By P Gosselin on 26. September 2021
The green energy future is not green at all, a stunning new documentary shows how corrupt and destructive it is to our environment.
A former KPMG employee in London realizes that the green energy movement is corrupt throughout.
“The whole time things started feeling funny. It was like a glitch. It’s like, this doesn’t feel right. These people are doing these big projects, making lots of money. But they’re not sustainable. You know, these are some of the most ego-driven monsters. There is a lot of dark stuff in these companies’ supply chains. It’s all about money, and they’re using the sustainability agenda as just another tool, another stick to beat their suppliers with.” – Alexander Pohl, former employee, KPMG London. “These people are everywhere. it’s a systemic corruption.”
The Green Movement is based on lies: Man has not become the biggest climate driver, and green energies are not rescuing the environment. The opposite is what’s real.
Marijn Poels latest film, Headwind, shows us that much of the green energies now being installed are irreversibly ravaging the environment and how it’s about corporations making tonnes of money.
What we are told are solutions today will be the environmental disasters of tomorrow.
Greta is in for rude awakening.
“Climate change” and “renewable energy” – the biggest scams ever.
Apart from fossil fuel funded ‘climate skepticism’?
Basically everything is funded from fossil fuels, including you.
Fossil fuels are responsible for nearly everything in this modern society, so yes Griff it’s apart from that delusional alternative you crave.
I had a friend who was going down the irrational eco-loon route.
I bought some small, round yellow fluorescent stickers and the next time I went over to his house I stuck one on every single item manufactured using fossil fuels.
All the cutlery, every plate, every glass, every metal or plastic utensil, etc, etc.
It didn’t take him long to understand he could not survive without fossil fuels.
I believe 50% of every barrel of oil is used in everyday goods. As, Griff, sits whining about oil, every single one of Griff’s actions happens thanks to oil.
You could have saved yourself some bother, Rusty, if you just put one giant yellow sticker covering the front door. 😜
Everything gets a yellow sticker, even if only for the fuel used to transport it.
(Yes. Your little yellow stickers everywhere was a neat idea. 👍👍)
There is nothing about not using any oil in making goods… the argument is against burning it
once you pull it out of the ground it begins to decay
How it’s used in most everyday products is through burning.
Fossil fuels are used to power virtually every industrial process that exists on this planet … so every consumer product depends upon burning fossil fuels … and most consumer products also depend upon hydrocarbons as source materials which of course releases vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Even nations that depend heavily on hydropower for electricity still consume vast quantities of CO2 releasing hydrocarbons to manufacture all the stuff that makes hydropower possible … such as the concrete and steel in dams and electrical generators and copper wiring and so on and so forth.
Not to mention all electronic devices, all transportation vehicles, all medical devices and supplies (from nitrile gloves to artificial hearts).
The alternative is to what, depend upon wood to supply all our product manufacturing processes?
Yeah, right … in the 16th century and before, sure …. when lifespans were less than half of today’s and standards of living for the average non-rich person – about 95% of the total population – literally sucked.
Maybe Griff will invest BambooSoft, the first Climate Computer.
An abacus, but have to be wood, not plastic. But couldn’t be made from steel tools, have to be sculpted by fingernails or teeth…
Maybe you should meditate on the “vast amounts” theme.
Yep, let’s run those evap stacks with “panels and pinwheels”.
So why shouldn’t we burn it, griff?
Barrels of oil have items and objects already in the oil? Just reach in and pull them out?
More specious insinuations that demonstrate the commenter ignorant of how fossil fuel is converted into feedstock through use of fossil fuels.
There are many processes that take LNG and oil raw stock that eventually result in the items. All are fossil fuel processed
Because renewables are unable to produce high quality consistent electricity necessary for industry.
Electricity that Varies in frequency, Varies in voltage, Varies in wattage, Varies in amperage. Each/all of these variations cause machines to slow, stutter, shimmy, race, pulsate, stop, etc. as the variable inconsistent unreliable electricity causes machines to not produce identical parts, consistent resins, identical thickness, etc. products.
You just get dumber and dumber…are you sure you and Simon are not related?
Great way to display the truth!
Ah! You must know then where that brown envelope is with wadges of money that I supposedly should have received by now. Please tell me where it is. I could use some.
Chump change compared to government funded lies.
Since there is no fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign, everything else is bigger by comparison.
Sierra club budget for 2017
Plus WWF, UN, US Congress, etc, etc, etc.
Compared to a few Million from FF companies, some of which also contribute to the above.
The lesson, which Useful Idiots like Griff willfully refuse to learn, is that if the inference about mythical “fossil fuel funded” campaigns is suppose to be indicative of corruption, as in “money corrupts,” then the “climate crisis” bullshit is far, Far, FAR more corrupt.
Around 1970, I was backpacking, a lot.
A family friend gave me a Sierra Club backpacking cookbook that Xmas. Plastic covers and ring binder allegedly made it friendly toward cooking outdoors.
A couple months later, I threw the cookbook in the backpack with the usual gear and headed out.
Second day and I stopped early for a laid back dinner.
I flipped through the book and realized that it did not have backpacking recipes.
Bottles of wine were common for many dinners. Lobster, scallops, clams and even steak tartare were included for the meals. Cream sauce using real cream, red wine reductions, truffles and whatnot were in a number of recipes.
I couldn’t imagine reducing a bottle of wine to a thick sauce in my 1 liter aluminum pot.
That one item convinced me that Sierra Club was completely divorced from the real world. Hence, completely untrustworthy when they were campaigning, which is always.
So griff we put you up in the north with only a wind turbine for energy enjoy your winter the undertaker will come visit in the spring
I’ve often challenged Griff to live with his electricity supply mirroring the output from UK windmills. I am assuming he doesn’t use gas for cooking, hot water and heating which is usual in the UK. I have asked him to report back so far he hasn’t so I don’t suppose he’s tried yet. Possibly today, a very windy day by this year’s standard. Wind is up at an unprecedented 12.22GW or 38.97% of demand. With solar contributing an impressive 16% of demand he can switch on half his houses electrical appliances.
But must turn everything off when he needs to run his heater. I suppose he could run a light or two with “Half a Heater on”
Electric heaters in the U.S. only come in thirds.
The UK is transitioning to net zero by 2050.
while quicker progress or advance adoption is better, we are not yet at that happy state – some of our power, heat and transport is still fossil fuel based, but declining and will be for decades…
I have an insulated home and efficient electrical appliances… 42% of my electricity over a year can be considered renewable.
Oh, you mean that the evil company that produces your power from burning gas & coal, has bought “Renewables Obligation Certificates” from Drax, issued to them for clear cutting forests in the SW USA, chipping & drying the wood, then shipping it across the Atlantic to be burnt?
1) The challenge was to turn down your electricity usage when wind and solar drop and to turn it off everytime they fail.
I see griff is still trying to pretend that the highest percentage at any time during the year is the same as unreliables producing that amount of power for the whole year.
Hey, he still believes that “CO2 causes everything” BS, and all we need to do is go back to the stone age and all will be hunky-dory.
HAHAHAHHAHA. Dream on, dream on. How much will you bet that doesn’t happen?
A basic mistake. No Energy is “renewable”. It’s production is NOT self-sufficient. Every way of producing electricity requires large quantities of poisonous, expensive, carbon containing, or just carbon, rare, expensive, and other problems, inputs.
The only marginally effective way, hydropower dams, don’t require large amounts of non-renewable resources while running.They’ll run for a looong time if properly cared for at a very small fraction of their cost.
