Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Sunday, 21 April 2019

Attenborough and other Eco-Liars

Readers may recall we don't have much time for Eco-hypocrisy and virtue signalling; back on 2017 we pointed out that Bloomberg's much acclaimed 'greenest ever' building actually cost around 250,000 tonnes of CO2 to build - a Carbon cost that will NEVER be repaid by energy-efficient plant over the building's entire life. It will be demolished as it stands - a vanity project, a rich man's virtue signalling, and a huge Carbon cost.

Well, another Eco-liar, it emerges is Attenborough. many viewers will have seen his heartbreaking footage of an Orang Utan attacking the backhoe that had destroyed its home. As the Daily Remain writes, these forests are cleared and replanted with Palm Oil plantations to satisfy the European market for 'clean' 'sustainable' and 'environmentally friendly' biofuels. He didn't tell you that, did he?

His home destroyed for EU virtue signallers to feel good about themselves

 CHRIST IS RISEN! Happy Easter All.


r_writes esq. said...

The real folly here is that for many years greenies were ranting on about how awful were "fossil fuels". They were constantly campaigning for biofuel... It was a matter of economics, biofuel simply regrows, and so the cycle continues. That was until they understood just how much land is required to make them work. How many poor third world folk and other critters needed to be displaced to keep us westerners in fuel.

But in the same way that it takes money to dig a hole, it costs money to buy land, which means that fossil or bio, a significant input of capitalists and bankers is needed, and it is in reality THIS that greenies don't like, the dirtiest word in the English language, the word that needs to be greened, is PROFIT.

You can dress a socialist up in many guises, you can make them red, as in the past, or you can hide them underneath a disguise of some sort... say a green patina, whatever, they are still morons and cretins, and they are still as Delingpole wrote....

watermelons... red inside.

The whole green thing is an attempt to force socialism on us all, regardless of the fact that it is far more destructive than any other economic model or moral code. It is based on a philosophy of hate.

If you have enough hate for your fellow man... There is no hope.

Poisonedchalice said...

Some of the science was fair, other bits were definitely dodgy. That clip of the frozen lake with methane bubbles was just rubbish sensationalist journo-crap! Lakes and other bodies of water have been producing methane well before man - or other species - walked the earth. But you know what? The gullible beeb-watchers will have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

plantman said...

I would like Attenborough and the Beeb to tell us what the carbon footprint for creating the two Blue Planet (and associated eco-preaching) series has been. How many thousands of miles travelled, the eco-costs of mining the rare earth and other natural resources to create the highly specialised technical equipment and lots more that I am not informed enough to identify. But it sure is a damn site more that a round trip to Tesco in a Ford Fiesta - or even 10 days on the Costa whatever.

Rossa said...

This is just the latest in the Watermelon propaganda campaign. The footage of the walruses falling to their deaths due to ‘climate change’ has also been debunked. Polar bears were stalking them and it now comes out that the film crew was using drones to film them, which may have added to the confusion. As walruses are notoriously short sighted, just the scent of humans (film crew) or the bears would be enough to panic them leading to their unfortunate demise.

As for the BBC’s Climate Change: The Facts, there wasn’t a single fact in it.

Span Ows said...

Then there's the recent Walruses and other tales before that. Unfortunately he takes the establishment line and is one of the "respected, known faces" to try to convince the ever skeptical (with reason) hoi polloi.

Dave_G said...

I'd like to believe - but often wonder why I bother - that people can't be so stupid as to fall for the propaganda. Are they really?

We're facing the same situation with eco-matters as we do with Brexit-matters and that's media manipulation. Not only do they mis-represent the facts they mis-represent the support/protest raised for/against them.

I can't emphasise enough that the actual issues are NOT the real problem - it's the way they are presented and politicised that causes the real harm and the ONLY way to stop it is to attack the messenger (contrary to the 'don't' expression).

The BBC already have a dubious-enough reputation for impartiality and bias but they are just one arm of a vast media enterprise geared to control the public's perception of matters.

Any attack on these corporations necessarily means exposing those that control them and that inevitably gives rise to the expected cries of anti-semitism even though there will be zero mention of their faith/belief - the refence will be to their common ownership that simply cannot be ignored let alone diverted by specious claims of anti-whatever. This is designed distraction - in exactly the same way as the Orang Utan is to the actualities of bio fuels.

Time to stop worrying about the issues - they will self-resolve - and time to start attacking the messenger.

