MovieChat Forums > Years of Living Dangerously (2014) Discussion > Open Letter to the Executive Producers o...

Open Letter to the Executive Producers of YEARS of LIVING DANGEROUSLY

posted 10 years ago by Satan2016
11 replies | jump to latest

Bob Tisdale is a leading climate skeptic, explaining what climate science says vs. what Green activists and the MSM say. Here is a long letter explaining why extreme weather cannot be linked to global warming.

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/open-letter-to-the-executiv e-producers-of-years-of-living-dangerously/

The second problem that I see with the series Years of Living Dangerously is how it will be perceived by the public.

One of my initial thoughts about your project was that you’d gathered a group of celebrities to promote energy sources other than fossil fuels. So I looked at those of you listed at the end of the trailer as executive producers—the front line for overall project content and finances. Of course I recognized James Cameron’s and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s names, as would many persons. I discovered that Maria Wilhelm was a business associate of and advisor to Mr. Cameron. I’ve also heard of movie producer and studio executive Jerry Weintraub, and the names Joel Bach, David Gelber and Solly Granatstein are recognizable from 60 Minutes. But I have never heard of Daniel Abbasi, who is called a “climate-change expert” or “climate expert” at the Variety, HuffingtonPost announcements and in other articles about your project.

Now, I’ve been studying global warming and climate change for a couple of decades—first as a true-blue believer in human-induced global warming, then as a skeptic. Many of the persons you’ve listed as science advisors to Years of Living Dangerously at your website are easily recognized eco-celebrities: Robert Corell, Heidi Cullen, Charles H. Greene, James Hansen, Katherine [sic] Hayhoe, Radley Horton, Michael Mann, Michael Oppenheimer, and Joseph Romm. But, sorry to say, Daniel Abbasi was not familiar to me as a “climate-change expert”.

Granted, one of your production companies, Avatar Alliance Foundation, is a non-profit organization. I wasn’t able to determine if the others are non-profits as well. Nonetheless, sorry to say, no matter how you try to frame Years of Living Dangerously many persons will view it as a group of multimillionaires attempting to increase their fortunes by profiting from the misfortunes of others. Then again, if you as individuals or as a group are not profiting from Years of Living Dangerously, many persons will view it simply as a small group of very fortunate people attempting to influence politics by exploiting the pain and suffering of people here in the U.S. and around the globe, without the basic consideration that your proposals, for example, will likely cause millions of people less fortunate than you to be driven into fuel poverty—with no justifiable reason for doing so, since data do not support your assumptions. And there will be others who will see Years of Living Dangerously solely as tunnel-visioned millionaires failing to recognize that countless millions of people around the globe are in need of help, right now, adapting to weather-related catastrophes, which have always existed and will continue to exist in the future. Basically, for all of those viewers, Years of Living Dangerously will be perceived as nothing more than just another group of installments in the seemingly non-stop series of climate porn.

Three More Years! Saint Mandela! $17 trillion!

[–] thready85 10 years ago

You are a conservative first, and in your life everything is political. Therefore, you are not allowed to believe in climate change. We get it.

[–] HarpoSpoke 10 years ago

You are a conservative first, and in your life everything is political. Therefore, you are not allowed to believe in climate change. We get it.

The OP probably is...but I'm not.

~Sig~
Proud member of the Facebook Let Me In group, DoYouLikeMe.proboards, abbyandowen.webs.com

[–] Satan2016 10 years ago

Skepticism has nothing to do with conservatism, it is a requirement of science. The 2014 IPCC report agrees with Tisdale that extreme weather cannot be linked to AGW.

Three More Years! Climate Apocalypse! $17½ trillion!

[–] HarpoSpoke 10 years ago

How can you question this documentary? He got celebrities! Celebrities! Come on man...they are famous and stuff!

~Sig~
Proud member of the Facebook Let Me In group, DoYouLikeMe.proboards, abbyandowen.webs.com

[–] RPost78 10 years ago

If global warming is not the cause of the climate changes we've seen more frequently then what is?
Regardless of what you believe, humans' reckless consumption of our natural resources is causing huge problems across the globe. Their carelessness and lack of recycling and lack of reusing materials is creating huge problems with overflowing landfills. So much of our waste is floating in our oceans, rivers, and streams it is impossible to clean it up.

I haven't seen any part of Living Dangerously, but honestly outreach and education is the only way we as a global society will learn to use more sparingly, become less wasteful, and become more aware of our current situation.

I personally think it's admirable that celebrities, people who have a HUGE platform to reach the masses, take charge and bring awareness to people.

[–] ilykyu 10 years ago

For me extreme weather and by extension, climate change, are only a small portion of the conservation movement. What cannot be ignored is just regular ol' environmental pollution and disturbance and species extinction that is most assuredly directly linked to human activity, much of which is linked to fossil fuels.

As for climate change, I have a degree in chemistry, and one of the things I studied was the forward reaction of compounds such a sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide into more endothermic forms (storing heat) when radicalized by sunlight. This process happens overwhelmingly in one direction, and doesn't go anywhere fast once in the atmosphere. When compounded with the increased (dark) cloud cover these and other pollutants cause which has a physical effect regarding the inlet of heat and the retardation of heat escape. These two proven effects have never been counter argumented, and no reverse mechanism has been put forward, ecept from trees, which are forever being stripped, and except that hurricanes release some of the stored energy from enthalphy and entropy considerations, thus having a cooling effect, but which means we'll have to deal with more of them.