The US has a number of large hydropower dams some 100 years old that are still going strong. We need more, but it is hard to find sites and harder to convince environmental fanatics that they are both cost and environmentaly zounx in the long run.
So, how much of your electricity and other needs com from hydro power?
A problem in the USA is that some activists don’t like hydropower, and have even managed to get some dams demolished.
Why do you wait. Set a good example for everyone else … step up to %100 … and don’t just utilize stuff that someone may consider renewable. Utilize the real thing.
But that is not reasonable on such a small scale, you say? Your standard of living would drop? If, just if, the whole of society can get over the magical wall where the economy of scale sets in then you will step up and do your part? Or is it that are you doing your part right now … and you are allowed indulgences because you are educating others?
After the overwhelming societal change, do you still get your indulgences because you are better than others?
You’re dishonest or stupid, as usual. Without the 58% you don’t consider renewable, you could not have the claimed 48%.
The nation is actually transitioning into an energy poverty nation and you lie about the 42% since it isn’t even close to that number produced in the country.
If that transition succeeds, your time slot for using electricity will be from Noon to 12:30 PM.
Severe rationing is the only was to accomplish that goal.
Utter nonsense. That is nothing but an irrational slogan.
How is your car fuel supply going today in Griffland?
I hope you are out there telling them they all need to buy a new EV.
Looked at some online yesterday…
For a while.
Wouldn’t an entire wind turbine “farm” ( or whatever) be more fair. He/she could switch between them eery now and then, depending on which was currently working.
Sweden doesn’t need windmills, nevertheless they build them in a forest region to fullfill the power demand of a google subsidiary in Norway.
The idea behind most business ideas is to come up with a new product that people see value in and will buy. And if you are fortunate enough, an enduring market will be created, as is what happened with Smart Phones, for example.
However, what if you could compel people to buy a product they already have? There is a lot less risk in this, as you don’t need to innovate and the market already exists. Thus, the hurdles in this case are compelling people to buy products they already have.
Green Energy is simply a “STUFF MULTIPLIER”: another branch of the old consumer economy:
1] Two cars in every garage: one petroleum fueled and the other electric.
2] Two power plants in every community: one fossil fueled (required as a back up) and another renewable (solar or wind). With a battery farm under construction.
3] Two power systems in your home: one solar on top of your roof and the other an outlet to the public grid. And due to the fact that the grid is intermittent, you may also want to buy a diesel generator.
4] Multiple extractive industries in your community: the old reliable coal mine plus the wood chip biomass producer, accompanied by prospectors looking to frack natural gas on your vacant field (as the cleaner transition fuel).
5] Corporate proliferation: The old “Big Oil” now has to share the stage with “Big Rare Earth Miners”, “Big Wind” and “Big Solar”.
6] …. and on and on the examples go.
And of course there are numerous other ancillary carpetbaggers on the “duplicate” consumer economy replacement train. (vaping/ smoking is a similar duplicate on an already established product and market).
I think the greatest irony is that the New Environmental Movement (based on CO2 mitigation) has steamrolled the old Conservation Movement. Any project that proposes to mitigate CO2 has a free pass: biomass extractors, palm oil tree farms, croplands to fuel, mining for rare earths in previously prohibited areas, natural gas exploration in the Arctic, windfarms in raptor areas…
However, now you can “consume without guilty” and even believe that your purchases are preserving the environment, while the producers of the products are actually doing the reverse. It is a brilliant strategy and a deft psychological manipulation, that I think even Edward Bernays would marvel at.
Headwind”21 is really about the old conservation movement finding its feet after a disabling blow; realizing that the extractors, developers and energy companies have been doing and end run around them using the carbon dioxide bogeyman.
And rather than the additional investment being local, like it would be for more mining or generation, all the money flows to China for rare-earths and coal-energy-built solar panels and wind turbines, and Li-ion batteries. It’s like the whole thing is a scheme to enrich China.
and bring in world communism (there finished it for you)
We sceptics understand that Earth’s climate zones change over time, Earth Cycles, and we also understand weather is natural.
As compared with the climate based hoax and creatively accounted modelling of a warming trend.
His mind is made up, don’t confuse him with facts, he can’t handle it!!!
Where do I get my share of the fossil fueled funding?
And yet another lie spewed by the lie spewing liar.
Then the onus to show someone is lying is on you ,derogatory remarks without foundation do nothing ,lowers the tone of the site, and are childish.
That has been shown, over and over and over again.
Now it is illiterately going to defend griffie. And hear I thought it was just going to be another boring Monday.
My comment to you was not about defending anyone, if you accuse someone of lying , you need to show they were lying
“And yet another lie spewed by the lie spewing liar.”
Are derogatory, with no factual substance,
Your comprehension of what I wrote to you ,is lacking and defensive, childish.
Thousands of facts, in post after post over many years. And B wants us to repeat them all again. Those of us who have been reading all of those posts know what the facts have been stated time after time after time. And Griff does indeed post lie after lie, always disproven by follow up comments, which he never even acknowledges, let alone tries to disprove with actual facts.
So yes, some of us are tired of that useless game, and just want to say “And yet another lie spewed by the lie spewing liar” which we have all seen to be true, time after time.
Then Hanson you need to look at the post made by Griff today not years ago, and tell me why he should be called a liar in response?
Can you do that?
I have also called him out today without calling him a liar, I provided evidence for my claim ,what he stated was not true.
It is called a liar because it is a lie spewing liar. And now you are a lie spewing liar.
And you continue to show the world you are an illiterate moron, please continue to do so, moron. Oh, and defending another illiterate moron is yet more proof that all you are is an illiterate moron, moron.
Be careful starting a sentence with ” that” the grammar queens don’t like it, even though I showed them wrong.
Actually, the real issue is that they are tired of wasting time explaining things to griff. He doesn’t actually read what you write, he reads he wants you to have written and responds to that. Therefore, spending the time forming coherent arguments is pointless. He’s like most of the “woke” so utterly correct and righteous that facts and reality have become unnecessary.
As someone else on this thread said ,why bother wasting time on griff, as I said yesterday on another thread ,griff seems to be a spotlight to vent frustration, when it comes to the real climate trolls ,normally on temperature threads ,the vast majority who criticise griff are nowhere to be seen, granted their are a few who fight the good fight. The particular comment griff made earlier, did not warrant the abuse he received, I’ve called him out twice today without unsubstantiated shouts of liar , I’ve called him out many times in the past too, derogatory comments,shouts of liar , do not look good on the site.
I said in the recent past, griff is a victim of green propaganda,
He does not do science per se, “he just believes ” regurgitates the official line, .I don’t see him as a threat ,like some do, there are better trolls to knock back than griff.
You are not a troll, just a liar and illiterate.
All you have shown is that you are illiterate. Oh, and now you are a liar. Good job, buddy.
Its fairly obvious your nurse left you alone today.
Ahh, poor little boobie, can’t write, can’t read and totally incapable of comprehension. And you just keep proving.
Nonsense. You cannot prove a negative in most cases. I could claim you kill kittens and eat them. Now PROVE that I am lying.
There is no way to prove we DON’T get money from the oil industry; the onus is on him to prove we do.
Not very bright are you.
Way to go derg
That the best you got? Oh, yea, you are just an illiterate liar, almost forgot. Thanks for proving it, yet again.
Brighter than you, illiterate liar.
It is called “fair play”, “checks and balances”, etc…
If you own ANYTHING plastic then you are a hypocrite of monstrous proportion!
If you own ANY CLOTHING that is not pure wool or cotton then you are a hypocrite of monstrous proportion!
