New Statesman Condones BBC Fake News
By Paul Homewood
The New Statesman objects that attention has been drawn to Justin Rowlatt’s misreporting!
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/05/is-the-bbc-misrepresenting-climate-change
According to them:
A first complaint was upheld about Rowlatt’s coverage last June, when he described the UK offshore wind industry as “now virtually subsidy free”. The ECU admitted that he did not make it clear that he was referring only to recently approved projects, and the story was subsequently cheerfully reported in the Mail.
The complaint, though, was not made by an over zealous member of the public, nor a well-informed energy expert but by Paul Homewood. Homewood is a retired accountant and climate blogger; he disputes mainstream climate change science in his posts and writes regularly for the UK’s most prominent climate science denial group, Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Homewood is also partially behind the most recent complaint about Rowlatt. “I complained to the BBC about the Madagascar claim, while another complained about the first one,” says Homewood in a recent blog. “Both complaints were escalated to the executive complaints unit, after we were fobbed off at the first stage. I am pleased to say that both complaints have been upheld.” He also takes credit for “tipping off” the Mail with the story.
The New Statesman appear to believe that a journalist can make up whatever fake news he likes, as long as he is on message. And woe betide anybody who dares to complain, such as me or our own Joe Public, who filed the other complaint against the Panorama programme.
Unlike the New Statesman, the GWPF believes in hard facts, not the climate myths still being perpetrated by the former. For instance, this paragraph which appears in this very article:
But there is a delicious irony. We have long moaned about the fact that BBC fake news is seen by millions, but hardly anybody gets to see the “corrections”. By making a song and dance this time, the New Statesman have actually succeeded in bringing this story to the wider public.
I can only ask that they do the same, when my new blockbuster report on BBC Climate Bias is published! (Watch this space)
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The New Statesman comments are simply further proof that you are certainly on the right track Paul. My sincere compliments.
Well done to the New Statesman for publishing the true facts from Paul. Bringing his work to an even wider audience.
Yes. Except I didnt know anyone read that leftie comic. Its losses are covered by mysterious donors (CCP and soros perhaps?)
Widens the readers but I am sorry that Paul has to put up with that nasty knife job
Fake News?
We are told that CO2 is causing ‘Climate Change’. How many people even know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Very few. Tell them that it is about 420 ppm (parts per million). Blank look. An actual percentage: (0.04%). Better.
But this works: – 100 years ago for every 10,000 molecules in the air about 3 were CO2. Now it is about 4. That change causes ‘Climate Change’!!
Then consider this: – CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas absorbing infra-red in 2 narrow ranges. Water vapour absorbs over a much wider range and, on average, it is about 3%. i.e., about 60 times the concentration of CO2.
‘Climate Change’ due to CO2 is a myth.
I’ve proposed this before:
Imagine the atmosphere as a 100-metre tall silo with the constituent gases in discrete layers. The bottom 78 metres is nitrogen …
CO2 is the top 4 centimetres. Human contribution: 1.2 millimeters.
Cause for panic? I don’t think so!
off topic, hi George, havnt seen you on the telegraph recently…..did you get moderated off? they were censoring many comments and in some cases removing all of them if there was a consensus that the green dream they were reporting was against the laws of physics. Ive cancelled my subscription.
Hello Geoff,
Yes, banned from the DT for telling the ‘inconvenient truth’ and actually giving links to back-up what I was saying.
Heh, happens to the best of us, George!
George , it is not just the fact that CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere .
Human produced CO2 is only 3% of that total . And the UK only emits about 1% of the worlds total .
So you finish up with the fact that the UK CO2 production is only 1 part in 10 million parts of atmosphere .
And anyone who says that can have any effect on the climate , does not know what they are talking about , or is deliberately lying .
ITRW: Whether a few molecules of CO2 do or do not contribute to what may or may not be climate change is IRRELEVANT. We are such a minor player in this ithat we have no part. If China, India, US etc are going to bring abou the end of the world we will go down with the rest of them. So stop worrying.
Carbon Dioxide cannot store heat. – Albert Einstein.
Further to George Herraghty : How many people know that:
1. Water Vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it being present in much greater quantity and having a much larger absorbtion spectrum.
2. Human Release of CO2 is relatively small. Greater amounts are released at tectonic boundries, by earthquakes and by volcanoes (active but not necessarily erupting) of which there are about 850 on earth. If the sea temperature increases, dissolved CO2 is also released from the oceans.
3. Fungal Mycelia, which are present over much of the land surface, including all woodlands, also release CO2 in large quantities.
