Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "How The Media Stopped Us Caring About the Planet | George Monbiot" video.

  1. There is far more media hype in favour of the man-made climate change hypothesis than there is against it.
    5
  2.  @em945  Not very long then.
    3
  3. Any idea how far back these records go?
    2
  4.  @adamdin6243  The difficulty is that many people believe that AGW is either a complete con trick- or vastly exaggerated - with the same certainty as those who are convinced it means the end of the world.
    2
  5.  @adamdin6243  Similar doubts should be addressed to some of the precepts of AGW in my view. The initial conclusions based on proxy data drawn from ice core samples have now been overthrown and the 19th century experiments which indicate increased surface temperatures occurring in proportion to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere bear considerable re-examination. They have stood up to many years of verification in the laboratory, but it is entirely possible that factors at play in the real atmosphere alter their conclusions.
    2
  6.  @ChrisPage68  No it isn't.
    2
  7. He's right.
    1
  8. It is.
    1
  9. Pot, kettle, black?
    1
  10. In the 1920s both the Soviet Union and Canada made plans to exploit the new lands then being exposed in the North. Surveys were undertaken and roads and railways mapped Then the tundra froze over again. Man-made climate change is crap. And I ain't no Russian troll.
    1
  11. Yeah, what happened to that?
    1
  12.  @brynleytalbot778  Actually the Greenland ice cores show a similar event at the end of the 19th century. Anecdotal evidence suggests conditions were similar in the 1920s but apparently ice core data is no use that recently. Something to do with the snow not impacting enough, I believe.
    1
  13. ​ @arnehofoss9109  Thanks! Many of my links get blocked by YouTube but I'll try one in another post.
    1
  14. The change came from the IPCC.
    1
  15. Surely fossil fuel companies are major investors in green energy?
    1
  16.  @Ian_Carolan  But they are covering their bets by investing in wind and solar power, electric vehicles etc. It is foolish to suppose they do not realise that diversification is necessary. Objection to the AGW hypothesis comes generally from individuals who fail to see much evidence for it in the real world, and clearly see images and data manipulated to give it credibility. They are reacting to propaganda, not succumbing to it.
    1
  17.  @toyotaprius79  As I understand it the six major oil companies are investing in all green energy areas, including wind and solar power and electric vehicles. This may currently only account for slightly more than 1% of their total budgets, but it us clear they are hedging their bets and do not see alternative energies so much as rivals as strategies to be incorporated into their future business plans.
    1
  18.  @BrianMcGuirkBMG  They are currently only spending about 1% or so of their budgets on it I admit. That's only a few billion dollars, but I don't quite know where the rest of the money comes from.
    1
  19.  @burner9147  About 1% of their budgets at the moment. Only a few billion dollars though.
    1
  20.  @BrianMcGuirkBMG  Not really. I know what I know and don't know what I don't know.
    1
  21.  @dalstein3708  Have you got any idea how MUCH 1% of the combined budgets of the six major oil companies must amount to? Manufacturing wind turbines is a costly business, but at least it's subsidised. What's a FUD tactic? Does it really cost more than manufacturing wind turbines and electric cars?
    1
  22.  @BrianMcGuirkBMG  I don't see the connection. Trump got elected to drain the swamp, not to revise cosmology. Shame his efforts have been interrupted, considering present events on the other side of the globe.
    1
  23.  @dalstein3708  I don't hear much denial from fossil fuel companies. I get my denial from individuals and sites who, like me, regard the whole AGW hypothesis with deep suspicion. I'm an old journo and back in the day the watchword was: "Where's the pile of bodies?" The cancerous effects of tobacco became clear, but even then people continued to smoke - not because of tobacco company pressure but because smoking was so bloody nice. I still haven't seen the piles of bodies promised by man-made climate change yet. Lots of luvverly coloured graphs yes, but nothing on the ground. The ice caps are not melting. Seas are not rising. There is no evidence that natural disasters are any worse or more frequent than they have ever been. It's looking to me very much as though it is the climate crisis industry which is performing the tobacco company's role - throwing out propaganda to support a money-making enterprise - one in this instance which is part of a general move to reshape capitalism.