If you won ANYTHING STEEL then you are a hypocrite of monstrous proportion!
If you use ANY STREETS that are not brick or cobblestone then you are a hypocrite of monstrous proportion!
If you drive/ride/pedal down any street on modern tires you are a hypocrite
I use the already built infrastructure while supporting the transition.
Greens don’t believe in overnight transformation of electrical grids as some skeptics seem to
So, what’s your answer to eventually replacing all those things made out of fossil fuel.
Are you going to stop using anything made of metal or plastic? What’s it going to be? Wooden forks and stone plates?
In the 19th century before plastics were invented, people used whalebone (baleen) and tortoise shell (shells from sea turtles) in applications where plastics are used today. IMO if not for fossil fuels, most whales and sea turtles would probably be extinct today. Before plastics, metal, wood, glass, and animal products (bone, horn, skin, shell, etc) were used in every day products.
But hey, what’s a few extinct whale and turtle species when you’re busy virtue signalling your carbon free lifestyle? Sacrifices have to be made, after all.
He plans to become a Flintstone, with a rock and wood vehicle, eating off stone plates with flint utensils, capturing his food on the open savannah then with his buds, stabbing it to death with flint spears … but alas, they can’t cook anything they catch, because that (omigod) released carbon to the atmosphere.
Raw meat. Mmmmm…..
(I must admit to liking a plate of steajk tartare)
There you go again giving evidence of your ignorance & biggotry!!!
In your glamourous, perfect, transitioned New World your bicycle will have tires made of thin air? Will it levitate like a Nepalese monk? Those unnatural round things that we call “wheels” will become politically incorrect and will thus be cancelled, so that the only means of displacements for everyone will be walking?
I understand you don’t support XR ,their tactics, as you previously stated.
Transition is by no means certain , it does not go well to transit from fossil fuels to intermittent energy resources, you might not of seen the video in another article published here today, it was clear by a whistle blower the beginning was based on deception, fully backed up by grants and subsidised benefits, which in them selves are intermittent.
The whole scheme was monopolised by a few companies to get rich quick, it was never about the environment, reducing co2 ,
And sold to a very gullible minority ,hence the term ” useful idiots”
Hypocrite. That is you in a nutshell, lie spewing liar.
With “Net Zero by 2030” that’s exactly what greenweanies support and expect. Overnight. Considering that it took hundreds of years to build our current infrastructure and industrial products production and food supply and so forth.
The total transformation of electric grids by 2030 isn’t “overnight?” That gives us 7 years to do all the work, and such work isn’t the trivial effort English Lit. majors think it is.
And to the best of my knowledge, bricks are made by firing clay-like material to a high degree.
Oil is used to manufacture, cotton and wool.
I know its grown, but it needs harvesting,transporting,carding and weaving,
Unless, it is all done by hand, as in olden days. ;-[
Done by hand….fossil fuels can also be credited with sharply curtailing the unsavory practices of slavery and child labor. Yes, these horrors still exist today, but ironically are usually found in third world countries where modern industry and machinery (and the power to run it) are very limited or non-existent.
And I forgot to add animal-powered hard labor….animal rights supporters should also be fossil fuel supporters as those fuels have liberated quite a few beasts of burden.
Even if you don’t own any of those, you still needed fossil fuels to make it or move it. Still a hypocrite.
The wheels are falling off the climate scam.
It’s inevitable. Revolutionaries are never satisfied and always end up backstabbing each other. Their greed exposes their incompetence.
Case in point, just the other day Greta attacked all of the Green leaders in the world as hypocrites. Which of course they are, but the extreme ‘activists’ (sic) will never be satisfied, no matter how much is done.
The wheels have been falling off every week for the last 5 or so years, yet the juggernaut contiunues rolling.
Where do I get my cheque, griff.
Aren’t you supposed to be studying for your A2s?
Or, maybe, his O-levels?
Tell me Griff, do smoke certain substances on a regular basis, say when you comment on the is site??? You really do live in your own little world inside your head, keep taking the medication!!!
Why do we keep feeding the trolls? Does it ever occur to you that answering trolls gives them the attention they crave>
There are two schools of thought on this. One is don’t feed the trolls. The other is that new people reading this blog don’t know all that we know, and if we don’t disprove the lies, some of them will think they are true.
You don’t disprove anything by calling someone ” a spewing liar” how do you think that looks to new people reading unsubstantiated derogatory comments?
griffter fills the role of Simplicio in Galileo’s dialog on the tides. Simplicio argued fecklessly for Ptolemy’s “accepted” science but was then shredded by actual observations. griffter, like Simplicio, is too clueless to figure out that he’s a tool who is actually helping to convince people that they should be more open to climate realism.
I’m still waiting for one of the warmunists to provide some evidence for this claim.
They have been making it for decades, but so far the evidence presented is zero.
Yes, the idea that climate skepticism is driven by fossil fuel funding is a scam just like climate alarmism and renewables. Give Griff half credit for profess. Just put the apostrophe before fossil and he would’ve had a rational statement, even if unintentional.
I believe you mean “CAGW skepticism”…nobody denies there are climates.
Give me some examples or are you the thesis sentence crowd?
Grand Lies, again?!
That you knowingly typed on a fossil fuel manufactured item, used fossil fueled electronic grid to communicate, in a fossil fuel heated/cooled house, eating fossil fuel cooked foods, that utilized fossil fuel for ground preparation, fertilization, weed and insect control, harvest, transportation, storage, preparation and cooking, under lights provided by fossil fuel, etc. etc.
A hypocritical liar.
Now, prove your claims that “fossil fuel” funds skepticism?
Vague specious insinuations are not evidence.
griff, a literal drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of billions spent supporting the green scam. Please, name one prediction from the doomsday cult that has come true in the last 40 years. Their models have overpredicted warming by a factor of 3 over the past 40 years, yet we are suppose to believe what they predict 80 years in the future. Madness. And even if your believe we are in a climate crisis, most of the world doesn’t give a toss about limiting CO2 emissions and the solutions to the supposed problem, weather dependent renewables, are woefully inadequate to replace fossil fuels and will only result in high prices and an unstable grid. Both of these issues have been predicted and in fact are become truer by the day. The only pragmatic solution for a zero carbon world is NUCLEAR.
You mean as opposed to government funded alarmism? With governments having infinitely bigger pockets than any fossil fuel entity. You really didn’t think that one out too well, did you?
-137 — a new record low for the griffoid.
Well I’m still waiting for my “fossil fuel climate skeptic” cheque.
You missed the biggest, which incorporates your two, plus a host of others, all in one amorphous, meaningless, virtue-signalling word: “Sustainable.”
“Sustainable” is one of those social ‘science’ words that is used to make unfounded statements sound ‘sciency.’ Utterances of “sustainable development” actually refer to one’s favorite form of socialism, usually Marxism. It is the same old Five Year Plan, but tricked out with modern social ‘science’ catch phrases and misdirections.
Well, after socialism/communism.
The more you look the worse it gets, the thing is to get the news out of our bubble into a wider audience. We are circulating important information to every state and federal politician in Australia but it won’t have any effect until they get a clear signal from their immediate constituents. One of them said, when accosted at a party function “Every week I get submissions and requests from greens in my electorate, where are you guys?”
FWIW this is our first note on environmental impact, there will be more.
Well that’s just it: you are a bubble.
Many of the stories I read on Watts I can only find evidence for from within the skeptic bubble – other skeptic websites. I can find no ‘real world’ evidence for it.
Perhaps look outside your bubble?
