We attended a global warming alarmist meeting which followed the Extinction Rebellion “protest” at the very same venue where they had glued themselves to the building and obstructed the road.
The helicopter circling above us would have seen Mark Windows, Piers Corbyn and Sandi Adams plus others chatting to the attendees and bringing the only known facts to this conference on “limiting global temperatire to 1.5 degrees” celcius or face extinction by 2030.
The UN backed IPCC wants to bring in its “Sustainable Development” (Poverty for all, rationing and Smart agenda with surveilled and controlled populations living in Smart Cities by 2030, see our many shows on the subject and also our talks called The Bigger Picture below)
The “Extinction Rebellion” brainwashing has started on a mass scale with Bristol council being pushed to announce a “climate emergency” on the back if the IPCC fantasy SR 15 document which contains no facts (as ususal)
Listen to our latest show about “Extinction Rebellion”
Here is an e mail about the event sent by Peter Gill, an attendee:
I have just returned from an equally depressing meeting of the RMetS and Grantham Institute on “Meeting a global temperature goal of 1.5 C” The many statements of opinion not backed by facts or evidence by the speakers (let alone comments from the audience) was shocking.
I mangaged to ask two questions before the organisers realised that they should be shutting me down. The first question was about the Keeling curve and the fact that in a warming world atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase through ocean out-gassing. The speaker, a lead author for IPCC actually lied and claimed that the increase in carbon dioxide depicted by the whole curve is down to anthropogenic emissions! It is very sad that men of science are prepared to be dishonest for whatever reason. I arrived at 1 Victoria Street early and so missed what was described as a “protest” outside the building.
(Yes, that was us although we had permission to be there and did not cause any nuiscance whatsover apart from trying to bring some sense to the attendees)
The consequence of the protest (if that indeed was what it was) was that the meeting start was delayed by 30 minutes to allow attendees time to get through security. For me it also meant leaving early before I could ask Jo Haigh who was to be involved in the last panel discussion of the day if she thinks we may be approaching a Dalton or a Maunder minimum. However give the answers to my other questions and given that the last time I was allowed to ask a question was only 50 minutes into a 270 minute meeting (a) it is unlikely that my question would have been taken and (b) it is unlikely that I would have received a useful answer if indeed the question had been accepted. Regards Peter
And another attendee:
Dear All,
Equally depressing was the event I attended yesterday – the Royal Meteorological Society event on the IPCC 1.5 deg report hosted by the UK Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy(BEIS) and sponsored by the Grantham Institute (the same event Peter Gill was at).
The following is a summary of my experience and conclusions about what I observed at the event and after discussions. I share many of the sentiments that Gary, Peter and Roger et al have discussed on this email thread.
The event was one big propaganda show: starting with the science with lots of fancy graphs and statistics (brushing over the uncertainties and inconsistencies and ignoring inconvenient data), including a blatant lie about the Keeling curve (“it’s 100% anthropogenic”), then the scary consequences of extreme weather events and loss of species in the 1.5deg and 2deg scenarios, then the amazing technological solutions (read unproven dreams) and shuttering of fossil fuels to get us below 1.5deg, and finally the moralising from a Dr. of climate justice (yes that’s right) about the human rights of the unborn that are going to be affected by climate change caused by us.
l hung around afterwards and invited myself to the pub where some of the climate scientists and policy makers were gathering (including some of the speakers). I introduced myself as an oil industry geologist and they were open and friendly to me, and happy to engage in debate.
Here are a few things that I asked about and the answers I got (paraphrasing). No names, as I think that would be unfair.
Q. Why did a lead author state that the Keeling curve was 100% due to anthropogenic emissions, when that is not correct?
A. He didn’t mean that. He meant that the rate of change was 100% due to anthropogenic emissions (?).
Q. Aren’t the cliff-edge emissions graphs, and hand-wavy solutions rather counter productive given that it’s highly unlikely that this will happen in the timeframes you propose.
A. Yes, agree that it’s not going to happen, but we were just answering the question the IPCC had set about what it would take to get to 1.5deg. We don’t necessarily support it or believe it. We are sceptical of Shell’s Sky scenario.
Q. So why didn’t anyone emphasis the base-case scenario – where was the realistic viewpoint?
A. Shrugs.
Q. Why weren’t the uncertainties in the data and scenarios presented or talked about in more detail?
A. They were (they weren’t) and we are now starting to study ocean cycles.
Q. Given that temperatures have stabilised in the last ~20 years, where were the scenarios for steady or declining temperatures needing less action?
