Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "Climate Change: Propaganda vs. Reality with Mallen Baker" video.
-
Mallen Baker is a propagandist and this video is propaganda; not a good interview.
Triggernometry just aren't competent enough to unearth the truth.
Their interview is pathetic. At no stage do they give Mallen Baker a single difficult question. Mallen Baker is a snob who cherry picks doom-laden mathematical models predicting a climate dystopia. He's not a scientist. He knows nothing about 'climate change' or science. Mallen Baker calls himself "not remotely ideological". You can't make it up! He is an ex- activist and professional politician; ex-leader of the Green Party. He is ONLY an ideologist who claims to be "in the middle". He literally LIES in this interview about wind and solar being cheaper!!
Science is an empirical enterprise; it's all about experiments, tests and observations under controlled conditions. Scientists call these tests: validations and falsifications. A falsification is an experimental test which looks at core scientific ideas and attempts to empirically refute the idea. For example, in 1887, when Michelson and Morley discovered (for sure) that the speed of light was constant for all observers, they incidentally falsified Newton's physics. In addition, the failure of anyone to find an 'ether'; assumed by Newton, was also a falsification. 18 years later, A young Swiss patent office clerk explained new physics. Man-made climate change has been falsified time and again. Science is clearly too boring for Triggernometry, so they end up with a wishy-washy interview like this. With self-styled experts, like Mallen, who literally don't know the first thing about climates, are eulogised.
Mathematical modellers, Mallen Baker idolizes, don't do science. They play with computers. Mallen Baker fell for the models because they gel with his gloom-laden eco-doom future. The mathematical modellers he idolizes refuse to do science (the don't try to validate or falsify their ideas) and they refuse to debate real scientists who do such empirical work. These modellers are fraudsters not scientists. The Greens also refuse to debate actual science. It's almost as if they made a pact with the establishment! Oh wait a minute, they did make a pact in 1988 when every Green NGO agreed to be the propaganda foot soldiers for made-made global warming. The IPCC mathematical modellers cherry pick everything.
1. IPCC brief is ONLY to look for evidence FOR man-made climate change. There is no attempt to look at natural climate change causes in the IPCC documents. 34 years of documents and reports. No serious investigation into the climate made.
2. The establishment only appoint 'scientists' who agree to write propaganda. Those scientists aren't actually scientists. Gaining a science degree doesn't make one a scientist. Doing science makes one a scientist. Doing science means discovering how the natural world works. It's all about doing tests, experiments, observations. AKA validations and falsifications.
3. The most important document IPCC author: the 'Summary for Policymakers' is entirely authored by politicos - not by scientists. The only role scientists have wrt the Summary for Policymakers is to retrospectively alter the WG1 science report such that nothing in the science contradicts what the policymakers decided. This SfPM is the only thing our politicians ever read about climate change. They live in a mindless echo-chamber. Their minions (IPCC policy wonks) write reports to summarize The Science. IPCC SfPM reports are, in reality, fake science.
5. The IPCC began in 1988 when their first act was to recruit every green NGO and green politician to be their propaganda foot soldiers.
6. Mallen Baker is a propagandist, partly responsible for the doom and gloom his hacks in the Green Party manufactured.
"Solve the problem of climate change".
<- There is no problem. The sun controls the climate not the man. There are mathematical models refuted by actual data and experiment. These modellers - like the green activists - refuse to debate their critics. Triggernometry cannot interview on this topic because they are too biased and neither is a scientist. 34 years of establishment sponsored brain-washing made them too biased to interview on this issue.
1
-
1