This is true but what do you expect when most of the science is barricaded behind paywalls. This website may be in a bubble but I make the same arguments on non-sceptic blogs. Indisputable facts that form my opinions are:
My children are looking forward to an even better life. The biggest obstacles to that in my mind are the push to Carbon Zero and the Extinction Rebellion crowd. That is not a fact it is my opinion.
I look forward to your reply.
It isn’t a hypothesis that climate change is impacting the planet.
There are any number of reputable science and meteorological organisations which will set out the impacts and how is is very, very likely those are caused by climate change.
Griff, for once I agree with you. There are many beneficial impacts from global warming.
There are many benefits from global warming.
1. The increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has significantly increased crop yields since 1950.
2. The modest temperature increase has increased the length of the growing season for crops.
3. Globally, ten times are many people die from cold than heat. Global warming will decrease the overall death rate from temperatures.
4. According to climate science, as the world warms, higher latitudes will warm faster than the tropics. This will decrease the temperature gradient over the planet which should cause a reduction in the number and severity of extreme weather events.
5. More land will become available for habitation in northern latitudes.
6. Energy costs will decline in most countries because winters will become milder.
7. The world is greening and deserts are shrinking. The mass of the biosphere in the world is increasing.
There are many studies which have shown that global warming is good for the planet. This is a link to one article out of many.
However, there are some disadvantages from global warming too.
1. Polar bear numbers keep rising. I just don’t like them. I prefer seals and polar bears eat them.
2. The number of climate alarmists keep rising. I don’t like them either, mainly because they smell because they think washing is bad for the planet.
Most of those would be benefits of Global Warming (sic), if Global Warming was in fact happening. But notice that even the most rabid alarmists don’t call it GW anymore, since there is no proof of that. So they changed the name to Climate Change, which could mean anything, but doesn’t really mean anything specific. 1 and 7 of your benefits aren’t from GW at all, they are from increased Co2 (aka plant food.)
but the heat deaths are additional to the existing cold deaths: the cold deaths are not being diminished by climate change.
Increased CO2 has an adverse effect on crops too.
Look Griffy baby, I do not, never have, & never will, deny that the Earth’s climate changes, talk to a geologist or better still, go to a library & take a couple of geology books, you’ll learn a lot about climate change that way!!!
To the Griffs of the world, climate change means adverse changes in the climate caused by Mankind.
Yes, that is now the major climate driver, on top of all natural climate drivers
And you have proof of that, Griff?
The warming from the late 1970s to the end of the 20th Century mimics that of two other periods, one in the late 19th Century and another in the early 20th Century. This fact is evidenced by the various governments’ own terrestrial temperature data sets’ trends.
For an 18-year period beginning in the late 1990s there was no significant global warming. That CliSciFi practitioner-acknowledged “pause” occurred despite ongoing, significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The UN IPCC acknowledges that there have been no deterioration in any climate metric over the 20th and 21st Centuries. The alarmist CliSciFi practitioners, venal politicians, yellow journalists and crony capitalist have all lied to you about increasing wildfires, droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, accelerating SLR & etc.
The new UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP6 models still have the tropical tropospheric hot spot, whereas radiosondes and satellites detect no such thing. The excuse now is that some of the discrepancies can be chalked up to models’ overestimation of SSTs, observational error and various other handwaving exercises. The absence of a hot spot invalidates CliSciFi assumptions about the significant effects of CO2 on global temperatures.
The UN IPCC CliSciFi models overestimate the trend of global warming by a magnitude of at least two times compared to terrestrial measurements. The discrepancy is even grater when considering the measured bulk atmospheric temperatures by radiosondes and satellites compared to modeled atmospheric temperatures.
Observational estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) trend to 2 or less C/doubling CO2. Many of the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models’ ECS estimates run far above that. The models that more accurately reflect historical observational metrics have ECSs in the observational estimates’ range.
I could go on, but you are probably not listening anyway.
And now you have to recognise the new, additional climate change produced on top of existing/natural climate drivers. why can’t there be a new additional climate impact if there’s a new factor, e.g. much more CO2?
Because real atmospheric physicists point out that CO2 has minimal impact on temperatures. Additionally, the recent work of physicist Dr. Happer et al show that the increase of CO2 concentrations from approximately 400 ppm to 800 ppm would have negligible impact on global atmospheric temperatures.
CO2 has a minor effect on atmospheric temperatures. It is a stretch to claim discernable future weather effects of CO2 when the UN IPCC has shown no changing past or current weather patterns, with or without CO2. All of the engendered fear in the populace is based on lies about deteriorating current weather patterns and wild speculation about unlikely scenarios input to models with high ECSs.
Responsible researchers, such as Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, indicate that when summing the pluses and minuses of reasonable estimates of future CO2 increases in the atmosphere, we will wind up with very minor possible impacts on humanity and its economy. No apocalypse, not even serious damage. Strengthening infrastructure now and in the near future as appropriate and future adaptation by a wealthier and more technologically advanced humanity to any changes in weather patterns is the most intelligent course of action.
BTW, you and other warmunists continue to conflate weather events with climate. Climate is the measured meteorological metrics of interest at a particular location over significant time periods. As opposed to the current CliSciFi alarmist propaganda, climate (change) does not and never can “cause” bad weather events. It is a bald-faced untruth to state that a particular weather event was made worse by (unidentified) climate change. Even the UN IPCC says it can’t be done.
I could say more, but (again) you aren’t listening.
Pointing out that stuff that has happened before is happening again, is not proof of anything.
which is why ‘heatwave happened in 1934’ isn’t a proof of no climate change now
Griff, the UN IPCC, in its various reports, has “proven” that there is “no climate change now.” They show that there has been no worsening of any meteorological metric over the past 120 years or so. They do show annual and decadal natural variations. They also indicate that weather we are currently experiencing is not outside of past normal bounds.
In your posting, you conflate a 1934 heatwave with climate. You have been shown in various WUWT articles and comments that climate is not short-term weather patterns. If there were heatwaves in the past that are similar to current heatwaves, you cannot claim “climate change.” Nobody can prove a negative such as your “… a proof of no climate change now …” You have to prove “climate change,” not just assert it.
The world has been warming with periodical ups and downs since the Little Ice Age. Humans have been able to measure approximate temperatures for some time and the results show there are cycles within a general upturn of less than 1 C/century. That minor warming and associated mildly increased precipitation has been a great benefit to humanity. One hopes it would continue for awhile, although it appears we are at the end of the most recent warming cycle. CO2 does not appear to control that identified cycle.
This is further proof that the climate bubble has dispensed with medium and long run climate cycles. It only acknowledges short term ones and those in turn are to be used as propaganda elements.
Exactly. The whole debate has departed from reality
So they, and you, are deniers of the IPCC’s conclusions?
” very, very likely”
So, they’re not sure. We’ve committed to spending trillions on a hypothesis scientists aren’t sure about. Madness.
Please provide us uneducated a list of those impacts, Griff. It doesn’t have to be exhaustive nor unduly technical.
Now THAT’S the way one wins arguments.
I don’t have to, because 5 minutes on the net will give you a detailed list of scientific papers showing them.
but you could start with
Climate change continues to be evident across UK – Met Office
No, Griff, slightly warming temperatures are not climate change as hyped by the CliSciFi activists, politicians, Deep State, rent-seekers, NGOs & etc. When they say climate change, they are implying that current weather patterns are abnormal, and are exaggerated to engender fear in people.
