Climate Skeptic Kicked Off TV Show For Proposing Alternative Theory…”Go Straight To A Psychiatric Hospital!”

The article that follows below is from the UK online Independent here.

Regrettably the editors screwed up and inserted the wrong English text in the video and misidentified the participants as well. The discussion is in fact about CO2 being the sole real driver of global climate. Moreover, the talk round took place in London, and not Egypt.

This is not fake news, but merely a case of human error on the part of the Independent. It happens. 🙂

As a public service, we at NTZ have corrected the article by the Independent (below). Again, pay no attention to the erroneous English text in the video, which is really about a climate skeptic, James Delingpole, at a Talkshow presenting an alternative theory on why the globe is warming a bit.
================================

Corrected version of the Independent article:

Climate denialist kicked off live Climate TV show for ‘inappropriate’ ideas: ‘Go straight to a psychiatric hospital’

‘We cannot promote such destructive ideas…you set a very bad example for the World’s youth’

A climate skeptic has been kicked off a live TV show taped in London after the host accused him of being ‘confused and unreliable’ and being in need of psychiatric treatment.

James Delingpole was presenting his reasons for being climate science skeptic on Current TV (co-founded by Al Gore) when host George Abd Al-Halim Monbiot told him he was being ‘inappropriate’.

Sheikh of Al Mahmoud Gore, who was also on the programme, agreed, telling him: ‘Look dear James, you need psychiatric treatment. Many young people today suffer from mental illnesses due to material or mental circumstances.’

When Delingpole suggested ‘the sun‘ as an explanation for climate change, George Abd Al-Halim Monbiot exploded and demanded that he ‘stop using difficult words’ and reminded him that he was ‘addressing simple people and to not use big words for no reason’.

George Abd Al-Halim Monbiot then accused James: ‘You deny the existence of CO2 as the climate driver and reject our religion and science.’

Next Mr. Al-Halim Monbiot demanded Mr. Delingpole to leave, saying: ‘We cannot promote such destructive ideas…you set a very bad example for the world’s youth.’

He added: ‘I advise you to leave the studio and go straight to a psychiatric hospital.’

Blasphemy and denialism are illegal in climate science, and prosecution is routinely recommended by NASA GISS, PIK and NOAA if people should insult or defame Climatism and CO2 under proposed climate science RICO laws.

======================================
We at NoTricksZone are glad to have been able to get this cleared up. As you can see, the video now makes perfect sense.

 

62 responses to “Climate Skeptic Kicked Off TV Show For Proposing Alternative Theory…”Go Straight To A Psychiatric Hospital!””

  1. Überraschung in der Arktis: Meereis wächst noch weiter! ARD mit Fake-Hitzewelle in der Arktis! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Climate Skeptic Kicked Off TV Show For Proposing Alternative Theory…”Go Straight To A Psychiatri… […]

  2. tom0mason

    Yes you are quite correct Pierre, the names can be changed but the tactics remain identical!

  3. Bitter&twisted

    It’s not theclimate sceptics who need to be sent to the loony-bin….

  4. Kurt in Switzerland

    Did Delingpole speak with Monbiot (&/or Gore) recently?

  5. DC

    If they are talking about CO2, why does he mention “Big bang theory”, as you can hear him saying “big bang” in the clip?

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      You didn’t really ask that question, did you?

      Detailed instructions on how to proceed:

      1) find and enter a quiet, dark room.
      2) very carefully, using one hand, lift the fingers of the other hand from the digit-like impressions on your forehead.
      3) when all appears well and fine, remove the palm.
      4) straighten your nose.
      5) use a handkerchief
      6) pour yourself a wee dram and resolve to ponder a tad longer prior to commenting next time around.

      1. DC

        Nice answer, so well formed that i just dont know what to replay… You argue like a feminist.

        You know, my question…. a what the hell, you dont know the answer, otherwise you would have replied with something constructive, not some stupid bullshit.

        1. SebastianH

          The author of this post made up the conversation. He thought that would be funny.

          1. AndyG55

            Seb just doesn’t get the joke.

            Brain is stuck in green mantra sludge.

            Poor EMPTY seb.

        2. Kurt in Switzerland

          DC,

          You’re embarrassed.
          I understand.
          Now own up to it like a man.

          1. DC

            Why would i be embarrassed, like all others who cant put forward truth, all that has been presented here is religion like “you must believe it and dont ask questions”!
            Why cant you simply answer my question? Critical thinking is allways good, and the minute a group of people try to diminish people who ask “the wrong question” you should all keep your ears open, because there is problably alot of bullshit to be found there! This goes for both sides of the CO2 debate!

            So no, im not embarrassed other than that this site seems to consist of the same type of illinformed religious like people as many on the climate alarmist side. If anyone should be embarrassed its all of you commenting my post without giving an answer.

      2. AndyG55

        Bizarre !!

        Satire did not register with you, did it DC. ! 🙂

        Hint: the argument in the video was not about CO2,

        … but the ANOTHER religion.

        1. DC

          No it didnt, as when I first saw this post, I read in the blogger text that one should not follow the subtitle as it was incorrect subtitle, but now that part i removed.
          So looking at the post now, you are right, but earlier it said that the subtitle was for another tv show and that the subtitle should have been about an argument about CO2 and the climate change debate

        2. DC

          “Regrettably the editors screwed up and inserted the wrong English text in the video and misidentified the participants as well”

          Also “Again, pay no attention to the erroneous English text in the video, which is really about a climate skeptic”

          How would you interpret those texts? They are cited from the content text to this blog post.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    Did you alert James to this?
    He might spit his Cutty Sark on his monitor if now warned.

  7. Don from Oz

    Oh dear what a calamity that we skeptics face with behaviour from people like Monbiot on public TV.

  8. Bitter&twisted

    It is a very apt analogy.
    Climate change alarmism has all the hallmarks of an intolerant religious cult.
    We have a regular example of this on this blog.

    1. SebastianH

      We have a regular example of this on this blog.

      The replies of religios skeptic fanatics on this blog?

      It’s kind of funny to see you guys calling your opponents a religious cult. How would you classify yourselves? I wonder if you are able to recognize what the most fitting group identifier for you guys is.

      1. John Brown

        John thinks Galileo is good description. You see?

      2. AndyG55

        “your opponents a religious cult. “

        You are the basing EVERYTHING on an UNPROVEN MYTH, little trollette.

        AGW is a RELIGION, nothing more, and yet, very much less.

        It is perfect for someone like seb, who’s grasp of most basic science and physics is rudimentary at best.

        JUST BELIEVE, seb.

        Just repeat the unthinking MANTRA seb.

        Its all you can do.

        1. SebastianH

          How would you classify the group you are part of? Do you really believe what you are claiming is based on proven facts? Do you really believe you are not falling for junk science papers?

          1. AndyG55

            “Do you really believe what you are claiming is based on proven facts”

            Its a PROVEN FACT that you are totally unable to produce any empirical proof for even the very basis of the AGW Religion

            And your constant ducking and weaving is really quite a JOKE to everyone.

            Even you must see how PATHETIC it is, seb.

            Preach the AGW MANTRA.

            Its all you have.

          2. AndyG55

            And no, seb.. we do NOT fall for the junk papers you post. !!

          3. Kenneth Richard

            You are just a bunch of pessimistic guys who somehow feel that we don’t need to worry about man made climate change.

            This would appear to be a contradictory statement. How can we be the pessimistic ones if we are the ones pointing out that climate doom pronouncements lack perspective, CO2 greens the planet rather than browns it, warmth is good, more CO2 would be better, not worse, no, 30,000 species are not going extinct per year, glacier and ice sheet melt is within normal ranges…?

            You haven’t found some new mechanism that would explain what is happening better than the existing one.

