Steve Milloy appeared on an Israeli news program called “Global Eye” the other day.
It was him vs. two climate activists, one from Extinction Rebellion and one from Israel Hom Guardians.
He upset his two opponents, and dismantled them, and did it with a smile on his face.
The money quote from Steve: “Dude. Shut up. It’s my turn.”
Well worth the 20 minutes to watch the whole segment. They even had to bring in a guy to pinch hit for one of the organizations in the second segment.
Subsidies for fossil fuel my ass how much royalties do fossil fuel companies pay against the subsidies that are paid to wind and solar
Fossil fuel suppliers should cut supplies for a week including the grid, then see the green idiots squirm
Far more than that. Fossil fuel companies pay taxes, and they pay levies for the services from government that they use.
Red and green are taxes in the Netherlands (levy and VAT), yes, we pay tax on levy….
The level of ignorance on the other side is breathtaking.
Got that right. One of their demands is to reduce emissions to net zero by 2025.
“The level of ignorance”
It’s typical. All three Climate Alarmists were spouting the usual talking points, and when Milloy scoffed at them, they couldn’t stand it, and Mr. Pereira got so exercised that he threatend to leave the show, and then he couldn’t stand to let Milloy speak anymore constantly talking over him.
This is typical fanatic behavior. They have their mind made up on a subject and you aren’t going to change it, and if you try, they will do everything they can to shut you up. Your words are extremely upsetting to their worldview and they lash out viciously, calling the truth-teller all sorts of names.
Yes, the Climate Alarmists had all the talking points down, but none of those talking points stand up to scrutiny, as most of us already know.
I think we had three True Believer Climate Alarmists on this show. I think they are sincere in their CO2 delusions. This allows them to speak forcefully in support of their religion, but they still don’t have any evidence to back up any of their dire claims. Any of their dire claims. All they have are assumptions and assertions, which is not evidence of anything.
Mr. Pereira’s behavior is typical of a radical Leftist: Very Nasty when you disagree with him..
It is SO ignorant that it must be willful.
For instance, the 97% “consensus” has been proven false repeatedly, at length, for over 9 years, now (see, e.g., http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html ).
Pride* of the deepest, most stubborn, kind is causing those two young people to willfully refuse to consider the facts and arguments of the data-honoring scientists who oppose them.
*Pride because to admit they are mistaken so threatens their egos that they will not and almost cannot hear reason and evidence contrary to their beliefs.
The step beyond pride is hubris. That is where they are at.
Dr Michael Adel is “a key contributor to IHG’s [Israel Homeland Guards] science-based activities”.
Israel Homeland Guards is an organisation which aims to safeguard Israel against
Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Terrorism,climate change.I feel the climate changers didn’t get the opportunity to make the most important point with this crisis-
Climate change to blame for up to 17 deaths on Mount Everest, experts say (msn.com)
These are experts with letters after their names.
Everest deaths are from stupidity … not climate !
“The climbing has pattern has changed, it used to be hardened climbers but now it is a lot of novice climbers who want to get to the summit of Everest,”
“The root cause of the high number of deaths lies with inexperienced clients who push themselves too hard and do not turn back soon enough,”
Which, of course, is “caused by climate change.”/sarc
That’s been the case for a couple of decades, at least.
They never compare the subsidies per unit of energy provided. It is just typical diversion tactics. Also what they call subsidies aren’t. Also why do they think that requiring more labour per unit of output is a plus? Our media is comprised of idiots educated beyond their ability to understand.
why do they think that requiring more labour per unit of output is a plus?
Well if they substitute forks and spoons for picks and shovels it creates more jobs digging turbine bases. Every XR managerial type can easily explain that to slow skeptics as it’s Climanomics101.
Nice Milton Friedman reference.
A three against one debate, and the one is constantly interrupted.
Besides that, the premise is a loaded question
“Are global climate initiatives effective?”
that assumes climate change is a problem that requires a solution.
This ^
The world has never been a better place for humans and it keeps getting better.
Generally agree, but democide is perhaps more overt than ever.
They are trying to decrease the population by any means available. Democide creates lots of possibilities for billions of people to die starving and freezing to death in the dark. The crime increase will decrease the population to a lessor but significant degree.
I noticed that Milloy was the “token” realist to supposedly give their biased show some semblance of balance. Not only was he outnumbered in numbers, his presentations were able to be overshadowed by the alarmists so that he could be shut up easily. This farce of a debate/discussion was just more pro-alarmist propaganda.
Jesus
Milloy attends moron convention
Moron intervention?
Dutch Dude “If we’re going to debate the facts about Climate Change then I’m off!!!”
Says it all
Completely so; the trope of “…less than 3% of scientists” is the corollary to “97% of scientists agree…..” flat out lie – she is either dangerously deluded or just dangerous if she ( and the dutch pawn) dont understand that every time they trot out their rubbish, people get to understand for those that think sceptically and critically what they wish to impose – and its all about control.