Minor temperature increases are exaggerated in importance. They are used by profiteers of all sorts as a basis for saying that recent weather extremes are out of the normal “climate change.” The Met Office would serve the populace better by sticking to reporting un-hyped temperatures and current weather patterns in context of long-term past weather patterns. They are stoking fear for political purposes. They are a political entity relying on political patronage and government funding.
Exactly where has “climate” changed? Is the Sahara expanding? Are the rain forests expanding or shrinking. Are the temperate zones or tropic zones increasing or decreasing? Are cold zones expanding or shrinking?
Have Biologists made any recommendations that any place on earth be reclassified as to their climate? If as you say, warming and climate change is rapidly progressing, we should be seeing evidence of this already and Biologists should be insisting that maps and textbooks be updated to show the changes
No, it isn’t an hypothesis. It’s a tautology. There has never been a time when the weather was not changing. If the weather is changing the climates are changing.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that humans are causing the climates to change, generally.
It is absolutely certain there is more CO2, which has a human origin. The physics of CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely certain. Observations of radiation from top of Earth’s atmosphere show changes in line with expected results of more CO2. and so on.
Wrong. The atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has increased, and part of that is of human origin.
Wrong again. The physics of atmospheric CO2 is very much in contention. None of the models based on your interpretation have never provided accurate results.
Perhaps if you would actually learn some of the science instead of merely parroting what you’ve heard you wouldn’t come across like a fool.
No, Griff. It is a fact that the world has recently warmed (especially with the recent Super El Nino) and longwave IR has increased accordingly. There are many possible reasons, however, why the world would warm, not just CO2. The dynamics of the atmosphere (including clouds), oceans, landforms & etc. have uncertain outcomes. Contrary to your non-physicist opinion, the physics of CO2 and its operation in the atmosphere is wildly uncertain; it is a non-linear, dynamic system.
If the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere were “absolutely certain” all of the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models would have the same ECS. Responsible atmospheric physicists calculate that CO2 at its present levels in the atmosphere play a minor role in global temperatures.
If, as you say, CO2 is the one and only control knob and that the physics is well known, why are the models not correct for even a 12 months PREDICTION?
”It isn’t a hypothesis that climate change is impacting the planet.”
Of course it is. 1st, It is absolutely an hypothesis that human co2 has caused a ”change” in the ”climate”, and 2nd, We are looking at a change in the weather. Not a change in the climate. There is zero evidence that the so-called ”change” (if you want too call 1C over 100 years a ”change”) is permanent.
First people make up some random and meaningless definition of climate (30 years of weather) and then complain when it changes a tad.
Completely ridiculous – just like you and the stupid way you look at things.
Oh, I remember so many posts here about some climate impact where people have said ‘it is just weather as we haven’t had 30 years of data’
No, Griff, what you are reading is “weather is not climate.” Climate is the average of meteorological metrics over a long period of time at a particular location. There can never be a “climate impact” on anything; climate is not a thing.
“Climate change” was invented by the CliSciFi practitioners when “global warming” wouldn’t work given the lack of warming in the early 21st Century. Your use of “climate impact” indicates an ignorance of what the word climate actually means or an attempt to deceive.
If ignorance is bliss then you’re one happy puppy
Has it occurred to you that you are in a bubble too. It may be a bigger bubble but a bubble nonetheless. I know which one I prefer to be in.
It’s the bubble known as The Guardian.
Don’t forget its slightly more intellectual cousin, The Independent!!!
But hey: here am I looking at the other side of the argument.
And you have still learned nothing.
Failure on your part then, I think?
It takes more than just looking at it. You have to read it with an eye towards understanding. You only scan looking for things you can disagree with.
Open mind griff!
I’ve tried going over to the green blogs and commenting on their posts. My (perfectly polite) comments always get deleted. (SkS being a case in point).
You and your fellow alarmists are here on WUWT and you’re allowed to comment (quite rightly), but the censorious thermageddonists won’t let us sceptics play in their playground.
It is not looking when one ignores what one sees.
Griff, the “bubble” that we sceptics inhabit is called reality. The bubble that you inhabit is utter fantasy. The many posts that you have recently made only show what you wish is happening rather than the reality which is completely different.
Prezactly. It highlights a cultural divison that goes back as far as the Enlightenment, when society split into two sorts of people…
…On the one hand were the Realists, who said that God wasn’t necessary to explain the world therefore should not be included in rational discourse, and the world was what it was, whatever people thought did or said about it.
…On the other hand were the Idealists, who called themselves Romantics, who declared that the world of the Realists was horrid and ugly and quite without soul and we should all sit there and revel in the Glory Of Nature, and hug bunnys, and what people thought, was what made the world what it was, therefore we should stop the Realists thinking horrid ugly thoughts, and teach them how to be TellyTubbies, or equivalent.
The Griffette, is a Womantic, and all that complicated maths and sciency stuff is just – well – obscene.
He believes that, like Tinkerbelle, the world can be a better place just by believing in it.
Moi? je suis un Transcendental Idealist. Who doesn’t believe as such, but adopts as a working hypothesis the proposition that it makes sense to consider that there is a real world not subject to human thinking out there somewhere, but unfortunately our only access to it is via human thought and models. And we all know how unsatisfactory models are. Nevertheless when it comes to science, what we have, and indeed all we have is just models.
Which live or die, like salesmen, on their success or failure to predict the outcome of events.Or close a sale.
“I can find no ‘real world’ evidence for it.”
Perhaps you are not searching in the right places… if you seach outside of YOUR bubble in the really scientific publications reporting research in the real world (not models), you would find a lot of information that could contribute to your spiritual elevation…
I had a look on the web this is what I found about “bubbles”
A bubble is an economic cycle that is characterized by the rapid escalation of market value, particularly in the price of assets. This fast inflation is followed by a quick decrease in value, or a contraction, that is sometimes referred to as a “crash” or a “bubble burst.”
Typically, a bubble is created by a surge in asset prices that is driven by exuberant market behaviour. During a bubble, assets typically trade at a price, or within a price range, that greatly exceeds the asset’s intrinsic value (the price does not align with the fundamentals of the asset).
Now Griff aren’t we in a Green Energy Bubble? Similar to the South Sea Bubble (which we are still paying for.) the results when the bubble bursts the results will be similar including the number of swindlers who get punished.
This is how Britannica describes the sorry tale of the South Sea Bubble which sounds horribly familiar but which most people seem ignorant of.
South Sea Bubble, the speculation mania that ruined many British investors in 1720. The bubble, or hoax, centred on the fortunes of the South Sea Company, founded in 1711 to trade (mainly in slaves) with Spanish America, on the assumption that the War of the Spanish Succession, then drawing to a close, would end with a treaty permitting such trade. The company’s stock, with a guaranteed interest of 6 percent, sold well, but the relevant peace treaty, the Treaty of Utrecht made with Spain in 1713, was less favourable than had been hoped, imposing an annual tax on imported slaves and allowing the company to send only one ship each year for general trade. The success of the first voyage in 1717 was only moderate, but King George I of Great Britain became governor of the company in 1718, creating confidence in the enterprise, which was soon paying 100 percent interest.
In 1720 there was an incredible boom in South Sea stock, as a result of the company’s proposal, accepted by Parliament, to take over the national debt. The company expected to recoup itself from expanding trade, but chiefly from the foreseen rise in the value of its shares. These did, indeed, rise dramatically, from 128 1/2 in January 1720 to more than 1,000 in August. Those unable to buy South Sea stock were inveigled by overly optimistic company promoters or downright swindlers into unwise investments. By September the market had collapsed, and by December South Sea shares were down to 124, dragging other, including government, stock with them. Many investors were ruined, and the House of Commons ordered an inquiry, which showed that at least three ministers had accepted bribes and speculated. Many of the company’s directors were disgraced. The scandal brought Robert Walpole, generally considered to be the first British prime minister, to power. He promised to seek out all those responsible for the scandal, but in the end he sacrificed only some of those involved in order to preserve the reputations of the government’s leaders. The South Sea Company itself survived until 1853, having sold most of its rights to the Spanish government in 1750.
