"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point (1974)
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline." - Dr Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999
“... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...” - Dr Phil Jones, July 8th 2004.
Global warming made sea levels rise 120 metres over the past 18,000 years!!!!!!
Tree-ring temperature proxy data is all fake because tree growth isn't a proxy for temperature alone but cloud cover and rainfall (trees grow from photosynthesis, which is faster with water and sunshine). This is why it failed since 1960, global dimming! “… wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts … are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy.” – Oppenheimer, 1950
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point (1974)
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline." - Dr Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999
“... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...” - Dr Phil Jones, July 8th 2004.
Global warming made sea levels rise 120 metres over the past 18,000 years!!!!!!
@Vorticistick Here's some links I found just for you about media generated CONSENSUS TRANCE watch?v=khGIRlRfs3s watch?v=ls4ho75U_WM As for David Icke - you call him a 'loon' for being different. Perhaps we NEED to hear someone different from TV 'newsreaders'? Here's Icke on Princess Di's death watch?v=6egLgyks_vA Icke on Washington and Bohemian Grove watch?v=rpDhKbCRAw8 Icke on the EU origins watch?v=vRrUj-sOgMI Icke on Wogan watch?v=KqTAIX2WlTQ Icke on Holie Grieg watch?v=E4FPGX_PwiU
@sallygo1234 Hi just felt bad about laughing at you. I'm sure you mean well, as David Icke probably does, and I can understand why you attack certain mainstream ideas and perceptions, but you don't make coherent arguments. You have a scattergun approach rejecting and connecting everything. I think part of the problem is the media which is so powerful, biased and confusing that you suffer an allergic reaction. You really need to get to the raw data and peer reviews to inform your opinion.
@Vorticistick No need to feel bad for me! I'm fine :)
Instead why not switch off the TV, look at my links and do your own research on Club of Rome, Agenda 21, Rothshilds (history, ownership of green charities, construction of CO2 bank etc), CFR membership relating to media/ politics/ business and CFR stated policy etc etc ...
This isn't 'conspiracy research' it is just research! LOL
You still haven't discussed a single one of these things yet. (Just mocking then apologizing).
there is so much you have said that is simply not true or just plain erroneous. most of it mirrors what is published in the media( not peer reviewed ), or resembles what i have seen on youtube ( unreliable at best ). if you are really interested in actual facts about this subject i suggest you start with peer reviewed research instead of any old source. ps there is no such thing as "global warming" climate change is the term used by climatologists, GW is a media term.
0;01 this is the pro AGW/ pro carbon tax music.... heavenly harps and in keeping with AGW as our new age religion of 'neo serfdom' to the banking elite! :)
2:00 this is climate deniers' music, confused backwards, at odds with itself, unappealing :(
Another thing not mentioned is AGENDA 21 (aka 'sustainable development'). I bet half the people watching this doc have never even HEARD of AGENDA 21
Origins of AGW in the globalist/ NWO think tank 'Club of Rome'
The involvement of Rothschilds (et al) in constructing GLOBAL BANK to collect CO2 taxes (ka ching!) and GLOBAL GOVERNANCE to oversee and enforce taxes = excuse for one world government run by global criminals mafia!
No mention of Al Gore's fake hockey graph which he was forced to stop using - or his polluting open cast mines! (not so green as he pretends)
The Royal Society was set up by freemasons and is one of the most establishment/ elite institutions going.
This idea of the incorruptible scientist dedicated to the pursuit of truth and higher knowledge is childish and ridiculous - sure there are many honest hard working scientists working all over the planet but once you get into the realms of freemasonic science clubs, well stocked bars, endless dinners and conferences all payed for ... I mean come on!
I know funding may be a motivation for scientists to deceive the public in order to keep their jobs or make lots of money but funding will only be supplied if a scientific field displays itself as having potential. It does this by providing the imperical evidence which it has in the case of climate change. Have you looked at the evidence for climate change? there is very little disagreement among scientists from pree much all fields about this. i dont think they all in some plot
@1mb0123d I think you have a naive idea about scientists. It's not about there being a 'plot' among scientists. If there is research being funded there will be scientists willing to fill those posts! Scientists have families to feed too - how many people REALLY 'believe in' their jobs?
Anyway you're forgetting the 1000's of scientists who's science contradicts AGW.
Climate = change!
The climate has ALWAYS been changing. AGW is an UNPROVEN theory funded by elite bankers - sounds fishy to me!
If the AGW science is so settled and so convincing then why does the mass media consistently miss out all evidence against it and never allow the thousands of scientists who oppose it any airtime?
Why do they NEVER quote the Club of Rome who in 1972 wrote: 'In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming ..... would fit the bill ... The real enemy then is humanity itself'
This program is 100% propaganda! Payed by YOUR taxes!
See how 'climate deniers' are pictured with 'crazy music' and 'crazy editing' but scientists are portrayed as nice, rational, reasonable, sensible, paternal figures.
As for 'attacks' on scientists, what about the numerous headlines and comments about LOCKING UP 'climate deniers' and equating them to HOLOCAUST DENIERS? What about the threats including DEATH made by pro AGW (pro carbon tax) people? huh?
If the idea of 'saving the planet' = automatic support from you (and everyone else who never does any research) then presumably if I have enough power and influence (ie money) then I can invent any scam I like (such as massive global taxation on a natural gas) and pretend it will 'save the planet' (kill germs dead, hit pain where it hurts etc) and everyone will buy into it as a (literal) 'no brainer'.
@sallygo1234 you don't get it, do you? show how the science is wrong. prove to everyone here that you can show which underpinning process of climate change is incorrect. that means physics, meteorology, climatology and planetology, not to mention any of the other related sciences. show your proof countering all the amassed evidence supporting human induced climate change. stop pissing around with semantics and amateur psychology.
@raverdeath100 I can't explain in 500 characters and you must realize that.
I'm not a climate scientist - I am a rational thinker who has studied history and is aware of the potential for worthy but vague causes ('saving the planet') can be hijacked. Hitler wanted to save humanity from bad genetics and HE managed to get 'all the science' to back him up and many people fell for it. And now the same global elite who funded Hitler are pushing CO2 taxation via AGW. Like duh!
@sallygo1234 "i'm not a climate scientist". that kind of sums it all up doesn't it? i don't wish to be hostile, but i am fed up with people who argue against a scientific proposition with emotion and and the " nazi " argument. hitler did not use science at all. he used propaganda and selective quoting. exactly what the " climate change deniers " have done. the reason for co2 taxes is quite simple. political opportunism. but don't confuse that with the FACT that the earth is warming and...cont
@sallygo1234 You link to complete lies and you twist the truth. Just 2 of your points in your comment were addressed in the film and shown to be completely wrong. The last 10 years have seen a massive amount of warming. You have to look at a period sufficiently long enough to be more representative, not cherry-pick. You completely underestimate the climate changes that are happening now, and still haven't explained the flaws of a carbon tax.
@sallygo1234 ...that there is a human connection. at current rates of co2 release, we are looking at the fastest change of climate that has ever happened. natural GLOBAL rapid warming took centuries. we are doing it in decades. argue against taxes by all means, just don't insist that climate change is a scam. it isn't.
@raverdeath100 "...there is a human connection. at current rates of co2 release, we are looking at the fastest change of climate that has ever happened."
Er, except that the earth's been COOLING for several years. Even the mainstream media has been forced to admit this!
watch?v=mV-j4cB8qmg
So we've had 2 record breaking freezing winters - despite those 'expert' predictions of 'warmer wetter winters'
With so much CO2 money to be made, at what point do you say STOP this all smells like a scam?
@sallygo1234 those predictions of "warmer wetter winters" were not made by the ipcc or any other group involved in studying climate change. they were media interpretations. the global temperatures are showing a clear upward trend and have done so for over a century. troughs are to be expected and have happened before, particularly in the 50's. the recent cooler winters? only in certain parts of the globe. where do you get your info? certainly not published research papers it seems to me.
