David Bellamy being humiliated by George Monbiot over climate change Part1

[Agui007]

If politicians say we need to protect our planet from the warming then you can be assured there's a big scam going on. They do nothing but lie. Personally I've noticed the sun feels more powerful and tanning is more risky these days. The planets in our solar system are supposed to be getting warmer too.

[webbtje]

@Agui007 "Personally I've noticed the sun feels more powerful"

Some sound evidence there.

[Agui007]

@webbtje Well I've noticed how that I burn a little in the sun now in the UK, something I never experienced before due to my mediterranean skin. Yes the sun is getting stronger.

[webbtje]

@Agui007 As I said, sound evidence.

Definitely.

[Triplesod]

@Agui When you know absolutely fuck all about a particular subject, there are 2 roads you can go down.

Firstly is to read about it from objective sources. People who are well respected in their field, are unbiased and not working to front an agenda.

Secondly. It is this road that I would advise you to take. Just shut your big mouth and definitely don't talk to an international community about it as though you are some authority on the matter, as it makes you look like a pillock.

[christianpatriot125]

George Monbiot did not provide any evidence himself. He merely relied on the claims of others.

It seemed that neither party had reliable evidence for their position.

[webbtje]

@christianpatriot125 Sorry, so you're criticising Monbiot because... he didn't find the evidence himself?

And your conclusion, from this viewpoint, is that he therefore had no reliable evidence?

Bollocks. Grow a brain.

[DamLazyFuk]

@webbtje Look at his username, "Christianpatriot." It just screams uneducated redneck.

[pseudotruth]

@christianpatriot125

"George Monbiot did not provide any evidence himself. He merely relied on the claims of others."

Since the advent of writing, we all depend upon the accumulated knowledge of others. Does that mean we know nothing? No.

You gain the award for making one of the most stupid arguments known to human-kind.

[cristop5]

@ascolti Here's the timeline:

1998: Exxon drafts its "Global Climate Science Communications plan" to manipulate public opinion on climate science.

2002: Exxon successfully lobbies whitehouse to have IPCC chair Robert Watson removed.

2002-3: $2.5m given to denier groups

2004: $1.5m given to denier groups

2005: $1.6m given to denier groups

2006: Royal Society writes to Exxon regarding it's "funding of lobby groups that seek to misrepresent the scientific evidence relating to climate change."

[cristop5]

(Exxon propaganda continued)

2007: Exxon states “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups, whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in a responsible manner.”

2009: $1.3 given to denier groups

[cristop5]

@ascolti Perhaps you think lawyers and lobbyists like Christopher Horner and Christopher Monckton are scientists. Perhaps you think the Competetive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, The Heartland Institute and countless other "think tanks" are scientific organizations. Sorry, but science doesn't work like that. In science you have to do real research into real phenomena and then publish your findings. Denier groups don't do that. They do the bidding of ExxonMobil etc.

[SirTorment]

@cristop5 So Richard Lindzen is not a scientist? He must just have created fake papers to say that he has 40 years of experience in atmospheric science...Woah, that's older than the global warming scare itself! But of course, he predicted the future and got experience before the global warming scare just to sound credible and make like $3 out of his hard work.

[WaxItYourself]

@SirTorment Older than global warming itself? I think you need to do just a tad more studying. The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1856 by Tyndall and Arrhenius discovered that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere would increase temperatures by a certain number of degrees in 1896. You've demonstrated how ignorant you are on the subject.

[windpowerrocks]

This is superb.

I missed it on TV and have only ever heard about it second hand.

Keep up the good work.

You might like to see some of my Bellamy parodies on my YouTube site.

[bobbygnosis]

"Trying to deny climate change exists."

Framing the debate. Nicely done.

[joecushley]

@HumanSayNo You have access to Monbiot and Monckton's diaries I take it? My dear fellow, I think you're wrong. "Lord" Monckton, who still makes ludicrous claims on his CV, and flat out lied about being a member of the House of Lords is a goon whom Monbiot would have for breakfast. Don't think Monbiot is the saviour of the world, but he's doing a lot of good work. I was very annoyed at him for prejudging the Phil Jones/CRU case when it eventually transpired there was no wrong-doing.