Before it's too late.

Auralay. said...

Dr Tim Ball on Whats Up With That is realising, after fifty years of trying, that it's no good trying to influence people by explaining the science. He is now going to change tack and try to go after the liars.

Smoking Scot said...


However you did write about the fire and the cause.

Now they're keen to make out it was a discarded cigarette that smouldered and did the deed.

Trouble with this theory is fire safe cigarettes have been obligatory in the EU since 2010 and there's no way a fag butt can do jacksy in 120 seconds.

RAC said...

@ Smoking Scot 18:19 Been retired for 6 years but used to work in construction. Most all big sites have a smoking ban and anyone having a crafty smoke would do it outside in the open away from smoke detectors and where the smell wouldn't linger.

RAC said...

My theory on the man made global warming crap is this. Changes in the weather are caused by the sun and there's nothing can be done to stop that. Best option is to learn to live with it, they should be making plans and spending money in that direction.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if TPTB know this(maybe knew it all along) and are just using the man made CO2 none sense to turn a natural event to their own advantage. It's a great control measure for them and a money maker, why else would they be brain washing children and the gullible adults.

RAC said...

Over and over again globalists have proved to be deceitful lying bastards (Brexit anyone)so why would anyone choose to believe them about man made global warming.

Mark said...

What these generally pampered narcissistic children seem totally incapable of grasping is that their "solutions" to the problem they have invented are the actual problem.

"Renewables" which anybody with a single ounce of scientific or engineering knowledge can see, as plain as the nose on their face, simply cannot power the society we currently have. Even less the electric cars which seems to be the latest fetish. I just choose these two as the most obvious but the list I could write is damn near endless (Fuck me, don't get me started on "smart" meters).

As others point out, the Orang would probably still have its home where it not for the artificially created demand for "biofuels".

When I was at school in the 70s, the antichrist was nuclear power. I distinctly recall how these people were then keen advocates for burning coal.

RAC said...

@ mark, smart meters.
The stupid windmills and solar cells can't cope with peak demand they know this. When the load is too much they're going to have to cut some people off. At present the way power is supplied it can only be cut off at a substaion, and that'll knock out several streets or a whole section of town. Do that and there'll be a bunch of angry people all in one place causing agro with their councillor/MP whatever. They don't want to face the mob. With smart meters they can cut off individuals spread over a wide area, and those single voices can be, will be swept under the carpet and ignored.

Anonymous said...

" Changes in the weather are caused by the sun and there's nothing can be done to stop that."

Changes in the weather are indeed caused by the Sun, and by the inclination of the Earth's axis.

Changes in climate (which can be conveniently defined as the 15-year running average of weather) can be caused by extensive volcanic eruptions, movements of continental plates, or asteroid strikes.

A graph showing the output of the Sun over the past few decades has no resemblance to the graph that shows temperatures rising through all the ups and downs. I can see no alternative to the theory that the current climate change is driven by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The physics makes complete sense.

What also makes sense is that seekers after power and riches would weaponise this effect for their own benefit, and try to panic the population into adopting measures such as building wind farms which are neither use nor ornament -- but very profitable.

For those of us living in a northerly climate, a bit of warming is very desirable. I'm sure most of those who live in Newcastle would like to enjoy the climate of Bournemouth. But to slow down the warming, we could steadily replace the burning of fossil fuels with nuclear power, which is cleaner, safer and more reliable.

Don Cox

Mark said...

@RAC stupid windmills

Indeed, which is why I won't have one. They are not mandatory although no electricity company will tell you this.

After ignoring repeated emails letting me know of the wondrous benefits I then got an email telling me that my meter had reached the end of its life and needed urgent replacement.

Ho hum.

So I called the number given to arrange the replacement. I made it clear I wanted a dumb meter. "but we only have smart meters". Then I said that I knew they weren't compulsory. At that they said they would put a note against my account and when smart meters became compulsory then they would have to change it.

Its all about daily, maybe hourly tarrifs, which is how they plan to limit electricity use. I'll be very interested to see if there will be a special electric car tariff, assuming there will ever be enough of these glorified milk floats to make it worthwhile.

RAC said...

..........."telling me that my meter had reached the end of its life and needed urgent replacement."
That is exactly the same tale as they told me, even though the meter is a digital one and less than ten years old. Have had three representatives calling at the door and around four or five letters.