Climate change PROVED to be nothing but a lie, claims top meteorologist

[claig]

"THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed."

And the distinguished meteorologist goes on to say what many wise heads have long been saying:

"Polar Bears are increasing in number."

www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

None. There is so much in the Mail, that I struggle to get through it all.

claig
you must be a very slow reader
cover to cover of the fail takes about two hours per day

if you choose to disregard primary sources, you are clearly a sheep

'you must be a very slow reader'

I am a thorough reader. I contemplate what the Mail is telling me, I cogitate on it, and often re-read it several times to make sure I understand the nuances behind what it is saying.

my point exactly
only those with closed minds use one source

I bookmark the BBC, the Guardian, the Economist, the FT and the New York Times
between them I believe I find out what matters

unless you understand the political context of the news sources you use, you are a follower, not a thinker

But I don't need to read the papers to know what's what because I understand the game. Once you understand the game, everything becomes clear - climate change, light bulbs, the EU, pandemics, Russell Brand etc etc

I'm not a follower, I'm ahead of the game.

I do browse the net to understand what is happening in Ukraine or in Syria etc because those are not really the Mail's strong points, but on UK issues, the Mail is pretty good.

You say you are ahead of the game
You say that the mail is good

What is your evidence for either? as evidence is all that really exists

How often do you seek to disprove a HeilFail story to test its validity? a basic scientific technique after all

The Mail publishes what I consider modernisers and spinners like Ian Birrell, a former speech-writer for Cameron with his anti-Putin, pro decriminalisation of drugs line among other progressive things, and people I think are wrong such as the Economist's Edward Lucas with his anti-Putin line. When I see the name Ian Birrell, I don't even bother reading it because I know what I will get. But the Mail also has top journalists such as Peter Hitchens who knows his stuff.

I know when the Mail is spinning and I know when it is telling the truth or giving hints about the truth.

Claig
The Mail publishes what I consider modernisers and spinners
Who do you compare them with?
Which other columns do you read to ensure that your opinion is empirically derived?
Peter Hitchens is indeed a good journalist in his very narrow field.
Who do you read who challenges his view?

Because reading one source and discrediting others is religion, not news.

'Who do you compare them with?'

I compare a moderniser like Birrell, a former speech-writer to the moderniser Cameron, with someone I consider knowledgeable such as Peter Hitchens.

'Which other columns do you read to ensure that your opinion is empirically derived?'

I don't think understanding what is happening is empirical. There are people who will give you different lines, different views. You can't be sure of the truth. You can only fit it in to the big picture which you have built as a model of how youthink things fit together over years of learning. Your model adapts with what you are told, but you are told different things by different journalists, so you have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

"Who do you read who challenges his view?"

The metropolitan elite challenges Hitchens views, so you cannot escape the challenge to Hitchens views because you will hear it on the BBC, Newsnight, Question Time, Any Questions, Channel 4 News etc. It is everywhere because it is the Establishment's view.

What are you non UK news sources?

which journalists on the sites / venues you have mentioned do you rate?

I'd never heard of Birrell prior to this thread :
what is his independent experience?
how did he make his living before joining a political party?

The establishment view may not be correct, but you need evidence (names, editor journals, sources) to rail against the Westminster hegemony

what is your alternative (as Paul Dacre is in it up to his hair line) ?

Have we had this yet?

who / what / why is the poster of that?
I do not c&p friends drunken comment onto news threads, nor should others

"I'd never heard of Birrell prior to this thread"

Birrell is not really a famous journalist - he is not like a Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Peter Oborne, Polly Toynbee etc, - in the sense that he writes a widely read regular column

He was a former Deputy Editor of the Independent and writes for a number of papers - the Guardian, Daily Mail etc

I don't know if he is a member of any party, but he seems to be a conservative on the modernising, liberal side, but I don't know.

Journalists I like are Peter Oborne on the Telegraph, Melanie Phillips who used to be on the Mail, but I don't know who she writes for now, Hitchens on the Mail. Can't think of anyone else just now, but I don't read much apart from the Mail anyway. I just think there is so much spin from politicians and even newspapers that I end up ignoring it and getting the lowdown from the Mail and Dacre's editorials.

On the net, I sometimes go to the Spectator, which is good. I like some of the journalists who make me laugh such as James Delingpole and Rod Lidell, but I hardly ever read them.

Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist

Correction
This article originally referred to John Coleman as a top meteorologist; that reference has now been removed. It also claimed that in 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming. In fact, the InterAcademy Council had not found that. The article has now been amended.

For those who believe only "qualified" people should make these kind of statements I'd offer just four words:

University of East Anglia

Seeing as mumsnet is mostly about having babies and breeding, maybe you should all open your eyes a bit and take a serious look at global warming. First check out Easter Island and what happened there, as I think we are going the same way, there is plenty of info on the internet.
The main thing about global warming besides the temperature rise, is the sea rising. Within most of our lives it will be 10 feet, probably more. There is plenty of info about this on the internet. That means there will be about 100,000,000 people displaced. Where do you think those people will go, or do?
Then there is the sad fact that businesses and governments are trying to make money out of the bad situation, which is just making things worse, take carbon trading for an example.
Then we have the real polluters. massive ships using about 380 tons of crude oil to propel them through the water/day. the fumes and soot are pumped into the sea so you do not see the smoke. These ships are increasing 10%/year.
Then we have military, I believe US military produces 50% of the worlds pollution.
How about rockets, they are far from pollution free.
O.K. now consider this:- the authorities are going be picking on us, our heating and consumption. Our carbon footprint that they are going to be taxing us on.
Why are they not taxing the real polluters?
This November 30 2015, the UN are going to be holding a conference in Paris to tie governments to restriction co2 emissions. It will probably be as big a fiasco as the Kyoto agreement in 2006.
Wake up people, if you want a world for your children and grandchildren to live in you had better unite and do something. Personally I think we are nearly too late.

This is a very old thread.

i think we are too late too. And I'm interested in discussing this subject, as are a lot of people, but it's nearly impossible on MN because the poster claig just spams threads with his/her conspiracy theories.

Discuss away. I promise I shall not interject with the truth.

'Wake up people, if you want a world for your children and grandchildren to live in you had better unite and do something.'

I agree with that sentiment, which is why I voted UKIP. Now I'm outta here (even though this was my thought-provoking thread).

You mean you'd really leave everyone to discuss climate change amongst themselves rationally without posting links to websites like climategatescamhoax.com? I don't believe it. See: every climate change thread in the last couple of years.

Yes, I will not post the alternative view, the truth. I don't join every climate thread, only those where I think I can help the OP not be frightened by Establishment lies and spin. But if people are 100% convinced by the Establishment and are not interested in the truth, then there is no point trying to help.

Look at my name. I keep bees. I have seen the effects of climate change on them.
I have a small plot of land in the Bahamas, it used to be half a mile from the sea, its now under water.
Want any more proof?

Maybe start a new thread apibeeman?

The bees problem is not due to "climate catastrophe"

"Mobile phones responsible for disappearance of honey bee

The growing use of mobile telephones is behind the disappearance of honey bees and the collapse of their hives, scientists have claimed."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/7778401/Mobile-phones-responsible-for-disappearance-of-honey-bee.html

The climate has always changed. Once we had an ice age. Soil erosion on the East Coast of England occurred in 1600 when there were no fossils fuels. It has nothing to do with CO2.

But I am outta this thread because I want people to be able to swallow the elite's lies without me contradicting them.