Tweet
A recognised and applied principle of mob control, not only for animals, is that they must be kept in constant fear of something. No matter whether it is the stockman's stun stick, insolvency, or just the unknown.
To justify the ever- increasing taxes and wealth disparity mechanisms inpeacetime, it has to be something universal, and the Global Warming Bogey
fits those criteria nicely. No matter if it has sandy foundations, so long as the governing authority can control the print and electronic news media.
But what about the BBC ? Is it not above those games? The following account details how even that prestigious establishment is just part of the network.
We Quote:
BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE Wednesday November 5,2008
FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by
audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming.
Here he reveals why - and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change."When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.
I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme.
My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say:
"I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?"It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so.
Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn't doing that. At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored but I found that people didn't get back to me. At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: "This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic," and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we've seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly - and they've not grown for a long time.
I've seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies - carbon dioxide is not the driver.The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it's a natural thing and has always happened.
When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland.
It was evidently a lot warmer. If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we'd be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn't be here otherwise. People such as former AmericanVice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming - which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you've got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry.
In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science.There's no proof, it's just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.
Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there's nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that's not global warming. They're drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them. So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe.
One of Al Gore's biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world.
But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake. I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues.
For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I've been saying for 35 years.
Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and over fishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.
(From interview by HELEN DOWD)OUR COMMENTS: The internet report of 3,000 scientists signing a statement that they do not support or accept the bases on which Global Warming is hypothesised, and so disagree with the Kyoto Conclusions, also went unreported in the world news. Nor was it reported that the Bush Administration told the organisers of the Kyoto Conference in advance that unless it unconditionally agreed to bar any discussions of the tropical and other rainforests, then U.S. would pull the rug out from underneath it and ensure its failure.
For at least a century, scientific opinion had been nearly unanimous in its belief that the rain forests are the world's lungs, and justify preservation as essential for our planet's good health. But why let an inconvenient angle like that get on to the Kyoto Table when wiping out the forests is so useful
To justify the ever- increasing taxes and wealth disparity mechanisms inpeacetime, it has to be something universal, and the Global Warming Bogey
fits those criteria nicely. No matter if it has sandy foundations, so long as the governing authority can control the print and electronic news media.
But what about the BBC ? Is it not above those games? The following account details how even that prestigious establishment is just part of the network.
We Quote:
BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE Wednesday November 5,2008
FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by
audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming.
Here he reveals why - and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change."When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.
I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme.
My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say:
"I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?"It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so.
Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn't doing that. At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored but I found that people didn't get back to me. At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: "This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic," and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we've seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly - and they've not grown for a long time.
I've seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies - carbon dioxide is not the driver.The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it's a natural thing and has always happened.
When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland.
It was evidently a lot warmer. If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we'd be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn't be here otherwise. People such as former AmericanVice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming - which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you've got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry.
In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science.There's no proof, it's just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.
Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there's nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that's not global warming. They're drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them. So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe.
One of Al Gore's biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world.
But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake. I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues.
For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I've been saying for 35 years.
Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and over fishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.
(From interview by HELEN DOWD)OUR COMMENTS: The internet report of 3,000 scientists signing a statement that they do not support or accept the bases on which Global Warming is hypothesised, and so disagree with the Kyoto Conclusions, also went unreported in the world news. Nor was it reported that the Bush Administration told the organisers of the Kyoto Conference in advance that unless it unconditionally agreed to bar any discussions of the tropical and other rainforests, then U.S. would pull the rug out from underneath it and ensure its failure.
For at least a century, scientific opinion had been nearly unanimous in its belief that the rain forests are the world's lungs, and justify preservation as essential for our planet's good health. But why let an inconvenient angle like that get on to the Kyoto Table when wiping out the forests is so useful
, of which NOAA employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by Benjamin Santer and associates.
Comment