I would never get caught in a scam like that, my money is invested in Tulips. 🙂
I’m heavily invested in securitized mortgage loans.
Says the man whose head is buried so deep in the sand even his toes aren’t visible.
Oh that’s where he sticks his head, I thought he stuck it somewhere else!!!
Half of them on here think a column of gas automatically heats itself at the bottom! That’s definitely a bubble belief in operation right there.
I’ve found a reference which refutes this.
A paradox concerning the temperature distribution of a gas in a gravitational field
Griff, your second sentence is shady since the word many could be less than half. I presented to you a chart of the emissivity of CO2 done by several people over several decades and asked you to refute it. You did not nor can you.
Since CO2 has an almost zero emissivity it cannot do what you say.
You could figure this out yourself via Avogadro number, Planck constant, and ppm of CO2. But you won’t.
Bubbles are made using fossil fuel.
Thought you knew that?
They appear to be an offshoot of producing fertiliser and the UK has a shortage…
Please send bubble parcels…
Fascinating how griff considers the real world to be part of the skeptic bubble.
Forced labor in western China is in a bubble—with razor wire and very highwalls and watch towers with electronics. The other bubble is in the groups that look the other way and don’t try to look.
And it isn’t just renewable energy products coming out of those factories – many US commercial products do too. and many products other than renewable energy ones depend on slave mined cobalt.
I hope you are all boycotting them?
Now thats not true Griff, you read articles not stories , you also i think are aware ,that MSM have blocked most articles from front line outlets, science journal have also blocked papers that question anything CC,environment.
On the other paw if people did do their own research they would quickly find opposing articles,papers and opinions.
They don’t because ,they can’t be bothered, they believe the propaganda of MSM , and the cynical ploy of fact checkers popping up if someone does help themselves to some research.
So by your own addmission you can read what you call skeptical web sites, why shouldn’t, the masses do the same , would you argue against ” being informed?”
Years ago the Mommas and the Poppas sang “if I really say it, the radio won’t play it”. Today the theme is “if I say something the corporate elites and the activist NGOs don’t like, Facebook will censure it, and the MSM won’t mention it. Facebook even deletes posts of articles that are peer reviewed from reputable Science journals. To say “I can only find evidence for from within the skeptic bubble” is like saying ‘I’ve searched the whole Chinese internet, and I can’t find a single article denouncing Xi as a dictator. What is censored in the mass media can only be found here, because the MSM refuses to even admit that it exists. No matter the credentials and factual basis of the writer.
You are full of it because you make a dead end statement without a shred of information behind it, heck you completely ignored the examples of corruption and destruction of the environment that “green initiatives” generates in the article.
I wonder if you just read the headline and your climate propaganda programming kicked in to make the typically empty comments you make?
You also ignore BOTH Video’s as well.
You an excellent example of the ignorant disinterested envirowhacko babbler.
Griff, WUWT publishes most all of the warmunist studies, reports and news releases. And people on WUWT actually read the UN IPCC CliSciFi and other (mostly) government reports, as opposed to the NGOs, politicians, rent seekers and the MSM spewing exaggerations and outright lies. Nothing is censored and comments are welcome from people holding vastly diverse opinions as to the science of our weather systems and the desirability of abandoning free market capitalism.
The reason you see scientific studies, reports and other information at WUWT that you consider to be only developed from within what you call the “skeptic bubble” is that that information is actively suppressed by the massive, government supported and well-funded individuals and entities profiting from the climate scare. Your sources of information don’t carry such factual studies and analyses because the information providers support the various ideological causes; environmentalism, fear of climate change and all forms of socialism.
Intersectionality has been expanded to include the description of where one ideological cause uses other ideologies to support an agenda. An example is Marxists using climate (weather) fears to stampede people into collectivism instead of free market economies. That way, if you oppose Marxist intrusion into free markets, you are now a climate denier.
Griff, your worldview is obviously limited and your education is sorely lacking. Read more widely on the topic of weather and climate. Don’t read, listen to nor watch Marxist-inspired news outlets.
that information is actively suppressed by the massive, government supported and well-funded individuals and entities profiting from the climate scare.
It isn’t. There is no plot.
No plot is needed. It is all enlightened self-interest, leavened with a large dollop of socialist ideology.
What more can be done? All the institutions driving the agenda – politicians, academia, corporate media, big business – have completely bought into the green blob. Your average guy on the street doesn’t care and hasn’t lifted a finger to research the issue. It will all implode of course, because all the spin in the world don’t make renewables viable. Just hope we haven’t cratered the economy and society in the meantime.
Wait till his parents die from no heating they will care then it might happen this winter
Because it hasn’t really impacted hom too much
Which will impact him, greatly.
Ergo. once we have enough renewable enery to totally f**** up people’s lives, they will research the issue., come to the no brainer conclusion and vote into power any politician who promises to scrap renewable energy.
Welcome to realpolitik
Yes, but they haven’t actually “bought into” the green blob. They have all SOLD OUT to the green blob. Now they can’t even allow questions to arise, since their entire livelihoods depend on it.
Behind every genuine disaster is a government program.
Behind every man made desaster of the modern era is either (cultural )Marxism or central banking.
A similar documetary destroying the official narrative (in this case genderism)
occured 11 years ago in Norway under name Brainwashed.
After its release the Norwegian government instantly shut down all funding for gender nonsense.
But somehow tptb succeeded in protecting the public in the rest of the world from this documetary the same way they protected us from the book tragedy and hope.
(and I’m 100% sure,though i have no proof,that 95-100% of these not only useless but extremely harmful parasites who lost their jobs as result of no more genderfundings still jobs that are paid by the taxpayer as these guys are extremely skilled in feeding off of the system)
Most green initiatives don’t pass the smell test. Basic schoolboy engineering is enough to spot the obvious flaws. The problem is that most leading politicians are experts in politics only, they simply can’t do simple science and maths.
this film is tediously long winded. Missing an opportunity
Have you found any information on Alexander Pohl besides his jobs at KPMG and HSBC?
I hate to say it but 30 minutes in and I think “Planet of the Humans” was a thriller compared to this sleep inducing piece of narcissism. $$s are certainly a key to all the renewable energy nonsense, but there are other pernicious agendas as well.
Congratulations if you made it to 30 minutes, 20 was all I could stand to waste.
yep , most people will switch off.
welcome to the misanthropic age —it is not Anthropocene as the greens would like to project but misanthropic age. Blame it in humans and it sells.
Pretty much what some of us have been saying for years
Residents of rural Ontario who have been forced to live with industrial scale wind turbines have tried to convey all of this information. This documentary fully supports those who have tried so hard.
The timing of the release of this is excellent.
People need to see that governments who fully support the industrial scale wind industry are complicit.
Will force majeure be invoked to end long term contracts? Who will demolish the turbines? Can they be recycled?
Cimate change and renewable energy is the biggest scam since eugenics which was one of the theories that fuelled the Second World War. Unfortunately science has been heavily politicised during the past decades as well.
We need to stop calling it “politicization!” What has occurred is nothing less than the takeover of our institutions by a religious cult that claims to be wrapped in the mantle of science!