The planet warms and cools over millenia – fact; natural effects such as El Nino/La Nina and the Sun are some of the drivers of fluctuating weather and the climate -fact; rising CO2 does not drive rising temperatures – fact; CO2 is not a pollutant- fact; CO2 is vital for all life without which there would be no life as we know it – fact;
These people are brainwashed fraudsters who display psychosis very time they open their mouths – they are the denying Elephants in the Room, refusing to allow different voices that disagree with them, threatening to switch off their “Skype” – and the dutch delusions did not seem to be bright, or even mentally well balanced, enough to get the irony of that.
These psychotics have already been “sectioned” by people who see through them; perhaps they need treatment, urgently……
“they are the denying Elephants in the Room”
And elephants over the Alps.
Pity the children, what have we done to make them like that.
(Just how many stand up straight, pull in their stomachs and hide a glass of whiskey when I say that?)
Meanwhile, two glimmers of hope (although the chemistry of the first one eludes me)
These are what these children should be railing about.
And Milloy should be pointing them towards.
Glimmer one
(I always thought that Carbonic Acid (aka: Rain) dissolves carbonate rocks and does not create them)
But the other thing, briefly mentioned, is the improvement in plant productivity.
Even better, they’re actually giving the stuff away – I have previously priced it at £20 per tonne delivered and spread.
(Unusual for those of a Scottish extraction but there you go: The world really has gone mad)
The second is beautiful = what I suggest should be done to achieve Carbon Capture of Coal
i.e. Gassify it, burn the gas and bury the resultant left-over coke in your farmlands.
Glimmer two
Give the soil bacteria some love. and a home.
Meanwhile, (attached) here’s a little love for ctm. Long suffering under-appreciated soul as he is
It’s a story on how Life on Earth started but so perfectly describes how it will end.
ctm ‘knows’ this already yet keeps his cool so well.
edit to ponder..
Tell me I’m not the only one asking how NASA came to be ‘dictating’ anything to anyone?
“what have we done to make them like that.”
Indoctrination + propaganda resulting in induced psychoneuroses by conditioned reflex under stress.
It’s a multi-decadal project – ongoing
The earth is mostly protected from comments today.
No mention that I could see of what energy it takes to quarry, grind, transport and spread a tonne of basalt.
What do you mean “we,” Peta. Speak for yourself.
It’s telling that Steve had to put the rude smug (hands behind the head) ‘dude’ in his place, rather than the TV presenter. Of course the format was potentially better than the BBC, ‘no place at the table’ policy, but having a TV presenter not allowing a fair time to speak and failing to stop interruptions was probably more biased.
Well done Steve keeping your composure.
What I don’t get is the claim that XR is democratic. It may or may not be democratic as a very small exclusive club, but it cannot therfore claim to be Vox Populi.. Much the same way in which after years of trying, there is still only one green party UK MP.
Steve Malloy is not effective in these debates. The points that need to be made are:
In 30 years the portion of energy Fromm fissile fuels has gone from 85 to 81% while the total amount of energy consumed has increased substantially.
The goods, materials and services that a modern economy is based on is now made in eastern and Southern Asia (using inexpensive fossil fuels) and imported to the west. Climate mitigation strategies are like squeezing a ballon.
The ETS and carbon pricing schemes are regressive taxes on the poor and working class in the west where these are implemented. Their cost of living goes up while their good paying jobs move to Asia.
The Asian countries using fossil fuels to manufacture what the west buys are seeing their economies grow and living standards will rise as they become more efficient. The big multinationals see profits rise when they offshore production but after more than a decade of offshoring they are finding they are becoming passengers on the supply chain and are no longer drivers. The intellectual property will ultimately belong to manufacturers and this is clearest in China’s dominance of the green supply chain.
Finally, look at the western bureaucracies behind the green movement that have lost control of the manufacturing supply chain. Does anyone seriously believe the same people (or anyone for that matter) are going to be able to control the weather?
“Does anyone seriously believe the same people (or anyone for that matter) are going to be able to control the weather?”
Not only can they not control the weather, they imply that it was under control before modern industrialization.
Good gawd that was irritating. More evidence that youth is very much wasted on the young. They know everything, they won’t listen, and they won’t change their minds, ever, no matter how much evidence is laid in front of them.
Steve Milloy is to be applauded for his patience in this aww “discussion.
It is impossible to miss how much time they spend trying to diminish his points teaming up two against one breaking the rules of this meeting several time!
At the so called money quote, Steve is getting his volume tuned down.. when he got to say “it´s a hoax” without being allowed to explain what he means with that … He does look like telling a fairy tale, very well done from a strategic point of view!