I see. It's funny how when those predictions like 'warmer wetter winters' which were used to convince people to accept (and demand) carbon taxes controlled by a banking elite are proved wrong they are immediately disregarded as not important anyway.
And when data shows cooling over the past few years it's 'merely a trough' - to be expected - even though no one predicted it.
Truth is none of the changes in climate are beyond normal fluctuations and general post ice age trends.
@sallygo1234 have you read any research? i ask because you repeat the warmer wetter winters bit. this is what the media were saying. no climatologist said this. as i said, check your sources.
@sallygo1234 a summary of climate change. CO2, methane and other " greenhouse gasses " prevent solar energy in the earth's atmosphere from escaping as quickly into space. more heat energy is retained. the oceans have absorbed most of this energy so far, but the amount is slowing, more energy is overspilling into the atmosphere each year. this does not mean that the earth is going to just increase in temp'. this excess energy will be channeled into weather systems (more precipitation etc )...
And are you really happy to back a movement conceived by an elitist globalist think tank, with unproven science at best, with proven fraud and propaganda being used to promote it, which advocates locking up or even killing 'climate deniers' and making the questioning of AGW a criminal offense (check links in my other comments), which will wipe out middle class, kill millions in third world and give the global elite criminal banking cabal their much longed for world government and world bank?!
@sallygo1234 since when has al gore been a climatologist? the CO2 lag is not proven, it's contentious at best. and don't try to debunk a scientific fact with a youtube video. you have no facts, just vague conspiracy theories and opinions. come back in 30 years and we will see who is right. see ya.
@raverdeath100 "since when has al gore been a climatologist?"
Exactly. Yet for the masses he is (or was) the face of AGW and convinced half the world with his films and talks to 'believe in' AGW and take to the streets demanding a CO2 tax. So you're agreeing with me that the whole movement is POLITICAL and BIG BUSINESS.
I didn't see any of the IPCC 'scientists' standing up to him and calling out his BS so we must assume they are signed up to the POLITICAL agenda.
Depends on your definition of proven. All the DATA proves it. In fact the reason why Gore split the graph in two for his talks was so you couldn't see that CO2 levels lagged *behind* temperature. This is DELIBERATE deception. Fraud.
And now we have U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) showing 70 trillion cubic feet of **NEW** Arctic Ice when comparing Jan-2009, Jan-2010, Jan-2011 data.
@sallygo1234 Your outrage at CO2 tax eloquently and comprehensively demonstrates exactly what Professor Nurse posits, viz that climate deniers approach the science from the point of view angle rather than peer review. This is in much the same vein as when the Catholic church attached Copernicus and Galileo because they threatened its authority with the truth. Also, I can't understand what you have against a CO2 tax. It's one tax you can reduce and fairly falls on your impact on the planet.
@sallygo1234 You really have to stand back and check just what picture you're giving people of yourself. You sound as if you are part of a religious cult, and tend to rant about a series of threats and conspiracies that is far more controversial than the idea that the carbon dioxide we release is making the climate unstable. It puzzles and intrigues me as to the source of this vitriol. Don't make yourself a laughing stock.
@Vorticistick If it helps, take a deep breath and read my comments slowly and with a smooth, sultry voice ;)
Everything I've written is backed up by facts. Why not debate them instead of attacking me.
Having concerts, protests and conferences with the vast majority completely ignorant of ANY facts yet still waving their hands in the air shouting 'Yeah, let's save the world!' all funded by bankers and global aristocracy is (to me) more of an indication of a religious cult, surely?
Dressing up as polar bears or 'rising oceans' at COP15 without having any clue about climate science, climategate, what's going on, who's funding it all etc and then listening to church leaders spouting a sort of one world religion of god/ gaia / Agenda 21 worship (all put together and funded by the rockerfellers) sound more like religious cult-like activity (to me) than cooly debating the FACTS and referring to history and the present geopolitical reality.
@sallygo1234 Hi again Sally you've entered hundreds of new comments and your arguments are packed with non-sequiturs which bounce off in all directions so no, I don't expect that calm is the word for you, more raving. Why are you confusing so many things such as mixing bankers and industrials with scientists and environmental campaigners (some of which are crusties) altogether? Why imagine a huge global conspiracy? Those who are really squeezing you financially are playing with your mind.
@Vorticistick "Why are you confusing so many things such as mixing bankers and industrials with scientists and environmental campaigners (some of which are crusties) altogether?"
I'm not saying they're working as a secret team! LOL! Most are sheep, some are corrupt sheepdogs, some are shepherds. Please discuss Club of Rome and Agenda 21.
"Why imagine a huge global conspiracy?"
'Conspiracy' is a dumbed down term - why not just follow my links and discuss the FACTS (not 'conspiracy' ...or me).
@sallygo1234 'all funded by bankers and global aristocracy' IS the definition of a conspiracy. Please check your dictionary. What worries me most about your comments is that they attack civilization itself, and knowledge and learning. You are confusing the 'Elite' with civilization. The so-called elite are those who would choose to harm civilization just to continue raking in huge short-term profits on oil. They care not about you or the planet. Civilization is about long-term survival.
@Vorticistick Your response shows precisely why I asked you to follow my links and research FACTS rather than talk in terms of 'conspiracy'. But instead you choose to dismiss the facts (Agenda 21 etc) and instead discredit me with your dumbed down 'conspiracy' label (where conspiracy = wacky)
The irony is that by using the 'conspiracy' label to discredit my facts you're insinuating major world events are by default a 'non conspiracy' which is far more ridiculous, as HISTORY shows over and over.
@Vorticistick "You are confusing the 'Elite' with civilization"
No, if you read more carefully I am actually separating the 'elite' from the rest of civilization and saying we all should be wary of 'people's causes' (such as environmentalism) when they are being promoted by the 'elite', especially when ONLY focused on CO2 TAX!
They have a history of manufacturing, funding and profiting from wars (ie attacking civilization) so why trust them now just because they SAY they want to save planet?
@Vorticistick "The so-called elite are those who would choose to harm civilization just to continue raking in huge short-term profits on oil. They care not about you or the planet"
Agreed. BUT I would also add that AGW/ CO2 / 'green' is ALSO profitable for them with oil companies/ families now positioning themselves to make MASSIVE profits from so called 'green economy' (all subsidized by us and paid for with higher electricity bills!).
It's about more than money anyway - it's about control.
@Vorticistick I suggest (once more) that you look at those links and do some research for yourself. And remember the mainstream media is just propaganda - or simply misinformed.
The Rothschilds own Reuters and AP. The CFR (who's own documents admit they want to destroy US and create a NWO) own and control most of the US TV and press.
watch?v=IVt4Ygdw8tM
BBC is obviously elite controlled too.
History shows that the world is run on Problem- Reaction-Solution principal
@sallygo1234 Ha ha David Icke is a complete loon! Once a Sports TV presenter he went completely off the rails and became obsessed with turquoise! I remember seeing him declare himself to be the Son of God! Sorry love but I can't debate this issue with you any longer. We'll just end up going round in circles.
@Vorticistick "Sorry love but I can't debate this issue with you any longer. We'll just end up going round in circles."
It was never a debate anyway because you never addressed ANY of the evidences or facts I referred you to with the links I put here. You never discussed Club of Rome, Agenda 21, UN origins and documents, CFR documented policy, Rothschild ownership of media, etc etc etc
Instead you focused on attacking me, labeling me a conspiracy nut and laughing at Icke. Well done you! ;)
@sallygo1234 Perhaps you could write the next Dan Brown novel. I won't apologise for my choice of words: "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." You believe in this conspiracy because you are either gullible or dishonest enough to promote lies as facts. Your attention to my 'label' echoes the interests deniers seem to have in marketing, astro-turfing, presentation and the like (also re: your attack on the film's soundtrack).