    1
  24. No it was him telling a bunch of lies which did that.
    1
  25. It's probably more a question of temperament than susceptibility to media propaganda. To right-wingers the left often seems paranoid and easily influenced, addicted to authority and control and lacking in necessary cynicism. The climate change issue typifies this as indeed does typical responses to the covid pandemic.
    1
  26.  @jonathanhurst980  Wot?
    1
  27.  @RictusHolloweye  Any idea why? It seems that his is the only media empire offering any critique at all. Most objections come from individuals and very small organisations who do not seem to attract much financial support from anyone.
    1
  28.  @ChrisPage68  It absolutely isn't.
    1
  29.  @BrianMcGuirkBMG  No it isn't.
    1
  30.  @RictusHolloweye  No, I was thinking more of individuals such as Tony Heller and little two or three man outfits like Friends of Science. Most of the money seems to get poured into the other side. All media outlets apart from Murdoch's seem to spend millions of whipping up the hysteria and even YouTube channels like Just Have a Think have high production values. Much more money in feeding this monster than trying to attack it.
    1
  31.  @jonathanhurst980  I do. The climate is constantly changing in response to a series of rhythms the causes of which we cannot fully understand. There is no direct evidence that atmospheric carbon levels, man-made or otherwise, have any particular influence, other than to initiate a possible thermostatic mechanism.
    1
  32.  @jonathanhurst980  That's when two and two were first added added together to make five.
    1
  33.  @jonathanhurst980  I'm a denier and I'm not on a public forum highly invested in fossil fuels. Obviously it is now more or less essential for political survival to pay at least lip-service to the notion of AGW - and it is very profitable in many ways, which is what counts. The idea wasn't made up; it seems to have been the result of a series of errors, compounded by repetition and then realised to open new paths to creating a world currency while exercising control over human behaviour. It works very well, but it doesn't mean it's true.
    1
  34.  @jonathanhurst980  Tony Heller is a man hated and reviled by the climate change mafia. He is a brilliant archivist and has kept all the NASA etc graphs from the past and shows how they have been altered, as well as newspaper articles demonstrating the differences between what happened and what the "scientists" pretend happened. Just go to his YouTube channel and make your own mind up.
    1
  35. Very similar to 1894 and 1936.
    1
  36. I very much doubt man-made climate change. And I feel very much the same about as you as you feel about me.
    1
  37. As an AGW denying shrieking idiot I strongly deny I have been created by a media owner. Like most in my class my suspicions have been aroused over the years by the fact that absolutely none of the creed's dire predictions have come to pass, nor ever seem likely to.
    1
  38.  @jonc67uk  But these events are nothing new. Tens of thousands of people have died in heatwaves all over the world since time immemorial. Forests have always burned. They have to in order to promote new growth. Floods have always occurred. The world is certainly warming, but that is part of a natural process and this has been happening since the mid 19th century when it was colder than it had been for ten thousand years; and it has been happening, as always, in fits and starts and with no relationship whatsoever with man-made carbon emissions.
    1
  39.  @jonc67uk  And a foolish and cowardly thought, if I may say so. For a start the petrochemical industry spends billions of dollars investing in green energy projects and very little, if any, on supporting doubters and cynics who question the AGW hypothesis. Your attitude is typical. Like any other religious maniac you cannot bear the thought of heresy. That's the real problem here.
    1
  40.  @jonc67uk  No. I'm actually a high grade Russian bot on permanent loan to Rupert Murdoch.
    1
  41.  @jonc67uk  I must apologise. I didn't realise rain was a new thing and it didn't happen until this month. The 250 people who died in flooding in Nebraska in 1935, and the millions of others who have died in floods across the world were obviously hallucinating.
    1
  42.  @jonc67uk  The frequency of such events is not increasing. Loss of life in natural disasters is a fraction of what it was in the first half of the last century And why should producing energy contribute to climate change? Heat rises into space and while cloud formations certainly reflect some of it back to the surface this is not a "greenhouse". It is more like a very thin and very tattered net. It has been much hotter, much rainier and much windier in both the recent and distant past than it is now. If I had any doubt that AGW is not a scam that would be immediately overcome by the fact that "scientists" have destroyed all records before 1970 or so and replaced them with made-up ones designed to fit their theories.
    1