Incidentally, we also breath out CO2, as do animals. There are about 9 billion humans now and we release about 59 quardrillion (that is 10¹⁵) lungfulls of CO2 per year. That would be difficult to eradicate!
Finally, we quote and rely on CO2 measurements from Mona Lua. Note that Mona Lua is on one of the largest and most active volcanoes in the world. It is also surrounded by ocean and sits on a tectonic plate boundary in an area of frequent submarine earthquakes. (see no 2 above) How representative is that?
I doubt if anyone at the New Statesman, the BBC or any of the other grubby texts who are doing so much damage to humanity know any of this. Their scribblings are illiterate.
This too: Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1688668#:~:text=Termites%20may%20emit%20large%20quantities,hydrogen%20may%20also%20be%20produced.
95 % of green house gases is H2O . . .
Three arthropod insect species emit a lot more methane into the atmosphere annually than all human activity And that is not counting natural wetlands …..Another fact : decaying forest wood detritus and the symbiotic insect digestive processes generate more carbon dioxide than humans each year as well
Climate Change has always been a hoax yet stupid politicians bought in without public input
1992 Rio
We know that there is no Climate emergency, it is a fabrication started by the UN at the Rio Conference in 1992. Since that time, as Maurice Strong who was a proponent of World Government by the UN. He visualized the best way to accomplish the goal was to collapse Western societies was by creating mass hysteria proselytized by the willing dupes in our education system that CO2 is going to destroy the world because allegedly it will cause the temperature to go up 3*C.
The politics behind the IPCC is not about Climate according to the UN policy makers – is is all about redistribution of wealth which is a necessary step to realize Strong’s dream. The IPCC has admitted that Climate is not a problem, but, is a tool to be used for redistribution of our wealth through taxation of carbon as a start.
2022 Brussels
At a news conference in Brussels, Costa Rican Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
She is just interfering in the Australian election, having been allowed a puff piece in the Sydney Morning Herald
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/floods-fires-coral-bleaching-politicians-leading-the-country-to-climate-catastrophe-20220512-p5akqr.html
Christiana Figueres – Climate change leader
“There’s no gentle way to say this. Australia’s climate ambition has for years been well at the back of the pack globally. Since the unfortunate repeal of Australia’s last significant climate policy back in 2014, Australia’s decarbonisation efforts have languished, and its emissions reduction targets are broadly consistent with about 3 degrees of catastrophic global warming.”
So if Australia, with perhaps 1.1% of annual global CO2 emissions, as if they mattered, don’t wreck their economy by shutting coal mines, the world will “heat” by 3 deg C.
Oh!! Great joy! I am in the company of ‘climate science deniers’!! The irony being that the New Statesman demonstrates that it does not know that in real science ALL scientists are supposed to be sceptics. I am so pleased to be a sceptic on YOUR side, Paul. KBO!
Good for you paul!
They sound as if you are not allowed your own opinions about things!
Anyone who doesn’t agree with the ‘projections’ of climate models must be some kind of a villain according to the biases of the New Statesman. They need to get off their high horse instead of swallowing alarmist propaganda whole.
Typical IPCC tactic for adverse (informed) comment – ignore the content, make a personal attack on the commentator.
As a multiple failed complainer (complainant?) about the BBC’s reporting you have my respect.
There’s no such thing as bad pubilicity the only pity is they didn’t mention NALOPKT. But googling “Paul Homewood” the first port of call for a curious person brings up a link to here, Followed by some hatchet job articles. Shows a lot of fethers have been ruffled
“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Having read this execrable piece in full, I have to say this is genuinely terrifying. These people are not concerned in the slightest by Rowlatt’s lies, and generally unreliable reporting. Their only worry is that the narrative of “the climate crisis” is ramped up to ever more extreme levels.
The New Statesman lost my respect when Roger Scruton was sandbagged by George Eaton. Disgraceful and I’m sure must have made the end of Scruton’s life quite miserable
Not to worry, thers a large asteroid heading our way sunday according to the inependent so we might have some real climate change/emergency to deal with next week. its been a privilege corresponding with you all.
LL: I do like the hype in the press that NASA is going to crash an old satellite into a ‘threatening’ asteroid to make it veer from its probable, maybe, just in case course. But the law of unintended consequences comes into play when man tries a random shot at this sort of thing. It could be like a bad shot at snooker and cause an ‘in-off’.
The 5 principals of journalism, as I see them, have nothing to do with your heritage as a journalist, but everything to do with fact, truth, fairness, impartiality and independence.
In principal we are all journalists or reporters when our words fall within the precepts of journalistic principals. What Paul does every day is pointing out the false crap brought to us as ‘truth’ by our Media every day. When they admit to there errors they do so on the bottom of page 3 . . . NOT as HEADLINES as there LIES WERE . . . .