Great to see that the BBC have replaced Jackanory with this, the fact this guy has a nobel prize is nothing to give him credit for, just look at other winners over the years tells you its not worth much.
Thanks for at least taking the time to visit my website at blindedbyscience.co.uk. The answer to your question is there in the chapter on vibrations with all of the peer reviewed studies that you ask for. In fact Edwards and Burr are very famous scientists whose books have been in circulation for years. The book is all about science and nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience whatever that means. If you study the facts about trees I think you will be very surprised at the results.
why don't we change the climate on purpose? if mankind's activities has impacted the climate inadvertently to the negative, why not counteract that change on purpose, not by eliminating industries that create greenhouse gases but by some other method that deals with those gases? The planet has had various climates including ice ages and it had desertification by itself, before man, so, why not go with the flow but direct the changes for our benefit?
@zerooneboy12345 Look up 'Palps' on google, they've only been discovered recenlty and what they do is eat the green algea that take in the C02 from the atmosphere and then when they eventually die all the C02 then gets locked at the bottom of the ocean, they remove thousands of tons of carbon every day. I wonder if there could be a way of breeding some of these in farms maybe, although you never know, that could cause some environmental problem
There's one important subject which is missed in this otherwise good programme. Who sponsors the research? Sometimes vested interests; whether political, personal or economic can influence scientific research and present selective evidence to suggest a hypothesis or result. Investigate companies, political parties and individuals whom fund research and the university colleges in which its carried out.
Most importantly of all, become a 'Critical Thinker'.
The Green Agenda seems to me to be a pseudo-socialist circular argument. It mentions a that they want to control people to save the environment, and that changing peoples' behaviours to change the environment will lead to the real goal of controlling people? Seems kind of pointless. And if all this is for power for the few, why would people who already run countries agree to centralise all countries under one government, essentially giving up the power they're after.
What you have said is a perfect example of someone who is letting their personal beliefs and ideologies distort their understanding of the scientific process.
This was a great program. Can someone please post a clip of the bit where he totally destroys that ignorant numpty James Delingpole with a few well-chosen and knowledgeable sentences? That was just a joy to watch!
@DrunkenPoetic I don't believe in anything because science is not a belief system. If you 'believe' in AGW then it is you who are the religionist not I.
REE RINGS DO NOT INDICATE TEMPERATURE CHANGES. This is a major fault in scientists interpretation of data for changes in the worlds temperature over the past 2,000 years. Tree rings are barely affected by temperature change. The two most important factors that affect growth of trees are in fact sunspot activity and the cycle of the moon.
This has been proved many times over the past 100 years, firstly by Edwards and then by Burr and can be read for free in the book BlindedbyScience.co.uk
@matthewsilverstone Could you please explain briefly how sunspots and moon cycles influence tree rings.
And in what peer-reviewed journals are the assertions in this book published. And the author has no scientific qualifications. A quick look at the site and it screams pseudoscience. This site and the fact that you beleive it an example of the problem this film is about.
Never trust a pseuodoscientist or a conspiracy theorist, they let their egos get in the way of evidence.
Sorry to be rude but I can't be bothered to try and educate you, I will just sink to your level and say the following words 'YOU STUPID IGNORANT CUNT'
Well done the BBC. Yet again you've let show your true agenda for all to see. If you want to know why the public are losing faith in Scientists, AND the BBC, Sir Paul Nurse is a prime example of the cause. He's held secret meetings with the planet's most wealthy and influential people - people who many of us simply do not trust. Next time you want to sell your agenda BBC, don't make your choice of the 'voice of reason' such an obviously dubious character.
@FluorideHead Well said. I almost puked watching that disingenuous scumbag. You want to get on in 'science' develop a stupid squeaky voice, act like a kind old 'reasonable' uncle, show faked tolerant passion while relentlessly keep spinning your thinly webbed lies to disarm and indoctrinate. That was more like a documentary on the science of mind control than climate.
Just because this film raised some truths that threaten your precious ego and your are too cowardly to change your mind in the face of evidence you reject it.
Please give some specific examples of why you disagree with this film.
Do you disagree that scieintists shouldn't scrutinize themselves? Do you disagree with the peer review system? Do you disagree that people let their ideologie get in the way or their critical thinking.
@FluorideHead the guy is the head of the royal society, so yes he's going to meet with wealthy and influential people. if the meetings were secret, how do you know they've happened?
Sir Paul Nurse - friend to the billionaires. Here's an extract from the INDEPENDENT Newspaper
######
A handful of the world’s wealthiest people met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the Rockefeller University, in May 2009, and founded the Good Club. Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, and Warren Buffett organised this secret meeting, and CNN founder Ted Turner was there too.
########
Rubbing shoulders with the most wealthy and influential peolpe.
Science has no room for conspiracy theories. It's all very well saying he held secret meetings but what do you think these meetings imply, and where is your evidence.
If your going to start talking conspiracy crap than a science discussion thread isn't for you. I suggest you post your views on a David Icke discussion.
Also, it wouldn't matter if a different scientist said the things he said,. The fact remains he talked alot of sense. For example scientists scrutinizing their work, their colleuges scrutinizing their work, te peer reviewers scruitinizing their so, other scientists reading journals and scrutinizing the work. Do you know of a better method?
Would a conspiracy theorist scrutinize their work and admit they are wrong? Never, because their egos get in the way.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this program. Sir Paul is right that scientists need to balance poor media coverage and become more media savvy. Sir Paul is leading by example here and I wish him all the very best of luck.
I think the reason people don't trust scientists regarding climate change is that all they say is 'cut down or we're screwed' that perceived statement might be the most honest and correct message regarding the situation but large threats are ignored by society because apathy takes over. If scientists say 'cut down and you might just buy us some more time to research and develop alternative technologies to fix this' then we might just listen.
The debate about human activity impacting climate is as ridiculous as the debate about evolution. What do scientists have to gain by providing solid, imperical evidence which completely leads us to the conclusion that we are having a severe impact on the climate?
Nothing is the answer. Science is unbiased and the reason there is any debate at all is because it involves inconvenient realizations.
Imo scientists are one of the most respectable people on Earth because science is only about truth.
funding is provided in order to support scientific research and yes you could argue that scientists are trying to acquire funding in order to keep their jobs or make lots of money. However, science is completely open to criticism and unless a scientific field proves that it possesses potential for advancements in understanding or technology then it will not be funded
It provides this proof which transcends opinions and biases with evidence and demonstration. money is diff issue
@1mb0123d However, science is completely open to criticism and unless a scientific field proves that it possesses potential for advancements in understanding or technology then it will not be funded
Your assertion is not 'proof' of anything. All that says is you believe certain human beings are objective and uncorruptible ie scientists. There is no such thing as an uncorruptible or objective human being. All human activity is agenda driven. And the agenda is set by who pays the piper.
The susceptibility of people to be biased towards their own work is exactly why science has a peer review system, anything that is published is scrutinized by many other scientists who have just as strong an initiative to disprove the idea... Imagine the academic fame achieved by a scientist who conclusively disprove a prominent theory like the current views on climate change; what reason would a scientist have to perpetuate someone else's false assertions?
@MountainFerret11 First of all, a view is not a theory. It is merely an idea or a hypothesis. You can't disprove a false idea in the same way you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Science is not under attack but scientists are because they are lying. Thousands of scientists have refuted man made global warming and have been punished for it. A peer review is no guarantee the truth will out. It's a bit like a police commission investigating crimes of the police itself. Meaningless.
I meant to refer to theories and views collectively since they both warrant research to support them. The point you are missing is that in your case of police, there is a clear reason why they would refute a crime within their establishment, they will either go to prison, lose their job etc. What is the reason for a scientist to perpetuate false evidence? In fact the gains of the opposite are quite appealing as I previously mentioned. Can I also ask how scientists are being punished?