Nothing could be further from the truth as these neo-Marxists (Progressives) show with every one of their science-lite beliefs! Gender fluidity, climate weirding; all their beliefs seem to contain a modicum of real science! Just about as much as Lysenkoism!
A problem in the UK is that so many of our MPs seem to be true believers. One only has to look back at the voting for the Climate Change bill where IIRC only 3 MPs voted against it.
Is it that they don’t understand the issues, are being fed a continual diet of scaremongering by the media and some scientists with vested interests, or are opting for a quiet life as they are being continually heckled by activists?
Going along with the flow is much easier than confronting it.
Douglas Murray says that the way to deal with unreasonable activists is to refuse to accept their assertions, so it looks as if we need to pressure our MPs more and interrupt their quiet life.
The politicians live off media attention. Without that they have no chance of promotion.
Being a backbencher is just being a well-paid social worker. Politicians want power and for that they need to be promoted.
Sky, Ch4 and the BBC firmly believe that the end of the word is big news. They won’t listen to anyone telling than that their Environmental Journalists are a waste of time. They all have whole departments of environmental journalists who have researched this and discovered that they do deserve a job.
So everyone agrees not to talk about the costs of mitigation. The fact that stopping the planes and emptying the roads for Covid was too small a cut to impact atmospheric CO2 levels.
If they did face up to reality the media have no story. And thus the politicians must go along with the farce or face the end of their careers.
They play along as they they think it makes them look good but most of them will be retired or on the board of some green company by the time the hell of these policies really strike. They will not be held responsible.
As I keep saying, Boris didn’t invent all the green stuff, nor did Carrie put him up to it: the UK mainstream view is the view of climate science and the need for net zero.
That is quite different from the US political scene and climate science is not seen as ‘leftist’ in most of the UK.
Yes Griff, but Climate Science isn’t science!!! The whole edifice is reliant upon puter models, programmed to produce any output the programmer(s) want them to produce, & they call it evidence!!!
“A problem in the UK is that so many of our MPs seem to be true believers. One only has to look back at the voting for the Climate Change bill where IIRC only 3 MPs voted against it.”
Yes & during the vote it was snowing outside Parliament for the first time in October for many years which was beautifully ironic!!!
A very large part of the problem is the constant and pointless back and forth prattle about the “science”. It has continued unabated for over 40 years. We don’t need any more science. We’ve had it with both sides ad nauseam … the science and the fraud. Both sides have their schisms, outliers. misfits, zealots and utterly mad participants. What is needed now is not further discussion, constantly picking over finer and finer details … with long, complex equations and circular arguments. We really need the equivalent of Constantine’s AD 325 Council of Nicaea to put an end to the bickering … to officially decide for the Doctrine of Climate Change, with its Neo-Marxist creed, or to give science back to the scientists and start rejoicing in the benevolent warmer weather and fortuitous greening of our planet. If we don’t, we’ll remain marooned on the Tower of Babble we now find ourselves. This world deserves better and there are far more important issues needing resolution.
We have that. It’s called the IPCC.
What we need is old-fashioned evidence based science and rejection of failed hypotheses.
We do not need a political authority telling us the true faith.
We have that.
Yes. Yes, we do. And they stated quite clearly that there is no ‘C’ in CAGW. All effects of warming will be mitigated by changes in technology and society, and no extreme weather events can be attributed to the slight warming we’ve had so far.
What we need is a proper summary of the IPCC position instead of a 100% political screed called a ‘summary for policy makers’ which is then hyped up to ‘8.5’ by the fear-loving media in order to sell advertising, all weeks before the actual report is published.
Its not hyped up to 8.5.
It’s turned up to 11..
Naw … they’re the mouth piece of the Marxists and true believers. They speak only for themselves. How is the IPCC “giving the science back to the scientists”? The IPCC is purely ideological.
M, I can’t figure out what you are trying to say. Are you saying the IPCC is the political authority?
The IPCC does not do science. The IPCC (politically) appoints Authors and Lead Authors to review the accepted literature and write a summary of their important findings. Section WGI, the Physical Basis, is where the action is, the science. The politicians look it over and write a fantasy they call the Summary for Policymakers. The name is a joke; the politicians have been involved throughout the process: The policies made later are dictated by the conclusions in the document summary itself.
Political influence? See: 1) Low-level American operator Santer’s “midnight” rewrite of the summary that Man’s impact on the climate could not be detected to read exactly the opposite. 2) Newly minted PhD Mann’s paleo temperature reconstruction showed no variation (no Medieval Warm Period) for 1,000 years until shooting up when Man came along; the Hockey Stick that got him the Lead Author position. 3) Honest scientists either resign or are not invited back. 4) Review comments are not published and critical comments are ignored.
So you’re arguing for political doctrine over science, because whichever decision is made, that it what it will be.
No, I’m arguing to take the decisions out of the politician’s hands and turn science over to actual scientists once again.
Only one side of the debate has a childish, unlearned belief in the rectitude of their religion; just look at the smarmy drive-by postings that the griffter likes to throw into the mix! From the cherries he flings at the argument, you can see that he believes in the infallibility of climate models AND government agencies!
Skepticism is the proper attitude of anyone who claims to be rational or scientific; yet griffter constantly posts the GangGreen dogma without ever expressing a doubt! Perhaps he thinks he has the strength of twenty because his feelings are pure! Pure, unadulterated BS!
Yes, that’s exactly right, which is why I said it. I don’t understand why you’re addressing your dissatisfaction of Griff with me. My position is clear. Give science back to the scientists.
The problem is that scientists will lie for money and fame. Look at how scientific organizations have been corrupted. What you say makes sense in theory, but unfortunately, too many scientists are corrupt.
At least that’s what they call themselves, but we both know they’re nothing of the sort. A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method, not just someone who knows how it should be used.
Yes, but those mostly seem to be the ones funded by fossil fuel funded thinktanks?
Too many are corrupt. The real problem is that many have been indoctrinated during their education and truly believe what their professors teach them. Mny do not have an in depth education in the physical sciences, rather a more specific education in how to use statistical software without understanding the assumptions the tools make. That’s why so many references to “climate change” in general with no specific local temperature data or data on how a 1 or 2 degree change specifically modifies a subjects biology, reproductive, or other actions.
I certainly don’t see any evidence or counter argument presented by commenters like yourself.
I accept the science of climate change because there are multiple strands of observed evidence: the opposition appears very often to be ‘it is all a plot’, ‘we had some weather like that once, so its just weather’ and a whole heap of cherry picking and misrepresentation and name calling.
Then you also must accept that there are studies and papers that refute CO2 being the control knob for temperature. Therefore your “faith” must acknowledge both sides and you should realize that the folks who believe that CO2 is NOT a control knob have an equally legitimate claim.
May I suggest a coherent agreed approach from the skeptic side might help?
any day here I can read it isn’t warming, it is warming but the warmer world will benefit us, that there’s a new ice age approaching, that it is water vapour that causes the warming and oh so many more utterly contradictory statements as to what the climate is doing.
Then there’s the political rhetoric – ‘it is all marxist’ is not a scientific argument, or true
The problem is that there is no orthodox position.
If we had conclusive evidence then there would be one position. But there is no conclusive evidence about what will happen in the future. The models run hot, but why?
Is it because the heat has suddenly changed its behaviour and moved into the oceans? Why?
Is it because the sensitivity to GHGs is over-estimated? How can we tell if we don’t know the natural component?
The reverse is true as well, of course but that’s just re-iterating the same uncertainty.
Can a chaotic system be modelled in terms of forcings at all? (I suspect not but that’s a minority view around here).
It’s worth nothing that the catastrophist side is also split. Some think that all the warming that happened is down to mankind. Some think that some of the warming that’s happened is down to mankind. Some even think that more than 100% of the warming that’s happened is down to mankind and the world would naturally be cooling instead.
You are right that the political rhetoric is somewhat loony. A lot believe in the Red under the Bed madness. But just because all widely held opinions attract a fair share of nutters on the fringe doesn’t mean you ignore the other arguments.
Nonsense. The problem is, there is no problem. The “orthodox position” is the null hypothesis. The default state of all climates is change. The world is naturally doing what it has always done … display variability. Science is a process. It doesn’t provide ready answers to every change in the weather. That’s why it is such a good issue for political control. Just pretend you have the answers and “the science” supports you.
The real problem is that money grubbers have latched onto “climate change” as a means of creating a new industry that will have Apple like growth thereby making them tons of profit. If they knew regulators were going to step in and limit their rate of return you wouldn’t see near the pressure for unreliable renewable energy EVs. That’s the reason they are so adamant about not having guaranteed supply contracts.
In griff’s world, the fact that there is no centralized authority that enforces a rigid orthodoxy on us skeptics, proves that we skeptics aren’t scientists.
I’m not asking for a central authority – merely recognition that many skeptic tropes are mutually contradictory – they cannot all be true.
And you think all CAGW tropes are not contradictory?
I understand you have an enormous challenge reading and comprehending basic English. You and your sort have lived in your own little world of political “rhetoric”, fallacy, hyperbole and sophistry for so long you can’t distinguish fact from fiction. You can’t seem to grasp that every one of those “contradictory statements” is true … in context.
‘it isn’t warming’ and ‘it is warming but it will be beneficial’ are completely contradictory and there is no context in which both can be true or exist.
That’s where you’re wrong AGAIN and it’s why you have such difficulty with the basic concepts of climate vs. weather. We are enjoying a temporary warm period while the planet is generally cooling.
Over geological time this planet is experiencing an Interglacial warming period named The Holocene, but the Thermal Optimum of this period took place over 8000 years ago. Since then it has gradually cooled, in roughly 1000 year increments of warming and cooling. Presently it has warmed slightly from the coldest period since the HTO, the Little Ice Age. As that warming slows, as it appears to be doing now, it will cool again.
These warming and cooling cycles will continue until the planet finally cycles back to its default state of full ice age. Humans are just along for the ride like every other life form. The temporary warm periods, like the present, have been generally beneficial for life.
Who says it isn’t warming? Most everyone here recognizes warming of the atmosphere at the earth/atmosphere boundary. What we don’t recognize is that the warming is exceeding natural variation. When you can’t find a variance statement included with any temperature information, like GAT, then it isn’t wrong to suspect it isn’t exceeding natural variation.
Perhaps you would like to step out and define what the natural variation in temperature is. That would go a long way to resolving any issues.
As the restrictions on dispatchable energy continues across the Western World, this winter could see the updated version of the “let them eat cake” moment, that signified the start of the French Revolution.
“Sir the people are revolting, they have no power”
“Good, the last thing we want are the people to have power, we know they are revolting, let them freeze, that will cool them down”
It won’t end well.
No, it is not broken, it is doing precisely what it was created to do, disrupt energy production.
No, it is not broken, it is doing precisely what it was created to do, make obscene amounts of money for crony capitalists.
Leo (and 2hotel9,)
Not ALL of those pushing the RE scam are evil crony capitalists and government functionaries! Many are weak minded, true believers who would have trouble thinking their way out of a wet paper bag!
Just ask Simple Simon or the griffter to answer a direct question; like why a tropical species, that currently suffers 5-10 times as many deaths from cold as heat, should be scared of a possible rise in temperature of a degree or two! A logical or rational person might think that until heat and cold related deaths are more balanced, that a little warming might be a good thing; but you’ll never get the True Believers to admit to anything but what they are told to think!
Hell, you can’t even get them to acknowledge that Earth is currently in a CO2 drought, with all the long term trends indicating that Life itself is in jeopardy of dying out in the near geologic future!
Insane, anti-human nihilism is all they’ve got!
Check out the iguanas in Florida earlier this year.
The good news is I think more people are waking up to the madness.
I get the nature thing, but he’s as bonkers as they are.
A bit harsh, but his argument lacks clarity and the documentary cohernce. I watched to the end. He is obviously now in the maw of the legal system and being suspected of some unspecified offense – yet we do not know what it is or what the outcome is. It is a Kafkaesque movie about Kafka. Weird.
Does anybody have more information?
No, not harsh.
Child slavery barely got a mention, for example.
Like I said I get the nature thing, I also know what the banking system is all about. I wonder why it took him so long?
My “harsh” referred to the description of Alexander Pohl as “bonkers’. The documentary does touch on the issue of cobalt mining in the Congo. IMO, his argument as presented in the documentary lacks specifics and uses the same appeals to emotion as the argument for renewable energy. Disappointing.
But he believes CO2 emissions are a problem, right?
Agreed. As I said his line of reasoning is as flawed as those who he is castigating and only a slight improvement on the mush Greta serves up. His argument that we (however defined) have enough Electricity is, of course, either a truism or absolute nonsense.
First impressions, he made enough cash to get out, opened his big gob( reasons are unclear why) and now seems to be making a stance, as with all these things ,theres more to it than meets the eye.
I certainly would not take this person into any inner circle.
I hate documentaries. Even the ones that I agree with and am interested in the subject matter. That one was an hour and a half long and spent about 15 minutes actually making their point, the rest was naval gazing, self-congratulations and trying to evoke emotional responses.
I don’t need my emotions to be steered in the right direction. If you have a point, make your point. Give me the facts and let me decide whether to be happy about it, or sad about it, or outraged about it.
Mahatma Gandhi used the belief in Christianity against the British to attain his goal. Of course he didn’t consider the British were setting up an independent India and hanging on because of internal strife among India’s people and wanted out because it was cheaper to leave. The British introduction of railway to India was economically good for India and the infrastructure built in India benefited the people.
The corporations and greens are like Gandhi in reverse, they want the green deal CLAIMING VIRTUE, that is imposed on people, for profits. And a negative value of the green infrastructure to the people.
I think every one of us has known from the beginning that the tree huggers will wind up hating wind and solar enough to kill them just as soon as they’ve used them to kill fossil and nuclear. The film makers are the ones who caused it in the first place. Apparently, it isn’t just U.S. Democrats that have a cycle of causing problems in order to fix them in a way that causes problems that only they can fix with more problems.
In most polls climate change comes last in importance. When they see the elites of the world living the life they say damages the world they switch off. The world is bored of it.
And climate change is only part of the pools because those who design polls put it in as one of the answers. If people were offered polls with questions but no pre-determined answers and asked about their “concerns,” then “climate change” would not even make the list of answers.
I’ll watch today after lunch…
Thank you for this documentary. My take on it is that a lot of well intentioned people now are objecting to the methods being used by “greens” to combat the false narrative of CO2 driven climate change. The basic problem is the misunderstanding of CO2; the rest are the consequences of believing in the CO2 falsehoods, whether or not these consequences are intended or unintended. And, yes, it’s all about the money.
The promoters of the CO2 narrative should now know they are wrong, and their alarmist message is behind this green evil being foisted on the world. They KNOW their models are wrong; they KNOW those models are the ONLY support for their false alarmism. For them to persist in the anti-CO2 movement is morally wrong, and they must be held to account if they fail to correct their message.