Steve does not get 1/3 of the speaker time at all!
“”The poor demonstrators forming a democratic movement sitting on a street””
No one stated that it is illegal hindering other people in their freedom and the opposite of the democratic idea!
But I think it is so important to show face and be ready to discuss if it ever comes to that!
The Pereira guy claiming that the protests are “democratic” was absolutely absurd. The word democracy means rule by the people, and a few disrupters blocking the streets and preventing people from getting to work and supporting their families is NOT “democratic”, but an attempt at tyranny of the few.
It’s a shame that Steve Milloy didn’t mention the protests of Dutch farmers against their government trying to shut down farms, ostensibly to fight “global warming”, which led thousands of farmers to bring their tractors into the city. Whatever one’s political leanings, ALL people need to eat, so that a farmers’ protest is true democracy!
Why did they bother inviting Steve? They were determined not to let him have a proper say.
You call that a victory ?!? That’s not even a Pyrrhic victory, that’s a total loss.
That was the lamest defense I’ve ever seen. First, the subject is are climates protests effective. I would have responded, that protestor people are “all about me” not caring about the facts.
When bringing in actual climate science, have a good solid reference to fight with, such as “Sea level rise predates CO2 rise by 90 years.” Anyone can go look at US NOAA sea level data for San Francisco or New York, and plainly see that sea level rise begins in about 1860. And we can look at US NOAA data and clearly see that CO2 rise begins in earnest about 1950, 90 years after sea level rise. The future doesn’t cause the past.
Periera: Shocking to throw soup on a valuable painting. Really! But necessary! We demand freedom of speech. But deniers are evil and smell of sulphur (or methane. Or coal.Or something). So stop their mouths with plaster, fill their eyes with chewing gum; and shove them out the door.
There are different levels of climate scepticism when debating. The alarmist will tend to focus on the first level when interacting with a sceptic. This is my framework.
Level 1: is climate warming or not (this is where I’m guessing you would see 97% of scientists, which says nothing of the other levels of scepticism). The validity of the data can be questioned (the historical derived data going way back in time, and today’s techniques – meteorological sites vs satellites, data revision).
If yes then level2.
Level 2: Is the warming anthropogenic or not? Since past warming is hard to model, there is case for having doubts on models looking forward. It is hard to argue there is no human impact, the question is more to what extent. Debate possible.
If anthropogenic, then level 3.
Level 3: What are the contributors to the heating? GHG (leads or lags)? Other factors? There is a big body of knowledge here (radiative forcing), but probably lots of place for debate.
Level 4: What is the climate sensitivity? Is there a negative or positive feedback effect? This is where sceptics have the most material for debate, where science has the biggest gap (empirical evidence vs theoretical models, cloud impact, water vapor …)
If positive feedback, then level4.
Level 5: Is it catastrophic. How much heat can the planet sustain? The huge temperature variations through eras, periods, … down to seasons and within a single day leaves much place to debate as to how much variations it can tolerate before it causes catastrophes.
To these layers of scepticism, we could add the implementation question.
-How relevant is cutting CO2 targets if only 20% of the planet contributes, while the rest continues to generate as much as they want?
-What is the cost/benefit of implementing measures?
-What are the environmental downsides of the new technologies? Are they greater than the problem they are trying to solve?
All these questions highlight the complexity of the debate, which is never entertained by the alarmists.
Why was Steve assaulted, and why was this additional enforcer pinching and hitting him vs. other forms of attack? Obs they have no physical or referenceable data to attack with.
“Reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.” What are these people smoking?
Something that emits more than just CO2?
Considering that Milloy was facing not just two but three and a “moderator” that stopped giving him “equal time” and gave “them’ the last words, he did very well.
(I wonder how much time to speak he was given overall compared to “them”?)
Steve might have been better to keep saying there is no climate crisis – the Dutch lunatic would have tossed his toys out of the cot and stomped off. That might have given him a little bit more of an opportunity to get a word in edgewise.
The annoying bell reminded me of the Match Game from back in the 70’s (sorry side note)
The cutting of his mike or the distortion just for Malloy was so telling in the whole propaganda show put on by all the rest of this liefest.This is all pure marxist babble. And a last pain in my cooling head is the word concensus which has little to do with science and more to do with his view of public opinion. Sorry this subject boils my shorts and I am so sick of the morons that refuse to see the truth and push communism every day
I can’t watch it, I don’t know how Steve can put up with that crap. It was disgusting.
Steve’s most salient comment was that they were censoring him all the while imposing their own views. Vociferously opposed to debate.
The moderator wanted to discuss whether the protests had gone too far. Too far about what? There’s no evidence that human emissions have done anything to the climate (vociferous objections notwithstanding), so what is the point of protesting at all?
Any protest about nothing is a protest too far.