[HumanSayNo]

@joecushley - Im sorry old chap, but your declaration that there was no wrong doing by the CRU is highly inaccurate. There was lots of data destroyed, which was funded by public money, and other results hidden from public scrutiny. Our main concern today is still what it was in the 70's...we are still facing a rapid decrease of the earth's temperature! Are you aware of the geoengineering projects that have been taking place as far back as the mid 90's? Barium and Aluminium particles?

[joecushley]

@HumanSayNo What data was destroyed? What results were hidden from public scrutiny? Strange that three inquiries didn't discover these crimes. Oh, of course it ISN'T strange because they were whitewashes. Can't win against this paranoid mentality. Also strange that no one else has picked up this rapid decrease in global temps. In fact 2010 seems to be hottest year ever. I'd like to hear more about these geoengineering projects, tho' can't help feeling they are going to be woo-woo nonsense...

[HumanSayNo]

@joecushley - A simple google search will provide you with all the woo woo you like on geoengineering. You also need to take a look at our planets natural warming and cooling cycle. Ice ages come and go on time, over time!

[cristop5]

@ascolti The CRU has been investigated by:

1. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee

and

2. An International Science Assessment Panel.

3. The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review

The findings of all inquiries are now in. Here they are:

1. ww w.publications.parliament.u k/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctec­h/387/387i.pdf

2. ww w.uea.ac.u k/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstat­ements/SAP

3. ww w.cce-review.o rg/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

The CRU was exonerated by all three inquiries.

[cristop5]

@ascolti Just to correct you:

1. "The CRU is currently BEING investigated..." No, it's over. In fact all three investigations are complete. Obviously you failed to read the reports, even though I gave you the links!

2. The Scientific Assessment Panel. Had you followed the link you'd see that.

"you think UEA review of their own unit.." Had the UEA not commissioned an investigation no doubt you would have been outraged! Panelists were selected by the Royal Society & are not connected to the UEA.

[joecushley]

@Aptitude Point one: Only one mistake, the glacier one, what are the others? The denialist Sunday Times had to apologise for their fiasco of a report about the Amazonian rain forest's potential reaction to drought.

Point two: He didn't say there was no warming. Stop repeating this lie. He only said that the warming was statistically significant at 92% rather than 95%.

Point three: AGW theory predicted that Antarctic ice would grow!! You really are a bunch of clowns aren't you!

[HumanSayNo]

Crooked journalist/campaigner George Monbiot v Honest and decent Bellamy.

no brainer really!

CLIMATEGATE!!!

[joecushley]

@HumanSayNo Erm, CRU exonerated from any wrong-doing in three separate inquiries. Out-of-his-depth, has-been Bellamy vs honest decent journalist Monbiot.

You're the no-brainer.

[Rotpig]

Oh my, how times change... Arguing about wether glaciers are retreating or growing means nothing. You have to prove that humans are causing global warming.

[joecushley]

@Rotpig Of course it matters! It's one of the indicators of global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are pumping 29 billion tonnes a year into the atmosphere, the temperatures are rising... Jeezus...

[Wakeymedia1]

Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

It happens to have as contributors several ex IPCC scientists, the former editor of the New Scientist, other mainstream and very senior scientists AND the founder of Greenpeace.

Sorry.

[pointmanzero]

@Wakeymedia1 And pretty much all of them are taken out of context, quote mined or just flat out twisted into lies. Sorry, I have watched it and it is complete rubbish.

[joecushley]

@Wakeymedia1 It also happens to have severe distortions of the truth, faking of graphs, and misrepresentations of some of the scientists they interviewed. Worthless piece of politically motivated rubbish. Search Carl Wunsch, a 'very senior scientist', and read his anger at the way he was treated by the fraudsters who made this programme.

[propositionjohnston]

@TheTl1r This is so hilarious I don't know quite what to say? How long have you been out of the psych ward, and do you still voices that no one else does?

[icemachine79]

@TheTl1r You forgot to mention the reptilians.  Or did you leave them and the Illuminati out so people wouldn't immediately know that you're a nutcase?

[deldawn]

Did they just say Bull Shit on channel 4 news?

[majikninja07]

with regards to referring to obama it was using the easily grasped concept that obama lied repeatedly to get elected and knowing that you are a retarded elitists i can assume you voted for mr obama and have to now come to terms with the fact that your great promise of change has come in all the ways you didnt want unless you like taxes, and devalued currency so now please fabricate more evidence to allow us to argue more so you can try and feel your of superior intellect

[plevyman]

I'm not American, so obviously I didn't vote for Obama.