Thank you Paul for your journalistic acumen and your fine work . . . .
XR on fakebook are outing GWPF as they claim to have traced donations from “oil companies” in tax returns, talk about “the pot calling the kettle black” (am I allowed to write that!). Anyway, Paul it looks like you may be irritating the eco loons with facts…keep it up.
So what if the GWPF accepted donations that were probably chicken feed compared to the millions in donations environmentalist NGO’s such as the Sierra Club , Nature Conservancy and the WWF [ the WWF allegedly hired mercenaries and rangers who brutalized indigenous tribal communities but that’s another story ] from the dreaded and demonized oil and gas companies … Sierra Club alone raked in around ” $25 million worth of donations from Chesapeake Energy . For some reason the damning ‘ No Frakking Consensus article : ” Oil Money For Me But Not For Thee ” [ I could be slightly in error on the wording ] seems to be filtered out of my internet search results …Do you have better luck GeoffB…… or other contributors ?
“The complaint (about Rowlatt’s coverage last June, when he described the UK offshore wind industry as “now virtually subsidy free”), though, was not made by an over zealous member of the public, nor a well-informed energy expert but by Paul Homewood.”
It’s escaped Philippa Nuttall’s logic that because Paul’s complaint was upheld, Paul is, by definition, a better-informed “energy expert” than Rowlett. More irony.
I can’t find any technical qualifications for Nuttall but her web search says she’s spent 20 years as a journalist in Brussels and elsewhere writing about CC and alternative energy. She is no more qualified than some on here and less so than many. In her own words, she is a ‘Communications Consultant’ – I bet she doesn’t know a thing about stats – which is the main plank of the CC argument.
She boasts of having a Post Graduate Certificate in “Sustainable Development”.
From the School of African and Oriental Studies.
Scroll to near bottom:
https://be.linkedin.com/in/philippa-nuttall-91796832?trk=public_profile_browsemap
An expert in maths/economics is required to decide about ‘subsidy free’. Paul your qualifications are? Oh yes accountant.
Yes he’s brilliant at holding eco – loons and BBC fake news to account and they hate him for it. .Your logical fallacy is ‘ Appeal to Authority ‘ you snob . Do you understand these concepts ?
A classic case of the Streisand effect. Nice one Philippa 🙂
I know that a Betteridge is a headline ending in a question mark to which the answer is always no.
“Is the BBC misrepresenting climate change?”
Yes, all the time. Is this an Anti-Betteridge then?
“Climate Denial Group”. Emotive words. I have never met nor read any person who denies that climate changes. Proof positive that the author is not well versed in the subject.
For those of us who read . . . Volcanoes are very interesting. when we go through periods of time where they do not occur at levels above VEI 6 Planet earth warms . . . the last time we had one of these monsters was 1883 . . . funny how all the records used by environmentalists start from 1880. between 1257 and 1883 we had 15 of these monsters . . . The Little Ice Age . . . the second coldest period in the last 10,000 years was caused by these monsters. We are coming out of a 500 year cooling period . . . Should we not expect some pretty serious warming ?? Dugh . . .
“Philippa Nuttall”?
Who her?
She’s a Nut thats all. Always a Nut
Re P.Nuttall, on Linkedin:
EducationEducation
University of Cambridge logo
University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge
Master of Arts (M.A.), Modern and Medieval Languages (French and German)Master of Arts (M.A.), Modern and Medieval Languages (French and German)
1995 – 19991995 – 1999
Grade: 2:1Grade: 2:1
Activities and societies: Active member of the JCR: Target Schools Officer working to get more state school pupils to apply to the University of Cambridge, member of the Entertainment Committee, year representative liaising between students and the President of Murray Edwards College (New Hall).Activities and societies: Active member of the JCR: Target Schools Officer working to get more state school pupils to apply to the University of Cambridge, member of the Entertainment Committee, year representative liaising between students and the President of Murray Edwards College (New Hall). …see more
SOAS University of London logo
SOAS University of LondonSOAS University of London
PGCert, Sustainable DevelopmentPGCert, Sustainable Development
2014 – 20172014 – 2017
Ethics for Environment and Development (2017)
Understanding Sustainable Development (2016)
Climate Change and Development (2015)
International Environmental Law (2014)
Ethics for Environment and Development (2017) Understanding Sustainable Development (2016) Climate Change and Development (2015) International Environmental Law (2014) …see more
Université Paris-Sorbonne logo
Université Paris-SorbonneUniversité Paris-Sorbonne
Maîtrise (MA), Eighteenth century French literatureMaîtrise (MA), Eighteenth century French literature
2000 – 20012000 – 2001
Grade: Mention très bienGrade: Mention très bien
SkillsSkills
JournalismJournalism
· 25· 25
Endorsed by Roberto Race who is highly skilled at this
Doesn’t seem to be qualified to make observations to say that others aren’t qualified on the subject of climate, unless I’m missing something……..