A. You are wrong, temperatures are going up. And if the rate of increase has slowed, it is always followed by a period of sharply increasing temperatures.
Q. The last point at the event was about engaging social sciences to get people on-board so that the necessary changes can take place. However, do you not think that the constant scary predictions, anti-fossil fuel stance, and moralising is off-putting and has the opposite effect amongst the silent majority and the average person in the street?
A. Shrugs. It’s people aligning on political sides, not the science. We aren’t anti-fossil fuels (Me – but that is what you are advocating).
Q. Are you concerned about the current direction of world politics and the effect on funding for your projects? e.g. US, Brazil, Australia, Eastern European countries, Brexit.
A. No, we’ll be alright even after Brexit.
Q. But doesn’t much of your funding come from the EU?
A. Yes, but this is protected (to that effect).
Q. Despite decades of warnings from climate science, and trillions spent on research and renewables, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and emissions continue to rise. At what point we say you have failed and it’s time to adapt? For example, in a normal commercial business situation, failed predictions, dodgy models and massive expenditure without return would result in lost jobs.
A. But we have made a difference. Emissions are going down in Europe. Atmospheric CO2 would have been much higher if we hadn’t done these things.
Q. That’s great. By how much? Why haven’t I seen that graphed anywhere?
A. Internally, we have shown this. It’s known.
Q. Great. Why hasn’t it been publicised? It would be great PR to show the effect of our spending.
A. Shrugs.
You can come to your own conclusions about these answers.
But here is the point. I don’t see this situation changing. The people I spoke to yesterday were mostly entrenched, came across as morally superior, weighed down by vested interests, in bed with the politicians/civil service, and unable to see/comprehend what the sceptics interpret from the data.
We need more open, rational debate with the climate scientists and policy makers and it needs to be public and recorded, so that the many holes in their arguments can be exposed. No-platforming is a problem though (e.g. GSL refusal to engage in debate with their members). However, attaining this is not helped by antagonism. For example yesterday there was a protest outside the event by a group of climate change sceptics holding banners, and although I support them, they had no impact on the people at the event apart from to see them as fringe. They would have been better keeping a low profile and attending the event to challenge the speakers with well put, on point questions.
We all have a responsibility to go to these type of events and discuss sensibly, putting the contrary, sceptical view across. Similarly, I will be inviting the people I talked to yesterday to attend two upcoming large oil industry conferences in London – where hopefully their interpretation of the science can be challenged by the geoscience community.
All the best,
Henry
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 17:13, Roger Higgs
Geological Society ‘climate non-conformist group’ colleagues,Please see the attached programme, containing public statements (mostly less than 1-page each), from this meeting yesterday.56 people submitted statements on the ‘climate change emergency’ issue. My own statement (search Roger) was the only one casting doubt (to say the least) on the belief (sic) that man affects climate.The other 55 contributors evidently feel (though not all explicitly state), passionately, that if IPCC says something, then it must be true. Search IPCC: there are 32 mentions.For a flavour of what we are up against, read the rant by climate-change lecturer Nikki Jones (YouTube; BSc in, er, International Relations; MSc International Development). The same contribution was submitted separately by Geoff Collard. Among other things, Jones/Collard believe Homo sapiens will probably be extinct by 2100 (I’m not making this up); at least two other contributors said something similar; and several others parroted the idea that “scientists” say we have only 12 years left to act.And how about these …“I am disturbed that thousands of people in our country and hundreds in our city are at this verymoment in time, preparing themselves for the emotionally taxing and potentially career damaging
action of possibly being arrested so government will listen and declare a climate emergency”.
“We have twelve years left to avert climate catastrophe – and Bristol has both an imperative and a
unique opportunity to act. These twelve years matter to me very personally. I have a six-year old daughter …”
“Would you get into a car if you knew that there was a 1 in 20 chance of having a fatal crash? A 5%chance that you would die? You wouldn’t. As it stands now that is the possibility we face as globaltemperatures are set on a course of 4-5 degrees plus which will render the Earth uninhabitable. Yet
we are in effect putting our children and grandchildren into that car and seatbelts and air bags will
be of little use.”
Until today I had not fully grasped the magnitude of the uphill battle we have on our hands, against the extremely successful UN/IPCC indoctrination of the public (and politicians). How did we geologists, the very specialists most qualified to speak on climate change (yet appallingly unrepresented among the 838, yes eight hundred, authors of IPCC’s 2013-14 report, apart from 7 glaciologists), let things get so out of hand?Roger
Please help us to keep sanity public
Please follow and like us:
