Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Another Attenborough tragedy porn exposé | Main | More walrus articles »
Thursday
Apr182019

Attenborough does climate

This is an open thread for discussion of tonight's David Attenborough does climate thingy.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (166)

….then we condemn Greta’s generation, and generations to follow…
But I thought Greta’s generation was going to be the last generation, as we are heading into extinction. Oh, well… another lie exposed.

Apr 23, 2019 at 12:03 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

PC

the child purportedly has a small carnival of MH problems.... she has been deliberately been pushed to the front and centre by people not prepared to to debate and to substitute volume and vehemence for rational, evidenced and logical evaluation - I don't need to deploy inversions to call hiding behind a mentally fragile child as not nice - in fact it's simply putrid unprincipled activism.

She jetted to address the EU Parliament, UN Functions and XR London Easter circus off the back of standing around the entrance to Riksdagshuset for a few of hours a week - really ? Brian Haw should've been made UN Secretary General then?

As ever GFY

Apr 23, 2019 at 12:56 AM | Registered Commentertomo

She jetted to address the ...

Yawn, another fact free rant; Thunberg does not fly. On the 'did it rattle Tomo's cage?' scale, she's doing great.

Apr 23, 2019 at 7:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Thanks Brendan Please don't have a little create over copyright ...

I wouldn't worry. Chief hater O' Neill is already well-rewarded for his work.

Apr 23, 2019 at 7:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, will you post a link to a chart showing the interlinking of "green" writers, organisations and funding, please?

As so often, you're playing the man, not the ball.

Apr 23, 2019 at 8:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark,

If you know of a 'green' organisation in receipt of a six-figure sum, the majority of its income, from a vested interest and then fails to mention the source of its funding, I am all ears.

I just find it more than a little ironic that on this, occasionally conspiracy-minded forum, someone takes the time to copy and paste a complete article from a writer known for his 'anti-elite' views, writing for an organisation quietly funded by US Oil industry dark money.

Allow me my little chuckle.

Public tax returns from the Charles Koch Foundation show that in 2016 the organisation donated $150,000 to Spiked’s American fundraising arm, Spiked US Inc, through two separate donations (of $130,000 and $20,000). That is more than the total funding ($137,000) that Spiked US Inc declared on its 2016 tax return. [...] Contrast Spiked US Inc’s tax return with Spiked’s UK accounts (which by law do not have to contain as much detail as US public accounts), and it seems that almost all of the organisations’ resources appear to come from the US.

In 2016, the UK company, Spiked Limited, recorded total shareholders funds of £11,439. In 2017, that figure was just £8,651.

[...]

Their primary aim is disruption and chaos and to prevent any restraint on the actions causing the climate breakdown in which we are engulfed. Far from being “free thinkers” dedicated to liberty for the common person, we now know Spiked and the LM network are ‘proudly’ at the bidding of these billionaire oil barons.

Apr 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, by all means bring to our attention the sources of funding of anyone writing about climate change (whether for or against the alarmism). I'm not sure that transparency of funding is relevant to the idea that sceptics are funded under some sort of big-oil right-wing conspiracy theory, when it seems to me that the big funding, and certainly most of the PR and MSM stories, now go to the "green" side of the debate.

Would you disagree with that opinion? If so, why and on what basis? I'm genuinely interested in the source of funding on both sides of the debate.

Apr 23, 2019 at 8:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

 it seems to me that the big funding, and certainly most of the PR and MSM stories, now go to the "green" side of the debate.

Would you disagree with that opinion? If so, why and on what basis? I'm genuinely interested in the source of funding on both sides of the debate.

What would be the opposing camp to the 'green' side? I am not sure that is a useful framing. I would agree that most of the mainstream coverage is now in line with what the science is telling us is required - but that was certainly not always the case. Some estimate we have lost a decade due to co-ordinated misinformation and disinformation campaigns designed to cast doubt on AGW and funded both overtly and covertly by fossil fuel interests. This is well-documented, see for example the book and film Merchants of Doubt, or this series of articles. Heck, Exxon even promised to stop funding climate disinformation after an open letter from two US Senators to the CEO pointed out it's funding of groups whose aim was obfuscation had 'damaged the stature of our nation internationally'. (There's good evidence they broke the promise btw).

