed, most Leftists will never apologize for all their vile lies, slander, and libelous screeds made against CAGW skeptics, and will simply call the CAGW ho@x, an honest mistake made by well-meaning scientists and politicians…

    Since nothing will be learned from the most expensive Leftist ho@x in human history, another will occur in the future…

    • I agree with you Sam – but, as I suspect you know, this is NOT an honest mistake by honest scientists and honest politicians – it is deliberate fraud by liars and scoundrels.

      Experience has taught us that the extremist leaders of the global warming / climate change movement are not interested in science OR the environment – theirs is a far-left political objective – to destroy the economy and take control, like they have done in over 100 countries around the world – see Venezuela and Zimbabwe for prime examples.

      Frighten and stampede the sheeple, and promise them lots of free stuff, and the sheeple will believe you and vote for you – that is the left’s political model, and it works because half the population is of less-than-average intelligence. The sheeple typically vote for the left, because sheeple are really stupid.

      Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.

      The extremists have succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Honest scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and the younger ones often use aliases for fear of retaliation.

      It is long past time for all those who have been cowed into submission by the bullying of global warming extremists to stand strong for their convictions.

      Despite increasing atmospheric CO2, there has been no dangerous global warming – this has been adequately proved by Christy and McNider (2017) and Lewis and Curry (2018), as summarized below. Climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing CO2.

      Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause. will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

      The global warming crisis does not exist, except in the fevered minds of the sheeple and their corrupt leaders.

      Best personal regards, Allan

      REFERENCES:

      THE RISE OF ECO-EXTREMISM
      by Patrick Moore (1994)
      http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
      [excerpt]

      “Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”

      THERE IS NO REAL GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS
      by Allan MacRae (2018)
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/07/study-claims-global-warming-induced-by-ancient-farmers-may-have-staved-off-ice-age/#comment-2451937
      [excerpt]

      1. CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS LOW – ONLY ABOUT 1C/DOUBLING

      Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures.

      Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures (ST). These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.

      Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors.

      Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
      (*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)

      The slightly higher sensitivity values in Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.

      Practically speaking, however, these sensitivity estimates are similar, about 1C/doubling. and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

      Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have no credibility. There is no real global warming crisis.

      Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

      CONCLUSION: The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any scientist or politician who contradicts this statement is destructive, acting against the well-being of humanity and the environment.

      2. EARTH IS CLEARLY COLDER-THAN-OPTIMUM FOR HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

      Earth is significantly colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. Twenty times more people die from cold than die from heat – about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths every year worldwide.*

      In the USA, Excess Winter Deaths average about one hundred thousand souls per year, equivalent to two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year!

      Even more startling is the preliminary estimate of Excess Winter Deaths in the UK – about 48,000 this past winter! The UK suffered about HALF the average annual Excess Winter Deaths of the USA, but the UK has only ONE-FIFTH the USA’s population. High energy prices, or “Heat or Eat” as it is termed in the UK, is becoming a significant cause of premature deaths of the elderly and the poor.

      Anti-fracking groups in the UK, many of whom are phony-green Marxist fronts, have cost Britain dearly in lost billions of pounds sterling and hundreds of thousands of needlessly-shortened lives.

      CONCLUSION: Excess Winter Deaths are increased by foolish green energy policies like mandatory wind and solar power in the grid, which produce little useful (dispatchable) energy and drive up energy costs, preferentially killing off the elderly and the poor.

      A few more thoughts:

      3. GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM IS ANTI-HUMAN AND ANTI-ENVIRONMENT

      False global warming alarmism causes the enormous human suffering and death in the developing world, where green fanaticism has prevented the installation of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems.

      This is frustrating, because some of us knew that the global warming scam was false nonsense as early as ~1985, based on the evidence available then. Since that time, the evidence of global warming fraud has grown more and more credible, and yet this multi-trillion dollar-per-year scam continues.

      We published in 2002 that the global warming crisis did not exist in reality, and that green energy schemes would not be adequate to replace fossil fuels. Both these statements are now proven to be correct, for anyone who objectively examines the evidence.

      CONCLUSION: Anyone who continues to support global warming alarmism and schemes to abate fossil fuels is seriously deluded at best, and more correctly is guilty of crimes against humanity. The overwhelming evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO2 will lead to improved plant and crop growth, and any resulting warming will be mild and beneficial.