@MountainFerret11 AGW is an assertive idea whereas the others are not. AGW, if it is accepted means the political restructuring and contol of free human life on the planet: global government, carbon taxes, restrictions on travel, food rationing, depopulation (sustainability) and whatever other political agendas are waiting in the wings to be rolled out to 'save' the planet. Big money is behind it and funding and riches and position reward some ('Sir' Paul) and denied to others ('skeptics').
But why would all this be carried out to save the planet if it wasn't necessary? If this is what a person believes in then they must surely come to think that all this money and effort would not be spent without due cause. What are the 'political agendas' or goals that you seem to be inferring? By the way Paul Nurse was knighted long before he had any real involvement with these issues, and it was for research on cell division, that has nothing to do with climate change or politics in any way.
@MountainFerret11 Why are wars carried out? Are they necessary? All political agendas are for the same ends: profit and control of resources. Human beings are resources. It's entirely unreasonable to think that people in power and those working for them have only humanity's best interests and the environment at heart. The agenda is a world dictatorship run by the few. Global warming, Agenda 21 and sustainable development are the merely the tools to achieve it. google 'the green agenda'
@dharmashooter Where's the profit in spending money on changing attitudes and behaviours to climate change if there is no such change happening? No one is gaining resources by saying 'we need to stop using the resources we have because they're affecting the climate'. How is pretending that there are climate change issues going to lead to a world dictatorship? If I was to use an eco-friendly car, how would that aid the attempts of 'the few' at a world dictatorship?
And who falsifyed data. I watched this documentary the other night and the scientists at UEA did not falsify any data. The only small mistake they made was not being completly open about their sources.
And when it comes to falsifying data the climate deniers are experts. They claimed an article in the journal science stated that the majority of the world's glaciers are growing and not shrinking, but the article never existed, theey made it up
AGW is a reality, just because you don't agree with the politics it doesn't mean AGW isn't happening.
And could you give me an example of a peer-reviwed journal that has 'big money' supporting it. And could you give me an example of a scientist who has lied because they have big money behind them?
Did you know a climate denial website claimed an article in the journal science claimed most of the world's glaciers and growing not shrinking but the article never existed. Now who is lying?
If a scientist is caught lying then their career is over, simple. Now why would they do that?
And yes many scientists are sceptical, but the vast majority accept the evidence holds up.
And if you don't beleive in the validity of peer review then what do you suggest as an alternative? David Icke!!!.
And did you know a climate denial website claimed an article in the journal science claimed most of the world's glaciers and growing not shrinking but the article never existed. Now who is lying?
But some are more uncorruptible and objective than others, with scientists being the most uncorruptible and objective. They scrutinize everything they do, and their collueges scrutinize everything they do. Then the peer-review panel scrutinizes the scientists findings, then if their findings are published other scientists scrutinize it, and so on. Sounds like a good system to me. Do you know of any better methods.
And have you ever heard of a conspiracy theorist scrutinizing themselves?
What about the fact that a climate denial website claimed the journal science ran an article that stated that most of the world's glaciers were growing and not shrinking, but the article never even existed.
Now who do I trust the most? Scientists with phds who devote their lives and reputation to their study, which is constantly scrutinized, or conspiracy theorists who have no scientific training, egos to big to scrutinize themselves, and are happy telling unsophisticated lies?
@1mb0123d scientists do what they say by the elite above them. Do you really think a scientist would choose to be unbaised if they had an income of £0k per year, due to the fact they exposed the truth and get fired
Have you looked at the evidence for climate change? I know scientists receive funding and that is a possible motivation for deceiving the public but, the idea of global warming due to human activity is completely open to criticism. Something will not be funded unless it shows it has potential.
"The debate about human activity impacting climate is as ridiculous as the debate about evolution"
If we stop debating it stops being science.
"What do scientists have to gain by providing solid, imperical evidence which completely leads us to the conclusion that we are having a severe impact on the climate?"
"Imo scientists are one of the most respectable people on Earth because science is only about truth."
Nooo. Science is about the PURSUIT of truth... which means debate ... and skepticism.. and open minds ... and keeping political and economic factors from interfering ... and viewing censorship as a big no no ... and viewing deception (climategate) as anti science... and demanding a continual and out in the open reexamination of ALL the evidence.
@1mb0123d "Science is unbiased and the reason there is any debate at all is because it involves inconvenient realizations."
You'd do well to look at history and stop talking such utter shite.
watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE
watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8
watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
watch?v=FylwVZYkJZ0
Although this BBC doc admits AGW is a political issue, it deliberately FAILS to do the most obvious thing, the thing which history teaches us to do over and over again! ...... follow the money!
I think evolution could well be a lie after reading some of the crap on this thread. And why would a god create people with such stupidity as conspiracy theorists? Was she having a laugh!!!!
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point (1974)
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline." - Dr Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999
“... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...” - Dr Phil Jones, July 8th 2004.
Global warming made sea levels rise 120 metres over the past 18,000 years!!!!!!
camera400 1 year ago
Tree-ring temperature proxy data is all fake because tree growth isn't a proxy for temperature alone but cloud cover and rainfall (trees grow from photosynthesis, which is faster with water and sunshine). This is why it failed since 1960, global dimming! “… wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts … are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy.” – Oppenheimer, 1950
camera400 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point (1974)
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline." - Dr Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999
“... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...” - Dr Phil Jones, July 8th 2004.
Global warming made sea levels rise 120 metres over the past 18,000 years!!!!!!
camera400 1 year ago
New article on Agenda 21 came out today just google:
Epic Fail: Global Warming Solutions
More globalist/ Agenda 21 quotes here too
watch?v=o9IUcps8MfE
sallygo1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sallygo1234 1 year ago
Text going crazy - tried to fix. You'll just have to cut and paste more carefully, sorry!
sallygo1234 1 year ago
Comment removed
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 Hi just felt bad about laughing at you. I'm sure you mean well, as David Icke probably does, and I can understand why you attack certain mainstream ideas and perceptions, but you don't make coherent arguments. You have a scattergun approach rejecting and connecting everything. I think part of the problem is the media which is so powerful, biased and confusing that you suffer an allergic reaction. You really need to get to the raw data and peer reviews to inform your opinion.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@Vorticistick No need to feel bad for me! I'm fine :)
Instead why not switch off the TV, look at my links and do your own research on Club of Rome, Agenda 21, Rothshilds (history, ownership of green charities, construction of CO2 bank etc), CFR membership relating to media/ politics/ business and CFR stated policy etc etc ...
This isn't 'conspiracy research' it is just research! LOL
You still haven't discussed a single one of these things yet. (Just mocking then apologizing).
Do research :)
sallygo1234 1 year ago
Comment removed
sallygo1234 1 year ago
Ah someone already did... found it for download... :D
petsoukos 1 year ago
Can't watch it... :(
Could someone rip it off their website and upload it to rapidshare or something? Damn restrictions...
petsoukos 1 year ago
@spiritmong
"...The sponsors of research are not the sponsors of peer-reveiwed journals...."
I didn't say they were.
But vested interests still do research and still get it published.
Broadercasting 1 year ago
there is so much you have said that is simply not true or just plain erroneous. most of it mirrors what is published in the media( not peer reviewed ), or resembles what i have seen on youtube ( unreliable at best ). if you are really interested in actual facts about this subject i suggest you start with peer reviewed research instead of any old source. ps there is no such thing as "global warming" climate change is the term used by climatologists, GW is a media term.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
An Important Message to the Environmental Movement
watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
sallygo1234 1 year ago
Just listen to the music!
0;01 this is the pro AGW/ pro carbon tax music.... heavenly harps and in keeping with AGW as our new age religion of 'neo serfdom' to the banking elite! :)
2:00 this is climate deniers' music, confused backwards, at odds with itself, unappealing :(
Another thing not mentioned is AGENDA 21 (aka 'sustainable development'). I bet half the people watching this doc have never even HEARD of AGENDA 21
The BBC is taking lies/ deception to new limits!
watch?v=fWW2CE0l7k8
sallygo1234 1 year ago
This doc 'forgot' to mention:
Origins of AGW in the globalist/ NWO think tank 'Club of Rome'
The involvement of Rothschilds (et al) in constructing GLOBAL BANK to collect CO2 taxes (ka ching!) and GLOBAL GOVERNANCE to oversee and enforce taxes = excuse for one world government run by global criminals mafia!