I thought the covert billionaire funding of O'Neill's ad hominem anti-environmentalism was ironic/amusing, given his self-appointed role as an elite-hating champion of 'ordinary people'. Having said that, I'm not usually a great believer in the 'follow the money' argument (though we still don't know who funds the GWPF and I see Anthony Watts seems to have taken the Heartland shilling), whether it is 'sceptics are all oil company shills' (they're not) or 'climate scientists are just interested in the next grant'.

You'll notice O'Neill was effectively silent on the basis of Greta Thunberg's (and many others) case for action, which basically follows as no more than the rational political response to what the science is saying, and has been, for years. See for example the US AGU's position statement, originally published 1998, the latest version dates from 2013:

Human-Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. ….

(Other position statements are available).

So, yes, climate change and other environmental concerns are becoming increasingly prominent in the public discourse. This is actually long overdue, even if the signs are that it is 'too little, too late'.

Apr 23, 2019 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

PC

so Greta didn't use any fossil fuels on her travels ? - OK - makes about as much sense as the rest of your projection / drivel.

As ever you swerve issues - so you're saying that Greta is in good mental health and does all this without instruction / assistance?

you're a wag aren't you?

Apr 23, 2019 at 1:08 PM | Registered Commentertomo

so Greta didn't use any fossil fuels on her travels ?

Guess what? I'm using a computer! Made from plastic! What a hypocrite huh? What a daft argument. No doubt if she'd cycled to London, she'd have been a hippy wierdo.

I'm happy to defend things I have actually written, things you've just made up for me, not so much.

So far as I can see you've presented zero evidence of undue pressure on the young lady, I don't suppose she's worried; she's had to deal with worse than you.

They [her parents] just told me everything will be all right. That didn’t help, of course, but it was good to talk. And then I kept on going, talking about this all the time and showing my parents pictures, graphs and films, articles and reports. And, after a while, they started listening to what I actually said. That’s when I kind of realised I could make a difference. And how I got out of that depression was that I thought: it is just a waste of time feeling this way because I can do so much good with my life. I am trying to do that still now.”

[…]

On social media, there have been other crude attacks on Thunberg’s reputation and appearance. Already familiar with bullying from school, she appears unfazed. “I expected when I started that if this is going to become big, then there will be a lot of hate,” she says. “It’s a positive sign. I think that must be because they see us as a threat. That means that something has changed in the debate, and we are making a difference.”

Apr 23, 2019 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Not so much hippy - but definitely weirdo - but went much further, much faster than Brian Haw. Quoting the Guardian on the subject ? - sheesh - the same author serves up this shite and switches from the usual "could" / "might" to "will"... even for the onanists at The Guardian that's pretty good going.

"Speaking Truth to Power" when she's plainly an unhinged tool is pretty rich.

Your persistent evasiveness and attempts to divert threads while proclaiming to "I defend what I write" are just the trollery we expect from chez Clarke.

elsewhere - I wonder if any of this tech will be rolled out over the next few months.....

Apr 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM | Registered Commentertomo

so Greta didn't use any fossil fuels on her travels ?

I never said that.

you're saying that Greta is in good mental health

I never said that.

and does all this without instruction / assistance?

I never said that either. But I'm the troll. Got that.

Apr 23, 2019 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Indeed, there's so much you don't say Phil

Greta gets about eh? - what an absolute crock. I can imagine them all inviting Brian Haw in for organic tea and Ikea biscuits - maybe they can have a seance - it'd make about as much sense.

Apr 23, 2019 at 2:46 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Isn't it amazing how concerned people like Phil are for all the supposed "dark money" behind evil sceptics YET haven't the slightest concern what so ever around how people like Greta are catapulted in to the public eye, seemingly, over night.

Apr 23, 2019 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Phil Clarke, in the absence of any actual science, Trump might as well cancel all actual funding for Climate Science. He won't even need dodgy dossiers to launch formal investigations, just follow your links and quotes.

Climate Science has abandoned Mann, failed with Polar Bears and is now grooming vulnerable children, in the same way that Moslem Extremists groomed Shamina Begum.

Apr 23, 2019 at 10:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

With the same apparent end goal too...the deaths of as many infidels as possible.

Apr 24, 2019 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>