      4. GREEN EXTREMISTS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE

      Green extremism started with the banning of DDT from ~1972 to ~2002. The ban on DDT DOUBLED the number of deaths from malaria, more than half of which were children age 4 and under whose deaths peaked at almost 1 million per year – just babies –and half of these deaths were easily preventable.

      Add to this the numbers of deaths due to the global warming scam and the “phony war” against increasing atmospheric CO2 and the total green death toll is in the tens of millions, similar to the number of needless deaths caused in the 20th Century by leftist icons Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

      CONCLUSION: Leftist Green extremists are the greatest killers of our time – rivaling the death tolls of the greatest sociopathic killers of the 20th Century. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
      ______________________________

      * Reference:
      COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
      By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
      https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

      QUOTATIONS FROM GREEN-AGENDA.COM
      http://www.green-agenda.com/

      “The common enemy of humanity is man.
      In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
      with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
      water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
      dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
      changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
      The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
      – Club of Rome,
      premier environmental think-tank,
      consultants to the United Nations

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
      industrialized civilizations collapse?
      Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      – Maurice Strong,
      founder of the UN Environment Programme

      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
      United States. De-development means bringing our
      economic system into line with the realities of
      ecology and the world resource situation.”
      – Paul Ehrlich,
      Professor of Population Studies

      “One America burdens the earth much more than
      twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
      In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
      350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
      but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
      – Jacques Cousteau

  41. Sir Paul, I am saddened to see that you have lost touch with ordinary people. When did that happen? 1964?

    • I was at a Motorhead concert a couple years back and Lemmy has a chat to the audience between songs. “We’ve got a new album out, go out and steal it”.

      He did correct himself and suggest they better not steal it 🙂 But it sure was funny.

  42. “Despite all the warnings” that proved to be incorrect. If he doesn’t understand a skeptic, his misunderstanding is misplaced.

  43. Sir Paul’s celebrity offers him an ability to influence public opinion. I would suggest to him that if life on earth hangs in the balance then he has a moral obligation to not be lazy. He needs to take the time to do what others have not — actually understand why skeptics are skeptical. Learn about the objections from those who have the objections instead of from people who just think we’re all stupid knuckle-draggers who want to burn the earth to save a buck.

    CAGW advocates and activists are too lazy to even understand the positions and arguments. They blindly trust the views of others without understanding them.

  44. McCartney didn’t seem to have any intelligent arguments. Just complained about “climate change denial”, whatever that means. Nobody denies the climate changes. Skeptics are just skeptical how much it is caused by man, and how much by nature, and what the effects will be. McCartney just shows that he doesn’t undestand the skeptics position. Can’t say I blame him though, our “objective” media hasn’t been very good at presenting the skeptic viewpoint to the public.

  45. Another high school drop out lecturing us dummies about sciency stuff. How droll.

    This from they guy who actually wrote “In this ever changing world in which we live in”.

    At least I don’t deny grammar.

  46. “Those who shout the loudest/May not always be the smartest.”

    And who is shouting the loudest? why it’s none other than the alarmists and their useful idiots like Sir Paul.

  47. He’s just a Blue Greenie. Blue Greenies are the ones who tried to take over ThinkLand, enslave the people to their Warmunist ideology and forcing expensive, unreliable energy on them. The Chief Greenie, AlGore sent the dreaded Flying Iceberg out to defeat the brave band of Skeptics and Climate Rationalists resisting them, but they discovered that without the “F”, it just became the Lying Iceberg. So, the Blue Greenies are losing the battle now, but they keep fighting anyway.
    “We all live in a Carbon Submarine, Carbon Submarine, Carbon Submarine…”

  48. ‘Occasionally, we’ve got a mad captain sailing this boat we’re all on and he is just going to take us to the iceberg [despite] being warned it’s not a cool idea.’”

    But Sir Paul, how can the captain be sailing the boat into an iceberg, we’ve been assured that all the ice in the artic will have melted away?

  49. Love some of his music, but anytime I hear him talk he seems rather dimwitted. Not just with this subj. But, oh well. He’s a lefty and naive at that.

  50. “People who deny climate change… I just think it’s the most stupid thing ever,” says the star.

    Sounds like he is a dedicated follower of fashion—e.g., the Guardian. That’s the blinkered perspective such a reader would have.

    • I used to have a friend who would tell me to ‘listen to what they’re saying’, while he played all these old rock albums – to the point where he would actually tailor his relationships based on something he’d heard in a rock lyric.

      I asked why anyone would take the advice of some junkie burn-out.

      This was the same guy, by the way, who told me it was the SUN, not the moon, that rose in the east and set in the west – because the moon orbited Earth, and Earth orbited the sun.

    • Joel,

      Lots of deserving figures were never knighted, to include Darwin.

      For instance, Tolkien wasn’t knighted, but awarded the honor of the next step down, ie Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE), third of the five classes of the Order.

      He served in WWI at the Somme in July 1916, but was probably saved from death by contracting trench fever in a lousy German dugout. Invalided home, he never returned to the Western Front, so lethal to junior officers. He didn’t consider himself brave, let alone a hero.

        • Sir Paul is a Knight Bachelor, which ranks below knights or dames of the chivalric orders, but above the non-knight members and commanders of the OBE and other orders. He’s a Member of the OBE (MBE), the lowest class, but also a Companion of Honour (CH).

          Sir Peter Jackson, director of the movie version of Tolkien’s books, is a Knight in the New Zealand Order of Merit. Go figure.

          I guess to be ennobled these days requires making the big bucks in the entertainment industry. Fantasy novelists need not apply. Remarkably, despite her many hono(u)rs, Jo Rowling still isn’t a Dame.

          • Saki wrote a short story about how the undeserving “musical” lyricist got a knighthood and the other battle-hero son didn’t. I forget its name.

  51. McCartney doesn’t understand climate deniers because he’s hooked on the feelings and has no time for the facts.

    • Heh.

      A few years ago I caught a British a capella group called Artisan or something, who said that although they consider themselves “greenies”, they hated seeing wind turbines up on “their” beautiful moors. See: Kennebunkport, Lack of Turbines Near.

      Oh, and at another of their shows in a small fishing village in Nova Scotia, one went on about how terrible to turn a nice fish into a fish stick (the only major employer in the village was, you guessed it, a fish processing plant).

  52. McCartney is not in good voice [he never really has been] a couple of lucky songs and without Auto-Tune – well enough said!

    Please don’t give any live concerts any more!

    Scientific proven facts show that CO2 is neither Poison nor Pollutant, it is our staff of life. So called Climate Change is in the same league as Fool’s Gold, Tulip Trading, South Sea Bubble, Papal Indulgences and Renewables [without massive subsidies would die] Computer predictions should be scrapped.
    Relax Paul and soak up the residuals…..

  53. What is the point of insulting people with different views. Even if they insult you- it is so 7th grade. Sure the Beatles made vinyl records. The impact of higher levels- more rapidly increasing than ever recorded- CO2 in the atmosphere was not well known. And when the qualification to comment on a subject is perfection, we will have only silence. Nobody is perfect- myself included of course.
    The graphs about the Dalton minimum did not even have units on them. The quote from wiki was completely out of context, or edited. Nobody says CO2 is poison. It is a necessary component of our atmosphere, but the change in levels, and their consequences cannot be seriously denied. Debated ? Discussed? OK- but only if we use facts, and not silly comparisons like tulip trading.
    Fools gold is real. Oil has had massive subsidies for most of its history- and they are increasing.
    Sometimes we are wrong. Computer predictions are improving, but still have errors- duh. But scrapping them is like sticking our heads in the sand.
    I do not believe we will be wrong about the effects of clearly human caused CO2 increases– they are and will continue warming the planet. A discussion of facts could help with understanding. All the silly insults feel like an emperors new clothes tale. Keep saying it, and it will be true?
    Open your eyes folks. We likely can’t change the trajectory we are on, and have contributed to, but pretending it is not happening, and insulting those are presenting information we don’t like is a form- if not the definition – of denial.

  54. “People like McCartney in my opinion epitomise the kind of out of touch “Champagne socialists” ”

    in words only but indeed greedy capitalists or how do think McCartney got rich.

  55. When you live in a sumptuous, $multimillion gilded cage surrounded by acolytes and fellow-travelers it’s easy to virtue-signal. It’s easy to pontificate and moralise about complex, difficult social and political issues and to assume that your unimaginable wealth somehow brings with it authority.

    Macca isn’t the worst offender; god knows, Hollywood is bursting at the seams with intellectually-challenged, historically ignorant malingerers and fools. Super-rich ‘celebs’ jet around the world, regardless, leaving in their wake a carbon footprint large enough to fuel a moderately sized town. They don’t understand irony or hypocrisy. It’s not in their vocabulary.

Comments are closed.