No mention of Al Gore's fake hockey graph which he was forced to stop using - or his polluting open cast mines! (not so green as he pretends)
No mention of other planets warming
etc etc
sallygo1234 1 year ago
The Royal Society was set up by freemasons and is one of the most establishment/ elite institutions going.
This idea of the incorruptible scientist dedicated to the pursuit of truth and higher knowledge is childish and ridiculous - sure there are many honest hard working scientists working all over the planet but once you get into the realms of freemasonic science clubs, well stocked bars, endless dinners and conferences all payed for ... I mean come on!
Sod the 'truth', enjoy the lifestyle!
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234
I know funding may be a motivation for scientists to deceive the public in order to keep their jobs or make lots of money but funding will only be supplied if a scientific field displays itself as having potential. It does this by providing the imperical evidence which it has in the case of climate change. Have you looked at the evidence for climate change? there is very little disagreement among scientists from pree much all fields about this. i dont think they all in some plot
1mb0123d 1 year ago
@1mb0123d I think you have a naive idea about scientists. It's not about there being a 'plot' among scientists. If there is research being funded there will be scientists willing to fill those posts! Scientists have families to feed too - how many people REALLY 'believe in' their jobs?
Anyway you're forgetting the 1000's of scientists who's science contradicts AGW.
Climate = change!
The climate has ALWAYS been changing. AGW is an UNPROVEN theory funded by elite bankers - sounds fishy to me!
sallygo1234 1 year ago
If the AGW science is so settled and so convincing then why does the mass media consistently miss out all evidence against it and never allow the thousands of scientists who oppose it any airtime?
Why do they NEVER quote the Club of Rome who in 1972 wrote: 'In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming ..... would fit the bill ... The real enemy then is humanity itself'
Full quote here:
watch?v=fWW2CE0l7k8
watch?v=3Ee6S9_H1Vk
sallygo1234 1 year ago
This program is 100% propaganda! Payed by YOUR taxes!
See how 'climate deniers' are pictured with 'crazy music' and 'crazy editing' but scientists are portrayed as nice, rational, reasonable, sensible, paternal figures.
As for 'attacks' on scientists, what about the numerous headlines and comments about LOCKING UP 'climate deniers' and equating them to HOLOCAUST DENIERS? What about the threats including DEATH made by pro AGW (pro carbon tax) people? huh?
What about this?
watch?v=MZ7OXZCDpcw
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 and your an ignoramus who obviously knows everything about physics and climatology.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 I think you mean YOU'RE an ignoramus
Your argument is weak.
If the idea of 'saving the planet' = automatic support from you (and everyone else who never does any research) then presumably if I have enough power and influence (ie money) then I can invent any scam I like (such as massive global taxation on a natural gas) and pretend it will 'save the planet' (kill germs dead, hit pain where it hurts etc) and everyone will buy into it as a (literal) 'no brainer'.
(It's a scam!)
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 you don't get it, do you? show how the science is wrong. prove to everyone here that you can show which underpinning process of climate change is incorrect. that means physics, meteorology, climatology and planetology, not to mention any of the other related sciences. show your proof countering all the amassed evidence supporting human induced climate change. stop pissing around with semantics and amateur psychology.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 I can't explain in 500 characters and you must realize that.
I'm not a climate scientist - I am a rational thinker who has studied history and is aware of the potential for worthy but vague causes ('saving the planet') can be hijacked. Hitler wanted to save humanity from bad genetics and HE managed to get 'all the science' to back him up and many people fell for it. And now the same global elite who funded Hitler are pushing CO2 taxation via AGW. Like duh!
watch?v=o3t6QxcD6YY
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 "i'm not a climate scientist". that kind of sums it all up doesn't it? i don't wish to be hostile, but i am fed up with people who argue against a scientific proposition with emotion and and the " nazi " argument. hitler did not use science at all. he used propaganda and selective quoting. exactly what the " climate change deniers " have done. the reason for co2 taxes is quite simple. political opportunism. but don't confuse that with the FACT that the earth is warming and...cont
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100
You're confusing climate change with global warming with AGW and carbon taxation/ trading. They're 4 different areas.
(1) climate is ALWAYS changing!
watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE
(2) Global warming? Depends from when you measure. (Last 10 years = cooling. Last century = slight warming etc)
(3) AGW = no evidence for significant effect, sun etc 1000x more significant
(4) CO2 tax = absolute fraud. Just look at the people involved
Why does no one address any points raised in my links?
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 You link to complete lies and you twist the truth. Just 2 of your points in your comment were addressed in the film and shown to be completely wrong. The last 10 years have seen a massive amount of warming. You have to look at a period sufficiently long enough to be more representative, not cherry-pick. You completely underestimate the climate changes that are happening now, and still haven't explained the flaws of a carbon tax.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 ...that there is a human connection. at current rates of co2 release, we are looking at the fastest change of climate that has ever happened. natural GLOBAL rapid warming took centuries. we are doing it in decades. argue against taxes by all means, just don't insist that climate change is a scam. it isn't.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 "...there is a human connection. at current rates of co2 release, we are looking at the fastest change of climate that has ever happened."
Er, except that the earth's been COOLING for several years. Even the mainstream media has been forced to admit this!
watch?v=mV-j4cB8qmg
So we've had 2 record breaking freezing winters - despite those 'expert' predictions of 'warmer wetter winters'
With so much CO2 money to be made, at what point do you say STOP this all smells like a scam?
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 those predictions of "warmer wetter winters" were not made by the ipcc or any other group involved in studying climate change. they were media interpretations. the global temperatures are showing a clear upward trend and have done so for over a century. troughs are to be expected and have happened before, particularly in the 50's. the recent cooler winters? only in certain parts of the globe. where do you get your info? certainly not published research papers it seems to me.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100
I see. It's funny how when those predictions like 'warmer wetter winters' which were used to convince people to accept (and demand) carbon taxes controlled by a banking elite are proved wrong they are immediately disregarded as not important anyway.
And when data shows cooling over the past few years it's 'merely a trough' - to be expected - even though no one predicted it.
Truth is none of the changes in climate are beyond normal fluctuations and general post ice age trends.
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 have you read any research? i ask because you repeat the warmer wetter winters bit. this is what the media were saying. no climatologist said this. as i said, check your sources.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 by the way, more snow means more water evaporation and precipitation. climate change models predict this.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 a summary of climate change. CO2, methane and other " greenhouse gasses " prevent solar energy in the earth's atmosphere from escaping as quickly into space. more heat energy is retained. the oceans have absorbed most of this energy so far, but the amount is slowing, more energy is overspilling into the atmosphere each year. this does not mean that the earth is going to just increase in temp'. this excess energy will be channeled into weather systems (more precipitation etc )...
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100
These climate predictions of yours seem to predict every type of weather, albeit AFTERWARDS. Wet, dry, hot, cold - just pay your CO2 tax!
What are your thoughts on:
1-Al Gore being banned from using his famous hockey stick graph because it was made up?
2- the proven lag of CO2 *behind* temp (opposite of global warming theory)
3 -The Club of Rome's statement in 1972 which proposes making up a 'threat of global warming' as a new way to control people?
watch?v=fWW2CE0l7k8
sallygo1234 1 year ago
And are you really happy to back a movement conceived by an elitist globalist think tank, with unproven science at best, with proven fraud and propaganda being used to promote it, which advocates locking up or even killing 'climate deniers' and making the questioning of AGW a criminal offense (check links in my other comments), which will wipe out middle class, kill millions in third world and give the global elite criminal banking cabal their much longed for world government and world bank?!