When billions of tons of these compounds have been pumped into the sky, there can really be only one expectation.

"what is your major malfunction numbnuts?!!"

[–] mustang5201 10 years ago

Bob Tisdale is a joke. He has no credentials, no education in climate science, and he published non peer reviewed ebooks. Yea, that's definitely the guy I should be listening to. Are you serious with this crap?

[–] kntmke 10 years ago

Aww. you just beat me to it (by four days:))

I searched and searched to no avail. Couldn't find his credentials, resume or even a degree. I hate to politicize things cause they are so politicized anymore but it's downright hilarious. Might as well be taught government 101 by Cliven Bundy, Biology by Bill O'reilly or how Vaccines are killing children by seemingly anyone of right wing nut job flavor that's delusional. Take your pic cause it seems to be 1 out of every 3 that is self-professed expert of ignorance. I mean the bar is just so low these days. Do they take their children to the neighborhood meth cook for check ups?

You have endless disinformation funding from Oil Companies that have their greedy paws in our oligarchy political system, they've hired the same PR firm and scientists that created the doubt for the RJ reynolds tobacco lawsuit that tried to say tobacco can't be linked to cancer. (see merchants of doubt) and what do these ignoramuses tell us? we are drinking the Kool-aid. Yup. All the scientists around the world are foolin' us! That was their whole dream of becoming scientists from day one. Why find a cure for a disease or create a legacy for their offspring when they can sit pro-bono on the IPCC makin' tabloid science!

Do you people even realize how stupid you sound?

[–] OtisLovesUs 9 years ago

a) The left-wing to right-wing ratio for vaccination paranoia is easily 2:1 (more likely about 5:1, with all the new age Hollywood celebrities on board).

b) The notion, the mere suggestion, that the AGW skeptics are better funded than the international climate alarmist campaign is risibly absurd on a global, historical and common sense scale. The amount of funding for the scare campaign that has come from governments alone around the world (i.e. taken out of taxpayers' pockets) on just an annual scale, dwarfs everything the skeptics have to work with. Unless you've got some kind of top-secret evidence that Exxon and the Koch brothers have cut checks for hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds) of billions of dollars on a heretofore unknown anti-climate change campaign. Add to the gov. dough all the NGO money, and the Warmist's campaign cash is mind-boggling.

c) That you can't see how scientists (so-called) profit from this, speaks volumes. They win awards. They get tenured university positions. They get published in science journals, popular magazines and web sites. They get book deals, movie deals, countless TV appearances. They get invited to swank, celebrity-filled parties in exotic locales. They get to speak before Congress. And yes, and most importantly, they get great gobs of cold, hard cash in the form of a massive flood of research dollars.

And even when they get caught lying and exaggerating and fabricating "the science," people (like you!) continue to put them up on a pedestal. There is literally no downside or risk for them.

In short, you ignore one very basic biological fact: that scientists are merely human. They're just as prone to greed and vanity as any other human. A small dose of skepticism might do you some good.

[–] aipiping 8 years ago

Well said!

[–] HarpoSpoke 7 years ago

b) The notion, the mere suggestion, that the AGW skeptics are better funded than the international climate alarmist campaign is risibly absurd on a global, historical and common sense scale. The amount of funding for the scare campaign that has come from governments alone around the world (i.e. taken out of taxpayers' pockets) on just an annual scale, dwarfs everything the skeptics have to work with. Unless you've got some kind of top-secret evidence that Exxon and the Koch brothers have cut checks for hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds) of billions of dollars on a heretofore unknown anti-climate change campaign. Add to the gov. dough all the NGO money, and the Warmist's campaign cash is mind-boggling.

True. The numbers from 2013 were 1 billion a DAY going toward climate change recipients.
And that was accompanied by a complaint that 1 billion a day was....not enough!

The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs

https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2013/

The money is on the alarmist side and it's not close. If you are in it for the money, you are on the side of "We're doomed". ...Someone will write you a check.

c) That you can't see how scientists (so-called) profit from this, speaks volumes. They win awards. They get tenured university positions. They get published in science journals, popular magazines and web sites. They get book deals, movie deals, countless TV appearances. They get invited to swank, celebrity-filled parties in exotic locales. They get to speak before Congress. And yes, and most importantly, they get great gobs of cold, hard cash in the form of a massive flood of research dollars.

It works like that in a lot of fields. Once a narrative is established, the researchers don't have to prove they are right any longer for the money to keep coming in. Same thing happened in cancer research where any scientist who offered up opposing opinions on treatment was attacked and ostracized.

Look what happened to Roger Pielke Jr. He actually agrees with alarmists and even wants a carbon tax. But he made the mistake of pointing out it was inaccurate to claim storms and droughts are getting worse. That's his field of study so he knows the facts.

So he was attacked from all sides (media, politicians, activists) for daring to speak up. That shows you what is going on in the area of climate science.

My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518