Not the brightest button in the box, are you?

[nevajism]

when was this interview? guess george wouldnt be so keen on a repeat debate after all that has happened recently!

[plevyman]

Watch Monbiot's debate with Ian Plimer - which has happened since the CRU e-mail leak.

[judomagyar]

I just finished watching Monbiot vs. Plimer.

Monbiot was really obnoxious, interrupting and running his mouth all the time.Plimer held his own quite well against TWO OPPONENTS.

[plevyman]

Plimer is the one making fraudulent claims. It was right of the presenter to confront him on them.

But I wasn't asking you to watch the video - there's no point in trying to persuade you of anything since you are so obvious lost to any possibility of rational argument.

Just carry on with your paranoid rants.

[judomagyar]

what is the gig hurry? Passing laws that will tax everyone internationally to fund a global monetary defacto "government? In  Coppenhagen no one mentioned "elections" or "ballot", only taxation without representation.

By 2012 it will be obvious that we are in a cooling trend. Just ask all those Manatees dying in Florida becasuse of the long cold winter. I am really tired of scaping the ice off my windshild in the morning in f#!&*-ing Florida! CO2 is plant food.

[plevyman]

I've said it before, but I'm perfectly happy for people like you to post stuff like this on climate videos. It makes it clear where the climate "sceptic" movement is coming from.

[judomagyar]

It is possible that, the global elite are imitating Themistocles and trying to prepare the world for the post oil conditions. It is easier to lie to the people that we will all fry than explaining the "Hubbert-curve" and its implications to the ignorant masses. Themistocles lied to the Athenians in order to save them from Persia.

[judomagyar]

9) the Mars Global Surveyor registered that the ice caps of Mars are also shrinking. What is causing that? Martian "deniers"?

10) There is a close correlation between global temperature and sunspot activity.

11) There is an inverse correlation between the cosmic background radiation and the global temperature.

[plevyman]

9. Of course, some sparse data gained from a solitary unmanned mission to Mars is absolutely foolproof, when pitted against the masses and masses of observations of the earth and the sun. That's climate "scepticism", to immediately accept any and all evidence - no matter how flimsy - that contradicts the idea that humans are warming the earth.

10. Not in the last 35 years there isn't.

11. No there isn't.

[judomagyar]

6) What if there is a global cooling coming while we are trying to make the globe cooler? GLOBAL FAMINE!

7) Long term ice core data shows that, throughout history, CO2 concentration follows, lags, global temperature by about 800 years!

8) Dr Lindzen of MIT, who is actually a real climate scientist, points out correctly how this global warming fad became politicized.

[plevyman]

6. What if, what if, what if... speculating about fantasy scenarios is no replacement for scientific knowledge.

7. So what? The CO2 lag is well known about - no-one debates it, it doesn't disprove or count against anything. Previous episodes of warming weren't triggered by CO2. The current one is.

8. Dr. Lindzen is a good scientist, but his public pronouncements are junk. Check out his views on the link between smoking and lung cancer.

[judomagyar]

After watching all parts of this video...

1) George Monbiot is intentionally referring to "climate change" and "global warming".

2) When David Bellamy asks for data Monbiot provides a list of authorities that are on his side.

3) consensus is NOT science

4) Post peak-oil world coupled with overpopulation will cause much greater problems within decades. see:"Hubbert-curve"

5) Global warming, if ever happens, will effect us within hundreds of years.

[plevyman]

1. So what? The globe is warming; climate is changing as a result.

2. It's hardly the forum to start talking about the evidence, other than the demonstrably false claims Bellamy has made in print.

3. Science requires a consensus on certain things in order to make progress. Is the theory of evolution being debated in scientific circles?

4. Meh.

5. Firstly, it's alreay happening - look at the temperature record. Secondly, so what if it takes hundreds of years. Does that make it ok?

[majikninja07]

Your completely retarded science is NOT a fking consensus it is a provable fact, and what about the false claims of your side i seen the polar bear picture in this video but their population as exploded, since we stopped over hunting them. but but al gore and his movie says so just so you know their are more lies in that movie then in a government or government official's address to the general public and if your an obamatard you will know what i am talking about

[plevyman]

Bit of advice for you. Next time you want to say "your completely retarded", try not to follow that up with a moronic, stream-of-not-quite-consciousn­ess, embarrassingly poor rant against things that that person never talked about or even alluded to.