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 since when has al gore been a climatologist? the CO2 lag is not proven, it's contentious at best. and don't try to debunk a scientific fact with a youtube video. you have no facts, just vague conspiracy theories and opinions. come back in 30 years and we will see who is right. see ya.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 "since when has al gore been a climatologist?"
Exactly. Yet for the masses he is (or was) the face of AGW and convinced half the world with his films and talks to 'believe in' AGW and take to the streets demanding a CO2 tax. So you're agreeing with me that the whole movement is POLITICAL and BIG BUSINESS.
I didn't see any of the IPCC 'scientists' standing up to him and calling out his BS so we must assume they are signed up to the POLITICAL agenda.
Climategate confirms this.
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 "the CO2 lag is not proven"
Depends on your definition of proven. All the DATA proves it. In fact the reason why Gore split the graph in two for his talks was so you couldn't see that CO2 levels lagged *behind* temperature. This is DELIBERATE deception. Fraud.
And now we have U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) showing 70 trillion cubic feet of **NEW** Arctic Ice when comparing Jan-2009, Jan-2010, Jan-2011 data.
CO2 TAX IS A SCAM!
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 Your outrage at CO2 tax eloquently and comprehensively demonstrates exactly what Professor Nurse posits, viz that climate deniers approach the science from the point of view angle rather than peer review. This is in much the same vein as when the Catholic church attached Copernicus and Galileo because they threatened its authority with the truth. Also, I can't understand what you have against a CO2 tax. It's one tax you can reduce and fairly falls on your impact on the planet.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 You really have to stand back and check just what picture you're giving people of yourself. You sound as if you are part of a religious cult, and tend to rant about a series of threats and conspiracies that is far more controversial than the idea that the carbon dioxide we release is making the climate unstable. It puzzles and intrigues me as to the source of this vitriol. Don't make yourself a laughing stock.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@Vorticistick If it helps, take a deep breath and read my comments slowly and with a smooth, sultry voice ;)
Everything I've written is backed up by facts. Why not debate them instead of attacking me.
Having concerts, protests and conferences with the vast majority completely ignorant of ANY facts yet still waving their hands in the air shouting 'Yeah, let's save the world!' all funded by bankers and global aristocracy is (to me) more of an indication of a religious cult, surely?
continued..
sallygo1234 1 year ago
.. continued..
Dressing up as polar bears or 'rising oceans' at COP15 without having any clue about climate science, climategate, what's going on, who's funding it all etc and then listening to church leaders spouting a sort of one world religion of god/ gaia / Agenda 21 worship (all put together and funded by the rockerfellers) sound more like religious cult-like activity (to me) than cooly debating the FACTS and referring to history and the present geopolitical reality.
watch?v=5AqK2kVS6sI
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 Hi again Sally you've entered hundreds of new comments and your arguments are packed with non-sequiturs which bounce off in all directions so no, I don't expect that calm is the word for you, more raving. Why are you confusing so many things such as mixing bankers and industrials with scientists and environmental campaigners (some of which are crusties) altogether? Why imagine a huge global conspiracy? Those who are really squeezing you financially are playing with your mind.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@Vorticistick "Why are you confusing so many things such as mixing bankers and industrials with scientists and environmental campaigners (some of which are crusties) altogether?"
I'm not saying they're working as a secret team! LOL! Most are sheep, some are corrupt sheepdogs, some are shepherds. Please discuss Club of Rome and Agenda 21.
"Why imagine a huge global conspiracy?"
'Conspiracy' is a dumbed down term - why not just follow my links and discuss the FACTS (not 'conspiracy' ...or me).
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 'all funded by bankers and global aristocracy' IS the definition of a conspiracy. Please check your dictionary. What worries me most about your comments is that they attack civilization itself, and knowledge and learning. You are confusing the 'Elite' with civilization. The so-called elite are those who would choose to harm civilization just to continue raking in huge short-term profits on oil. They care not about you or the planet. Civilization is about long-term survival.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@Vorticistick Your response shows precisely why I asked you to follow my links and research FACTS rather than talk in terms of 'conspiracy'. But instead you choose to dismiss the facts (Agenda 21 etc) and instead discredit me with your dumbed down 'conspiracy' label (where conspiracy = wacky)
The irony is that by using the 'conspiracy' label to discredit my facts you're insinuating major world events are by default a 'non conspiracy' which is far more ridiculous, as HISTORY shows over and over.
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@Vorticistick "You are confusing the 'Elite' with civilization"
No, if you read more carefully I am actually separating the 'elite' from the rest of civilization and saying we all should be wary of 'people's causes' (such as environmentalism) when they are being promoted by the 'elite', especially when ONLY focused on CO2 TAX!
They have a history of manufacturing, funding and profiting from wars (ie attacking civilization) so why trust them now just because they SAY they want to save planet?
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@Vorticistick "The so-called elite are those who would choose to harm civilization just to continue raking in huge short-term profits on oil. They care not about you or the planet"
Agreed. BUT I would also add that AGW/ CO2 / 'green' is ALSO profitable for them with oil companies/ families now positioning themselves to make MASSIVE profits from so called 'green economy' (all subsidized by us and paid for with higher electricity bills!).
It's about more than money anyway - it's about control.
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@Vorticistick I suggest (once more) that you look at those links and do some research for yourself. And remember the mainstream media is just propaganda - or simply misinformed.
The Rothschilds own Reuters and AP. The CFR (who's own documents admit they want to destroy US and create a NWO) own and control most of the US TV and press.
watch?v=IVt4Ygdw8tM
BBC is obviously elite controlled too.
History shows that the world is run on Problem- Reaction-Solution principal
watch?v=nad6lTWCHFo
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 Ha ha David Icke is a complete loon! Once a Sports TV presenter he went completely off the rails and became obsessed with turquoise! I remember seeing him declare himself to be the Son of God! Sorry love but I can't debate this issue with you any longer. We'll just end up going round in circles.
Vorticistick 1 year ago
@Vorticistick "Sorry love but I can't debate this issue with you any longer. We'll just end up going round in circles."
It was never a debate anyway because you never addressed ANY of the evidences or facts I referred you to with the links I put here. You never discussed Club of Rome, Agenda 21, UN origins and documents, CFR documented policy, Rothschild ownership of media, etc etc etc
Instead you focused on attacking me, labeling me a conspiracy nut and laughing at Icke. Well done you! ;)
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@sallygo1234 Perhaps you could write the next Dan Brown novel. I won't apologise for my choice of words: "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." You believe in this conspiracy because you are either gullible or dishonest enough to promote lies as facts. Your attention to my 'label' echoes the interests deniers seem to have in marketing, astro-turfing, presentation and the like (also re: your attack on the film's soundtrack).
Vorticistick 1 year ago
Great to see that the BBC have replaced Jackanory with this, the fact this guy has a nobel prize is nothing to give him credit for, just look at other winners over the years tells you its not worth much.
no1froggy 1 year ago 2
Thanks for at least taking the time to visit my website at blindedbyscience.co.uk. The answer to your question is there in the chapter on vibrations with all of the peer reviewed studies that you ask for. In fact Edwards and Burr are very famous scientists whose books have been in circulation for years. The book is all about science and nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience whatever that means. If you study the facts about trees I think you will be very surprised at the results.
matthewsilverstone 1 year ago
why don't we change the climate on purpose? if mankind's activities has impacted the climate inadvertently to the negative, why not counteract that change on purpose, not by eliminating industries that create greenhouse gases but by some other method that deals with those gases? The planet has had various climates including ice ages and it had desertification by itself, before man, so, why not go with the flow but direct the changes for our benefit?
zerooneboy12345 1 year ago
@zerooneboy12345 Look up 'Palps' on google, they've only been discovered recenlty and what they do is eat the green algea that take in the C02 from the atmosphere and then when they eventually die all the C02 then gets locked at the bottom of the ocean, they remove thousands of tons of carbon every day. I wonder if there could be a way of breeding some of these in farms maybe, although you never know, that could cause some environmental problem
MountainFerret11 1 year ago
This scientist is one of the most patronising television presenters ever. He makes me feel like a 4 year old.
optimalwebsite 1 year ago
There's one important subject which is missed in this otherwise good programme. Who sponsors the research? Sometimes vested interests; whether political, personal or economic can influence scientific research and present selective evidence to suggest a hypothesis or result. Investigate companies, political parties and individuals whom fund research and the university colleges in which its carried out.
