A recent Netflix ‘Our Planet’ program with David Attenborough delivering a disturbing message of doom about walruses falling off a cliff to their deaths because of climate change is contrived nonsense on par with the bogus National Geographic starving polar bear video of 2017. The walruses shown in this Netflix film were almost certainly driven over the cliff by polar bears during a well-publicized incident in 2017, not because they were “confused by a combination of shrinking ice cover and their own poor eyesight“.
UPDATE No 1: Andrew Montford asks if Netflix film crew helped to drive walruses off cliff? Link to Update No.1
UPDATE No. 2: Was Attenborough's Netflix porn the worst BBC climate programme ever? Link to Update No.2
UPDATE No. 3: WHAT DAVID ATTENBOROUGH GOT WRONG IN HIS NETFLIX PROGRAMME Link to Update No. 3
Have you thought to yourself that the Climate Change movement seems more and more like a religious movement? Will at Medium has, so he researched how to identify a religious cult. Rick Ross, an expert on cults and intervention specialist, developed a list of ten warning signs for unsafe groups, which is published by the Cult Education Institute. They're in the link below:
Gregory Wrightstone posts at Cornwall Alliance: "History tells us that warming is very, very good, while cold is very, very bad. Perhaps both Ocasio-Cortez and Mann should be labeled as 'history deniers' for ignoring the true relationship between temperature and the human condition".
In this post to WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), Canadian scientist, Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., tells how a Centennial Leadership Award he had been granted for 2019 was withdrawn because he challenged claims about climate change on WUWT.
A 'Happy Easter' posting on NZ blog Whaleoil: "As Eric Idle of Monty Python fame said, 'always look on the bright side of life'. There is so much gloom and doom pedalled by the MSM because it sells better. When it comes to climate change scientists actually increase their institution’s cash flow if they proclaim something catastrophic and threatening. So this is dedicated to Eric … “always look on the bright side of climate change, especially CO2 increases”.
"There is nothing coincidental about common déjà vu features of a CO2 climate crisis-premised war on fossil fuels and a hysterically-hyped sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission acid rain environmental calamity a half-century ago.Both scams have claimed to be based upon dire computer model-based predictions calling for costly interventions. Both also involved the same sorts of crony constituencies: alarmist 'scientific authorities,' deep-pocket NGO promoters, and headline-hungry politicians eagerly rewarded by swarms of credulous media reporters." Professor Larry Bell, posts at Newsmax.
John Rofe is a New Zealand fraud investigator. In this paper he sets out these conclusions: "For the period since satellite records began, the global atmospheric temperature increase to the end of March 2019 is now down to only 0.34 degrees Celsius. (That is the only tamper-proof temperature data now available.) That doesn’t support the notion of runaway global warming. This year it is claimed the global warming industry will be worth USD1.5 trillion and its total worth is climbing rapidly. It is simply a USD1.5 trillion fraud that will continue to get bigger."
On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected a paper by physicist Dr Ed Berry for the following reason: "The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community." Dr Berry comments: "Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the 'consensus' is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the 'consensus' how can there be progress in science?" Read the paper here, and judge for yourself:
U.S. meteorologist Chuck Wiese has immediately supported the accuracy of Dr Berry's paper: Download ChuckWiese.pdf
"The latest well-known person exploited in this way is documentary producer Sir David Attenborough, who was taken in by the false story of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It appears he let his socialist views over-ride any sense of science he might have. The trouble is he doesn’t appear to have any science training. He is an English Grammar School graduate who identifies himself as a naturalist. This is like the practice of people identifying themselves as environmentalists." Dr Tim Ball posts at 'WattsUpWIthThat'.
Dr Timothy Ball and Tom Harris post at 'America Outloud': " A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe. The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature.
Australian climate analyst John McLean [posts at American Thinker: "When governments' policies are based on science, then it's up to the governments to first determine if the science is solid. It would simply be irresponsible of any government not to do so.Testing the evidence requires an open, impartial, and objective evaluation.
This paper by Mark P. Mills at the Manhattan Institute highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
Retired nuclear engineer, Regis Nicoll, explains in Crisis Magazine why science is never settled. "Red flags should go up every time we hear, 'There is no longer any debate, the science is settled.' History is full of 'widows' who were wedded to the science of the age. Adherents to Ptolemaic geocentrism, Newtonian determinism, and spacetime absolutism come to mind.
92-year old botanist, Sir Richard Attenborough is the latest climate change propagandist to weigh in with hysterical alarmism promising a forthcoming catastrophe-ridden series on BBC. Before falling for this nonsense, look at this piece by Paul Homewood on "Not a Lot of People Know That" reminding us of observed and recorded truths, especially the telling graphs (and scroll through the comments that follow).
"Seriously, folks, we’re supposed to be seeing all kinds of bad stuff. But none of it has happened. No cities gone underwater. No increase in heat waves or cold waves. No islands sinking into the ocean. No increase in hurricanes. No millions of climate refugees. The tragedies being pushed by the failed serial doomcasters for the last 30 years simply haven’t come to pass." Willis Eschenbach posts at WUWT.
Dr Judith Curry is a renowned US climate scientist who once espoused "global warming" alarmist theories. Then she did intensive research and became one of the most lucid and learned climate skeptics, feared by the alarmists because they are unabe to answer her challenges for them to prpoduce the evidence for their claims of looming catastrophe.. This latest post on her website is one of the most convincing rebuttal articles you will ever read.
Interesting keynote address in Amsterdam by Nick Lewis, who graduated in mathematics and physics from Cambridge University, and after a successul mid-life career in finance, turrned his attention to climate science, as he explains in this video:
For slides in Nick's address:
Retired New Zealand agricultural research scientist offers sensible advice to children who marched on 15 March to draw attention to climate change.
UK academics draw attention of parents, children and teachers to dangers of brainwashing in schools (courtesy of Global Warming Policy Foundation).
Contributor Suze to New Zealand Whaleoil blog adds this constructive contribution to the debate
In this outstanding example of scientific scholarship, ground-breaking Danish physicist, Dr Henrik Svensmark dicusses the influence of the sun on Earth's climate and summarises: "the impact of solar activity on climate is much larger than the official consensus suggests. This is therefore an important scientific question that needs to be addressed by the scientific community."
Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and a senior researcher in the Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics Division of the National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Lyngby, Denmark.
This new volume by the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels", assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels with a special focus on concerns related to anthropogenic climate change. The NIPCC authors conclude, “The global war on energy freedom, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The world’s policymakers ought to acknowledge this truth and end that war.”