Global Warming

[said]

Of course, we only ever hear one side of the debate because the media never feature the alternative view. That is why 90% of people, even if they disagree with the climate propaganda, are afraid to voice their scepticism for fear of being shouted down.
Try Googling - Climate: The Movie - on YouTube and you will be able to access a rare and refreshing rebuttal of that incredibly powerful climate change conspiracy.

Those who promote the idea of climate change are not helping industry, jobs, freedom, GDP, or third-world countries. The majority of people can see through it. Countries that support the idea of climate change are falling deeper into poverty, while those who do not support it are becoming richer.


The UK's industry is weak, and soon there will be nothing left to support the tenuous financial industry. We import our clothing from China, and even the mechanisms for wind farms and solar panels are sourced from there. Interestingly, China is not a supporter of climate change and is opening two new coal-fired plants every week. We can't do that - because we support a climate change that does not exist! Think about it - you do not need to be a scientist.

The climate change theory nets $3.6 Trillion! It empowers governments to control people and their spending and subsequently their freedom. Those countries that do not support it are far better off than we are. It only benefits the rich!

[donkey22]

Of course, we only ever hear one side of the debate because the media never feature the alternative view. That is why 90% of people, even if they disagree with the climate propaganda, are afraid to voice their scepticism for fear of being shouted down.
Try Googling - Climate: The Movie - on YouTube and you will be able to access a rare and refreshing rebuttal of that incredibly powerful climate change conspiracy.

No, the reason you don’t read about the ‘alternative views’ on climate change in the mainstream media is because most of it is conspiracy theory gobbledygook.
Most publishers and the general public are willing to put their faith behind the 97% of published climate scientists who stake their hard earned reputations with the belief that humans are the cause of the current climate emergency.

Climate: The Movie
It’s a bunch of cherry picked nonsense from a known right wing activist. There’s no reason to treat this as an honest presentation about climate change.
If climate science is somehow wrong, the rebuttal won’t come in the form of a documentary. It will come in the form of scientific publications presenting the evidence and reasoning for why all of climate science has been wrong up till now.

Here is a full point by point rebuttal of the “documentary” for anyone who comes across this in the future and is interested…

https://skepticalscience.com/climate...old-myths.html

‘In this movie, besides already disproved hypotheses, many presented graphs and data are wrong and not based on scientific literature as claimed. There are thousands of climate scientists, research papers and science academies all around the world who disagree to the myths shown here.’
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt31851190/reviews

[duncet]

No, the reason you don’t read about the ‘alternative views’ on climate change in the mainstream media is because most of it is conspiracy theory gobbledygook.
Most publishers and the general public are willing to put their faith behind the 97% of published climate scientists who stake their hard earned reputations with the belief that humans are the cause of the current climate emergency.

Climate: The Movie
It’s a bunch of cherry picked nonsense from a known right wing activist. There’s no reason to treat this as an honest presentation about climate change.
If climate science is somehow wrong, the rebuttal won’t come in the form of a documentary. It will come in the form of scientific publications presenting the evidence and reasoning for why all of climate science has been wrong up till now.

Here is a full point by point rebuttal of the “documentary” for anyone who comes across this in the future and is interested…

https://skepticalscience.com/climate...old-myths.html

‘In this movie, besides already disproved hypotheses, many presented graphs and data are wrong and not based on scientific literature as claimed. There are thousands of climate scientists, research papers and science academies all around the world who disagree to the myths shown here.’
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt31851190/reviews

I cannot understand why any subject that comes within the realms of science - whether you are a believer or a non-believer - has to be politicised by applying a "right wing activist" label to someone who has a different opinion to you.

[donkey22]

I cannot understand why any subject that comes within the realms of science - whether you are a believer or a non-believer - has to be politicised by applying a "right wing activist" label to someone who has a different opinion to you.

This is why:

‘Clear evidence of a link between people supporting right-wing political parties and climate-change scepticism has been identified in a new study from the University of Oxford and the Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.’
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-12...opulists-study

If a ‘documentary’ is put together on climate change by a far right supporter, there’s a good chance they’re spouting conspiracy theory nonsense.
As usefully proven by your endorsement of the video your urging people to watch.

[The PNP]

If a ‘documentary’ is put together on climate change by a far right supporter, there’s a good chance they’re spouting conspiracy theory nonsense.
As usefully proven by your endorsement of the video your urging people to watch.

Agree....It's always the Tory/Reform types, who oppose measures to reduce CO2 emissions. But it's hard for them to argue against measures designed to tackle the #Climate Emergency, like ULEZ Zones, bike-lanes, public transport investment etc, unless they also attempt to deny the reality of #GlobalWarming.

[local]

You do have to wonder how people's thought processes are supported.

The suggestion that the rich right-wingers want an armageddon climate change is somewhat fanciful and part of the same old narrative.

Surely the poor and intellectually lazy are the most likely to want to make the least change and effort as simply put they can't afford not to and many don't have the ability to make the change.

The less intelligent will burn the trees and carry on their low-thought selfish lives.

[Alikado]

You do have to wonder how people's thought processes are supported.

The suggestion that the rich right-wingers want an armageddon climate change is somewhat fanciful and part of the same old narrative.

Surely the poor and intellectually lazy are the most likely to want to make the least change and effort as simply put they can't afford not to and many don't have the ability to make the change.

The less intelligent will burn the trees and carry on their low-thought selfish lives.

It would be the rich who would benefit because like a war it would be a stimulus for trade.

[donkey22]

You do have to wonder how people's thought processes are supported.

The suggestion that the rich right-wingers want an armageddon climate change is somewhat fanciful and part of the same old narrative.

Surely the poor and intellectually lazy are the most likely to want to make the least change and effort as simply put they can't afford not to and many don't have the ability to make the change.

The less intelligent will burn the trees and carry on their low-thought selfish lives.

Here you go. Some rich right wingers spreading misinformation about climate change.

‘Pro-Brexit Tory MPs Linked to Opaque Group Spreading Climate Misinformation on Facebook’
https://www.desmog.com/2020/11/06/br...tion-facebook/

[local]

It would be the rich who would benefit because like a war it would be a stimulus for trade.

You could tell that to the many rich Oligarchs who have had their lives upset by Putins war.

It is an old and inaccurate trope.

The rich as a mass benefit from us spending like crazy because we think we are well off.

Trade is decimated for the majority who the rich rely on.

A minority getting rich in the tools of war is so often overstated.


The richest Russian oligarchs have lost almost $95bn this year amid strict sanctions imposed by western nations over the Ukraine war – shedding $330m a day since the Kremlin launched its invasion.

Roman Abramovich, the former Chelsea FC owner, was the biggest loser, with his fortune falling by 57% to $7.8bn this year, according to the Bloomberg billionaires index.

Guardian.

[The PNP]

You could tell that to the many rich Oligarchs who have had their lives upset by Putins war.

It is an old and inaccurate trope.

The rich as a mass benefit from us spending like crazy because we think we are well off.

Trade is decimated for the majority who the rich rely on.

A minority getting rich in the tools of war is so often overstated.


The richest Russian oligarchs have lost almost $95bn this year amid strict sanctions imposed by western nations over the Ukraine war – shedding $330m a day since the Kremlin launched its invasion.

Roman Abramovich, the former Chelsea FC owner, was the biggest loser, with his fortune falling by 57% to $7.8bn this year, according to the Bloomberg billionaires index.

Guardian.

And where did those rich oligarchs get their wealth from? Why, from the production of fossil-fuels of course. Which supports the line of thinking, that the rich stand to lose out when populations turn away from burning fossil-fuels!