Most importantly of all, become a 'Critical Thinker'.
Broadercasting 1 year ago
The sponsors of research are not the sponsors of peer-reveiwed journals.
spiritmong 1 year ago
The Green Agenda seems to me to be a pseudo-socialist circular argument. It mentions a that they want to control people to save the environment, and that changing peoples' behaviours to change the environment will lead to the real goal of controlling people? Seems kind of pointless. And if all this is for power for the few, why would people who already run countries agree to centralise all countries under one government, essentially giving up the power they're after.
MountainFerret11 1 year ago
What you have said is a perfect example of someone who is letting their personal beliefs and ideologies distort their understanding of the scientific process.
spiritmong 1 year ago
This was a great program. Can someone please post a clip of the bit where he totally destroys that ignorant numpty James Delingpole with a few well-chosen and knowledgeable sentences? That was just a joy to watch!
mleathes 1 year ago 6
Just listen to some of these comments.
Dharmashooter doesn't believe in climate-change, but from his profile it's quite likely that he does believe in Jesus.
This is exactly what Paul Nurse is talking about.
And YouTube is a mecca for these fuckers.
DrunkenPoetic 1 year ago 6
@DrunkenPoetic I don't believe in anything because science is not a belief system. If you 'believe' in AGW then it is you who are the religionist not I.
dharmashooter 1 year ago
I don't believe in anything without evidence. AGW has enough evidence to suggest it is the most likely cause of GW.
spiritmong 1 year ago
REE RINGS DO NOT INDICATE TEMPERATURE CHANGES. This is a major fault in scientists interpretation of data for changes in the worlds temperature over the past 2,000 years. Tree rings are barely affected by temperature change. The two most important factors that affect growth of trees are in fact sunspot activity and the cycle of the moon.
This has been proved many times over the past 100 years, firstly by Edwards and then by Burr and can be read for free in the book BlindedbyScience.co.uk
matthewsilverstone 1 year ago
@matthewsilverstone Could you please explain briefly how sunspots and moon cycles influence tree rings.
And in what peer-reviewed journals are the assertions in this book published. And the author has no scientific qualifications. A quick look at the site and it screams pseudoscience. This site and the fact that you beleive it an example of the problem this film is about.
Never trust a pseuodoscientist or a conspiracy theorist, they let their egos get in the way of evidence.
spiritmong 1 year ago
the earth was warming a long time ago
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
Sorry to be rude but I can't be bothered to try and educate you, I will just sink to your level and say the following words 'YOU STUPID IGNORANT CUNT'
spiritmong 1 year ago
Well done the BBC. Yet again you've let show your true agenda for all to see. If you want to know why the public are losing faith in Scientists, AND the BBC, Sir Paul Nurse is a prime example of the cause. He's held secret meetings with the planet's most wealthy and influential people - people who many of us simply do not trust. Next time you want to sell your agenda BBC, don't make your choice of the 'voice of reason' such an obviously dubious character.
FluorideHead 1 year ago
@FluorideHead Well said. I almost puked watching that disingenuous scumbag. You want to get on in 'science' develop a stupid squeaky voice, act like a kind old 'reasonable' uncle, show faked tolerant passion while relentlessly keep spinning your thinly webbed lies to disarm and indoctrinate. That was more like a documentary on the science of mind control than climate.
dharmashooter 1 year ago
Another example of someone who personal beliefs get in the way of their scientific understanding.
Why are people to arrogant to change their minds in the face of evidence? There is nothing wrong in being wrong, it means you learn somehting.
spiritmong 1 year ago
What secret meetings?
Just because this film raised some truths that threaten your precious ego and your are too cowardly to change your mind in the face of evidence you reject it.
Please give some specific examples of why you disagree with this film.
Do you disagree that scieintists shouldn't scrutinize themselves? Do you disagree with the peer review system? Do you disagree that people let their ideologie get in the way or their critical thinking.
spiritmong 1 year ago
Wiki Dr. David Bellamy and his experince with a climate denial website and then tell me who is telling porkies
spiritmong 1 year ago
@FluorideHead someone who knows what they are talking about. Paul Nurse is another troll feeding lies to the general public
JonnyGormley 1 year ago 2
@FluorideHead the guy is the head of the royal society, so yes he's going to meet with wealthy and influential people. if the meetings were secret, how do you know they've happened?
raverdeath100 1 year ago
Sir Paul Nurse - friend to the billionaires. Here's an extract from the INDEPENDENT Newspaper
######
A handful of the world’s wealthiest people met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the Rockefeller University, in May 2009, and founded the Good Club. Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, and Warren Buffett organised this secret meeting, and CNN founder Ted Turner was there too.
########
Rubbing shoulders with the most wealthy and influential peolpe.
.
FluorideHead 1 year ago
Science has no room for conspiracy theories. It's all very well saying he held secret meetings but what do you think these meetings imply, and where is your evidence.
If your going to start talking conspiracy crap than a science discussion thread isn't for you. I suggest you post your views on a David Icke discussion.
spiritmong 1 year ago
Also, it wouldn't matter if a different scientist said the things he said,. The fact remains he talked alot of sense. For example scientists scrutinizing their work, their colleuges scrutinizing their work, te peer reviewers scruitinizing their so, other scientists reading journals and scrutinizing the work. Do you know of a better method?
Would a conspiracy theorist scrutinize their work and admit they are wrong? Never, because their egos get in the way.
spiritmong 1 year ago 2
put PRIZE infront of youtube!!
TheArmin45 1 year ago
I'm really looking forward to seeing this program. Sir Paul is right that scientists need to balance poor media coverage and become more media savvy. Sir Paul is leading by example here and I wish him all the very best of luck.
dclews 1 year ago
I think the reason people don't trust scientists regarding climate change is that all they say is 'cut down or we're screwed' that perceived statement might be the most honest and correct message regarding the situation but large threats are ignored by society because apathy takes over. If scientists say 'cut down and you might just buy us some more time to research and develop alternative technologies to fix this' then we might just listen.
farshnuke 1 year ago
The debate about human activity impacting climate is as ridiculous as the debate about evolution. What do scientists have to gain by providing solid, imperical evidence which completely leads us to the conclusion that we are having a severe impact on the climate?
Nothing is the answer. Science is unbiased and the reason there is any debate at all is because it involves inconvenient realizations.
Imo scientists are one of the most respectable people on Earth because science is only about truth.
1mb0123d 1 year ago 12
@1mb0123d err how about funding?
supersymbiotic 1 year ago
@supersymbiotic
funding is provided in order to support scientific research and yes you could argue that scientists are trying to acquire funding in order to keep their jobs or make lots of money. However, science is completely open to criticism and unless a scientific field proves that it possesses potential for advancements in understanding or technology then it will not be funded
It provides this proof which transcends opinions and biases with evidence and demonstration. money is diff issue
1mb0123d 1 year ago
@1mb0123d However, science is completely open to criticism and unless a scientific field proves that it possesses potential for advancements in understanding or technology then it will not be funded
Your assertion is not 'proof' of anything. All that says is you believe certain human beings are objective and uncorruptible ie scientists. There is no such thing as an uncorruptible or objective human being. All human activity is agenda driven. And the agenda is set by who pays the piper.
dharmashooter 1 year ago
The susceptibility of people to be biased towards their own work is exactly why science has a peer review system, anything that is published is scrutinized by many other scientists who have just as strong an initiative to disprove the idea... Imagine the academic fame achieved by a scientist who conclusively disprove a prominent theory like the current views on climate change; what reason would a scientist have to perpetuate someone else's false assertions?