Irony as I have pointed out before is absent among those pushing the Critical Theory based agenda(s)
Ad hom. Ad hom. Ad hom.
All of Little Miss Nuttall’s comments on Mr Homewood are ad hominem fallacies. They wouldn’t pass in a high school debate.
‘However, it’s worth pointing out that these misstatements were not made out of a cynical desire to misrepresent the issue, and were not wholly unsubstantiated: the claim relating to Madagascar had been made by a UN agency.’
The old “The UN is stupid, too” defense.
‘Rowlatt’s very slight faux pas’
What’s the plural of faux pas?
Nuttall considers Rowlatt to be an “ethical man.” Her words. Holding the standard on the moral high ground. Homewood is a mere retired accountant, nipping at the heels of saints.
‘How “misleading” Rowlatt’s comments were is very much debatable. It is irrelevant whether or not his wife, Bee, has “pledged her support for Extinction Rebellion”, and that his sister protested with Insulate Britain.’
But it’s important that Homewood was an accountant.
‘What is much more worrying for climate action, public information, the credibility of journalism and democracy per se is that one blogger is causing a non-story to get attention while Rowlatt’s generally excellent coverage of climate change — and the people on the front line dealing with its impacts — gets undermined.’
Questioning authority is DISINFORMATION !!!
“Rowlatt’s generally excellent coverage of climate change”
[Citation required]
🙂
“Democracy”?
Challenging a totally false claim about deaths increasing undermines democracy? These people really cannot comprehend that facts matter when forming opinions. They truly believe their opinions should shape facts.
Getting into the weeds . . . it’s totalist language, intended to stop discussion. They use ‘democracy’ not because they care, but because you care.
” Questioning authority is DISINFORMATION !!! ”
You must believe! = religion.
Notice they make no critique of what Paul wrote, only that he dared to write it about their fellow soldiers of marxism currently infesting the BBC at the licence payers expense! So telling that bereft of any kind of an alternative argument they settle for the usual left wing personal attack! So Paul is not a “climate scientist”! So what? Neither are they in the New Statesman but the irony would never occur to them when pushing the ideology.
They sneered at Paul for being an accountant and a blogger.
Meanwhile the New Statesperson’s stall struggle to count above ten without taking off their sandals, write poorly and would be challenged to clearly set out the difference between a Climate and a Climax.
Worthless rag.
You don’t need to be a scientist to be able to read a graph of deaths!
O/T again but it seems that over 50% of all these renewables’ generation will be wasted according to this article.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/boom-in-wind-and-solar-will-see-huge-surplus-of-electricity-wasted/ar-AAX19vc
You’d need Huge battery capacity to store 20GWH, that’s half of the wastage. Sure going to need more lithium and other precious metals. Good luck Boris.
Renewable energy is so cheap, it doesn’t matter if it’s “wasted.”
One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells.
This should concern us all ! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust . . . 42 ½ Tons . . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery . . . To store 100 kwh of Electricity that required more than 128 kwh of production . . . 28 kwh was lost heating the planet . . . OHM’s Law.
Let that one sink in . . . Oh, did we mention toxicity, disease or child labor. 68% of the world’s Cobalt, a very important part of every EV battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls. Furthermore, they employ children who often get sick and even die from handling this toxic material. Should we take these diseased children into account as part of the cost of driving an electric car? . . . Dam straight . . . we must! The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!
Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. Then they are Re-Heated to 450o for tempering. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride,
Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their productive lifetime . . .
Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!
From . . . https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
I’m of the belief that literally most politicians don’t understand that you have to pay for the construction, maintenance and removal of wind turbines as part of their price. They do not know how costs are calculated.
“They do not know how costs are calculated.”
Indeed. They heard “the wind is free,” so generating electricity with wind has just got to be cheap.
It’s true, the variable cost is cheap. But the fixed cost is extreme, completely overwhelming the advantage of low variable cost, by multiple factors.
But you can’t explain cost to a politician. He’s interested in re-election, not such petty details.
” They heard “the wind is free””
As are all other energy sources until you have to extract their intrinsic energy and turn it into useful work, of course.
I never read anything from the bbc as IT IS ALL LIES and has never been verified by anybody with a brain and so is a complete waste of time. I really don’t know why the bbc bothers to try and “inform” us on anything !!