Honestly, for you to call anyone a "retard" is the height of irony.

[majikninja07]

i know it is hard for you comprehend without , . - in my rant as you call it but rants are emotional and loud i didnt put any ! ! ! in their so for your frail and brain washed self let me help u - Science is not a fking consensus. Polar bear populations are growing, and Al Gore speaks more bullshit then Obama did to get elected. Obama has repeatedly not kept his promises and will be know as a bigger liar then Bush was, and if you voted for him you should feel silly for falling into his trap.

[plevyman]

You're still a moron.

Science requires a consensus on certain things in order to progress, as I pointed out before. If you don't understand this then you really need to go back to school - learn about the periodic table, some basic physics, the theory of evolution. Similarly, the basic physics which explains the greenhouse effect is not seriously being questioned any more.

Next, polar bear populations are certainly not growing - they did in the late 60s & 70s, but they are now falling again.

[majikninja07]

its hard to start into your argument because all i can do is face palm at how bad it is, so polar bear population has grown in the last 10 years to 22-25,000 and even the wwf that is fighting to save them says that the decline is population is only in certain is migration. so now on to the science going from mathematics which is either right or wrong to evolution which is not is a straw man and the mathematics needs NO consensus because if it is right you can see and prove that it is right

[plevyman]

You need to check out the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which collects the most comprehensive data on polar bears, According to their information, many polar bear populations in the arctic are severely reduced or declining - only two are increasing.

I've no idea why you brought up maths. However, you are wrong if you think there is no consensus in maths. (I'm a mathematician.) Proof is not absolute. Mistakes can occur. Consensus exists on what we can accept to be true.

[majikninja07]

you brought up the maths and you must be a terrible mathematician because proof is absolute its the definition of proof, and evolution was also more widely accepted back before ww2 then dropped off intill the human genome project happened

[plevyman]

I didn't bring up maths. I mentioned the periodic table, evolution and basic physics. None of these are maths. You *really* need to go back to school.

I said that proof is not absolute - most mathematicians work as if it is so, but the fact remains that many proofs contain errors (but are still substantially correct) and no proof goes into 100% of the details - you take as read a certain amount of previous theory, even when you don't know the details of it.

[plevyman]

The definition of proof is certainly not "absolute" in any sense. Rigorous, perhaps - but this is a standard to aim for, and isn't an essential property. Mostly it's just a chain of convincing steps that shows the desired statement. There doesn't have to be anything absolute about it. Quite the opposite in fact - mathematical logic has proved that "absolute"-ness is actually impossible to have with any certainty.

[plevyman]

And frankly, mentioning Obama every other word when he has practically nothing to do with this discussion just shows that you have a disturbing obsession with him. It certainly doesn't add weight to your points.

Once again, for you to set yourself up as a superior intellect is laughable.

[majikninja07]

I know your gonna be scratching your head for hours trying to figure out were the . , - and ! go but ill go on, the theory of evolution is a consensus in the sense that after it was proven with the human genome project made it the consensus and the greenhouse effect isnt questioned it is the mathematical amounts a pointed to all the greenhouse gasses is directly under fire because several published works show the ipcc numbers are multiplied sometimes by a factor of 10 in the effect of thesegases

[plevyman]

The human genome project was not the proof of evolution. Perhaps you meant the discovery of DNA? That wasn't the final proof. Evolution was already accepted by biologists (consensus) because of its explanatory power vis-a-vis the evidence.

AGW is not so much a theory as an understanding of the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. You are simply wrong in your claim that the IPCC multiplied the effect of greenhouse gases. It's just not true.

[icemachine79]

@majikninja07 That was the longest, stupidest, most insipid sentence I think I've ever read. No wonder you've got so many facts confused when it comes to climate change. Your grasp of the English language is obviously tenuous at best. Would it help if we supplied you with information in your native tongue? Maybe then you'd be able to comprehend what's really going on and possibly even comment on it in an intelligent manner.

[majikninja07]

@icemachine79 still crying about punctuation on the internet how cute

[kingneddy]

global warming is a hoax. the international socialists want to carbon tax the masses.monbiot is an actor reading his socialist lines.

[Toji85]

on what earth do you spend most of your time? look at reality, for heavens sake!