MountainFerret11 1 year ago 2
@MountainFerret11 First of all, a view is not a theory. It is merely an idea or a hypothesis. You can't disprove a false idea in the same way you can't disprove the existence of fairies. Science is not under attack but scientists are because they are lying. Thousands of scientists have refuted man made global warming and have been punished for it. A peer review is no guarantee the truth will out. It's a bit like a police commission investigating crimes of the police itself. Meaningless.
dharmashooter 1 year ago
I meant to refer to theories and views collectively since they both warrant research to support them. The point you are missing is that in your case of police, there is a clear reason why they would refute a crime within their establishment, they will either go to prison, lose their job etc. What is the reason for a scientist to perpetuate false evidence? In fact the gains of the opposite are quite appealing as I previously mentioned. Can I also ask how scientists are being punished?
MountainFerret11 1 year ago
@MountainFerret11 AGW is an assertive idea whereas the others are not. AGW, if it is accepted means the political restructuring and contol of free human life on the planet: global government, carbon taxes, restrictions on travel, food rationing, depopulation (sustainability) and whatever other political agendas are waiting in the wings to be rolled out to 'save' the planet. Big money is behind it and funding and riches and position reward some ('Sir' Paul) and denied to others ('skeptics').
dharmashooter 1 year ago
But why would all this be carried out to save the planet if it wasn't necessary? If this is what a person believes in then they must surely come to think that all this money and effort would not be spent without due cause. What are the 'political agendas' or goals that you seem to be inferring? By the way Paul Nurse was knighted long before he had any real involvement with these issues, and it was for research on cell division, that has nothing to do with climate change or politics in any way.
MountainFerret11 1 year ago
@MountainFerret11 Why are wars carried out? Are they necessary? All political agendas are for the same ends: profit and control of resources. Human beings are resources. It's entirely unreasonable to think that people in power and those working for them have only humanity's best interests and the environment at heart. The agenda is a world dictatorship run by the few. Global warming, Agenda 21 and sustainable development are the merely the tools to achieve it. google 'the green agenda'
dharmashooter 1 year ago
@dharmashooter Where's the profit in spending money on changing attitudes and behaviours to climate change if there is no such change happening? No one is gaining resources by saying 'we need to stop using the resources we have because they're affecting the climate'. How is pretending that there are climate change issues going to lead to a world dictatorship? If I was to use an eco-friendly car, how would that aid the attempts of 'the few' at a world dictatorship?
MountainFerret11 1 year ago
@dharmashooter what, pray tell, are the lies? are scientists lying or are you not understanding the science?
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@raverdeath100 I understand that falsifying data to get the result you want is fraudulent which equals lying.
dharmashooter 1 year ago
And who falsifyed data. I watched this documentary the other night and the scientists at UEA did not falsify any data. The only small mistake they made was not being completly open about their sources.
And when it comes to falsifying data the climate deniers are experts. They claimed an article in the journal science stated that the majority of the world's glaciers are growing and not shrinking, but the article never existed, theey made it up
Never, ever, ever, trust a conspiracy theorist.
spiritmong 1 year ago
@dharmashooter who falsified data? if your referring to east anglia uni', no data was falsified.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
AGW is a reality, just because you don't agree with the politics it doesn't mean AGW isn't happening.
And could you give me an example of a peer-reviwed journal that has 'big money' supporting it. And could you give me an example of a scientist who has lied because they have big money behind them?
Did you know a climate denial website claimed an article in the journal science claimed most of the world's glaciers and growing not shrinking but the article never existed. Now who is lying?
spiritmong 1 year ago
If a scientist is caught lying then their career is over, simple. Now why would they do that?
And yes many scientists are sceptical, but the vast majority accept the evidence holds up.
And if you don't beleive in the validity of peer review then what do you suggest as an alternative? David Icke!!!.
And did you know a climate denial website claimed an article in the journal science claimed most of the world's glaciers and growing not shrinking but the article never existed. Now who is lying?
spiritmong 1 year ago
But some are more uncorruptible and objective than others, with scientists being the most uncorruptible and objective. They scrutinize everything they do, and their collueges scrutinize everything they do. Then the peer-review panel scrutinizes the scientists findings, then if their findings are published other scientists scrutinize it, and so on. Sounds like a good system to me. Do you know of any better methods.
And have you ever heard of a conspiracy theorist scrutinizing themselves?
spiritmong 1 year ago
@1mb0123d Yeah, the 'truth' about how big a funding you and your department are getting,
dharmashooter 1 year ago
What about the fact that a climate denial website claimed the journal science ran an article that stated that most of the world's glaciers were growing and not shrinking, but the article never even existed.
Now who do I trust the most? Scientists with phds who devote their lives and reputation to their study, which is constantly scrutinized, or conspiracy theorists who have no scientific training, egos to big to scrutinize themselves, and are happy telling unsophisticated lies?
spiritmong 1 year ago
Check out what Dr. David Bellamy had to say about the BS article on glaciers.
spiritmong 1 year ago
@1mb0123d scientists do what they say by the elite above them. Do you really think a scientist would choose to be unbaised if they had an income of £0k per year, due to the fact they exposed the truth and get fired
JonnyGormley 1 year ago
@JonnyGormley do you enjoy talking bollocks?
raverdeath100 1 year ago
@JonnyGormley
Have you looked at the evidence for climate change? I know scientists receive funding and that is a possible motivation for deceiving the public but, the idea of global warming due to human activity is completely open to criticism. Something will not be funded unless it shows it has potential.
1mb0123d 1 year ago
@1mb0123d
"The debate about human activity impacting climate is as ridiculous as the debate about evolution"
If we stop debating it stops being science.
"What do scientists have to gain by providing solid, imperical evidence which completely leads us to the conclusion that we are having a severe impact on the climate?"
F... fff....fffffffff.....ffffffffff..f.ffff.fff..f.f .....funding?
(just saying)
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@1mb0123d
"Imo scientists are one of the most respectable people on Earth because science is only about truth."
Nooo. Science is about the PURSUIT of truth... which means debate ... and skepticism.. and open minds ... and keeping political and economic factors from interfering ... and viewing censorship as a big no no ... and viewing deception (climategate) as anti science... and demanding a continual and out in the open reexamination of ALL the evidence.
..all things you seem to be against.
sallygo1234 1 year ago
@1mb0123d "Science is unbiased and the reason there is any debate at all is because it involves inconvenient realizations."
You'd do well to look at history and stop talking such utter shite.
watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE
watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8
watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
watch?v=FylwVZYkJZ0
Although this BBC doc admits AGW is a political issue, it deliberately FAILS to do the most obvious thing, the thing which history teaches us to do over and over again! ...... follow the money!
watch?v=pVmk3lUYdPA
sallygo1234 1 year ago
Where can we watch this outside of the UK ?
petsoukos 1 year ago
try BBC website
spiritmong 1 year ago
@spiritmong you sound as pissed off as i am.
raverdeath100 1 year ago
I try not to waste my emotions on pointless conspiracy theorists but sometimes I just can't help it!
I nearly died at a rave but that's a different story.
spiritmong 1 year ago
there willl be none lol
joshthemyth1 1 year ago
Looking forward to some of the comments on this video
DaveSimonH 1 year ago 7
@DaveSimonH I'm looking foward to some fuckwit putting "evolution is a lie, SURRENDER TO THE LOVE OF GOD"
ThatsMrFrank 1 year ago 2
I think evolution could well be a lie after reading some of the crap on this thread. And why would a god create people with such stupidity as conspiracy theorists? Was she having a laugh!!!!
spiritmong 1 year ago
@DaveSimonH It'll be pretty amusing if your comment remains as one of the two highest rated.
weejockpoopongmcplop 1 year ago