Well done Paul. And, thank you.
“The New Statesman appear to believe that a journalist can make up whatever fake news he likes, as long as he is on message.”
Absolutely. That has been true for decades. The utter nonsense Left wing media spouts about privatisations for example.
I wonder what spin Rowlatt will put on the news , in our paper today , that the Business Secretary has decided that natural gas is “green” . Also if natural gas is green does that mean we can continue using our combi gas boilers because they then, surely, are as green as an air heat pump- or are there degrees of greenness?
The Irony of The Written Word
Modern society . . . such an interesting construct. Less than 30% of high school graduates go on to attain Under Graduate Degrees from university. 65 % of those, study in the realm of ‘Letters’, the many fields of The Arts. First, . . . research published works, summarize the findings then, write a legible, well documented and concise review. We have created wordsmiths, not interrogative minds, not scientific inquisitors. Not minds that doubt – respectfully – We have created ‘Intellectual Parrots’. This, . . . represents the learning and rational thinking of the vast majority of our leaders. Teachers, Journalists, Political Advisors, Publicists, and yes Environmentalists. In all these fields of study consensus is the ruling doctrine. Researchers whose works are most often ‘referenced’ rise to the top of their fields. Quality and content are judged not so much by an analytical review of the input data . . . judgement is based on ‘Peer Review’.
‘Peer Review’ – Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Lancet’ . . .
“Peer review to the public is portrayed as a ‘quasi-sacred’ process that helps to make Science our most objective truth teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong”
Aristotle’s contention that The Earth was the center of the Solar System lasted 1,600 years, or so, as ‘The Prevailing Doctrine’. When Galileo, thanks to Scientific Observation through a telescope, demonstrated that the Sun was the center of the Solar System, the Science supporting this observation was categorically rejected and deemed ‘Blasphemous’.
Today . . . in the 21st century . . . little has changed. Scientific reviews Challenging Globally accepted ‘Consensus Views’ are treated as ‘Blasphemous Aspersions’ being cast upon ‘The Peers’ and ‘The Researchers’ who have come to be known and loved. More energy is expended defending prevailing positions, than will ever be spent examining the ‘Descenting Science’. Common sense in the face of change, evaporates. Counter-prevailing research and the Authors behind them are defamed, aspersions are cast, while the elite of the prevailing views spend vast energy reinforcing and reiterating their prevailing views . . . At times, even the courts are used to confront ‘Descenting Scientific Research’ that is counter to ‘The Prevailing Consensus Views’.
Galileo, ‘The Father Modern Scientific Methods’, suffered 5 years of imprisonment and lived out his life under house arrest for his ‘Descenting Scientific Research’. The more things change . . . the more they stay the same. Environmentalism, today, is the new ‘Religion’ defining the prevailing ‘Global Consensus Views’ on Climate Change. The 2001 united nations document co-authored by Michael Mann that included his now famous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ has become the new ‘Holy Grail’. Research . . . any Scientific Research, counter to this Globally accepted consensus view that Climate Change is caused by humanity burning Fossil Fuels shall be deemed blasphemous to the ruling doctrine of our time . . . akin to ‘Satanic Worship’.
The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject, is Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. Environmentalism is a relatively New Science and it is being truly tested for the first time. If Climategate starting in 2009 is any example, we can only imagine what is yet to come. When that One Stone gets overturned proving Collusion and Willful Deception. The un-scientific foundations that have been supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . . Null.
Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak. Who wants to be the one to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . . The old adage . . .
There are none so blind as those who will not see . . . How Ironic . . .
Adamant Naturalist
Jim Le Maistre
Aldergrove BC
Copyright 2022
You’ve been “targetted” by the believers Paul, so you must be on the right track. The usual slurs and ad hominem attacks from the believers
Upset a Veggie meat substitute pusher today:
“Forgotten Methane Source: Plants Themselves Produce Methane And Emit It Directly Into The Atmosphere”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060115155754.htm
“Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics have now carefully analysed which organic gases are emitted from plants. They made the surprising discovery that plants release methane, a greenhouse gas — and this goes against all previous assumptions. Equally surprising was that methane formation is not hindered by the presence of oxygen.”
The researchers made the surprising discovery during an investigation of which gases are emitted by dead and fresh leaves. Then, in the laboratory and in the wild, the scientists looked at the release of gases from living plants like maize and ryegrass (see image 1). In this investigation, it turned out that living plants let out some 10 to 1000 times more methane than dead plant material. The researchers then were able to show that the rate of methane production grew drastically when the plants were exposed to the sun.”