            The existing one is merely the political one. The null hypothesis — that the climate changes and ocean heat content rises and falls naturally — has never been ruled out. People have just asserted a position that humans control the weather and climate…and then agreed with each other that they’re right.

            You are just some guys trying to disturb and distract.

            How ironic that this statement is coming from you.

          4. SebastianH

            How can we be the pessimistic ones

            Every statement you make is pessimistic about the future (e.g. it’s bad if we continue to try to reduce our emissions), you don’t even realize that?

            People have just asserted a position that humans control the weather and climate…and then agreed with each other that they’re right.

            Nope.

            How ironic that this statement is coming from you.

            I don’t distract when talking about a topic … it’s always you who does that.

            P.S.: How did you manage to reply to a comment that didn’t appear yet? Still using that WordPress interface to comment without seeing the complete threads you are replying to?

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Every statement you make is pessimistic about the future

            Really? So when we write about polar bear populations growing, penguin populations growing, the oceans not acidifying, less than one species per decade going extinct since 2000 (versus 16 per decade during 1500-2000 AD), crop yields growing, hurricanes not intensifying and occurring less frequently, droughts not intensifying and occurring less frequently, extreme weather becoming less extreme, nothing unusual about today’s glacier and ice sheet melt/expansion, more land being above sea level today than during the 1980s, sea level rise decelerating since the 1920-1950 period, the Earth’s temperatures not leading us down the road to the Apocalypse, lifting 800 million people out of poverty in China with fossil fuels since the 1980s, more fossil fuel use on the horizon to lift more people out of poverty in India, African countries, and developing countries in general…that’s pessimistic?

            People have just asserted a position that humans control the weather and climate…and then agreed with each other that they’re right.

            Nope.

            That’s what “consensus” science is, SebastianH.

            I don’t distract when talking about a topic …

            You claimed we skeptics are here to “disturb and distract”. And then you said you don’t do that…but proceeded to criticize me for using WordPress to reply to “in moderation” comments in the very next sentence. And you can’t even see the irony here.

          6. SebastianH

            Really?

            Yes, really. Everything we do to reduce CO2 emissions is a bad thing in your eyes. We will all be doomed if we continue on that path, etc … the latest blog post here is one example of that mind set: http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/13/winds-false-promise-of-environmental-purity-everywhere-everything-is-rotating-and-blinking-high-price-to-pay/

            That’s what “consensus” science is, SebastianH.

            You are imaging that they “just asserted xyz” … it’s based on overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics. One person disproving the “consensus” would be enough, yet you guys fail to provide anything that disproves our understanding of the climate. But still you feel your opinion must be the correct one, for whatever weird reason …

            And then you said you don’t do that…but proceeded to criticize me

            Noticed the “P.S.”? Or did that get lost in the selective perception of yours too?

          7. Kenneth Richard

            Everything we do to reduce CO2 emissions is a bad thing in your eyes. We will all be doomed if we continue on that path, etc

            I don’t necessarily say it’s bad to reduce CO2 emission, but I don’t see the point of it if the costs are so great. What good it is to, say, switch to biofuels when doing so leads to more CO2 emissions, not less…even though the purpose of switching to biofuels is precisely to do what it’s not doing (lowering emissions)? Why switch to more wind power when doing so destroys pristine landscapes with concrete and steel…and they kill millions of bats, including endangered ones, a year? Because they’re intermittent and unreliable, wind and solar raise the costs of energy…as evidenced by the energy prices in places like California and Germany. Why am I not allowed to point out that raising the costs of energy is not good, but bad…especially for poor people?

            You are imaging that they “just asserted xyz” … it’s based on overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics.

            So why aren’t there any physical measurements from a real-world experiment that show how much warming or cooling is induced by a + or – 10 ppm change in CO2 concentration above a body of water? Your belief that humans control the temperature of the oceans is not rooted in observational evidence. You believe anyway…and call your belief “the laws of physics”.

            One person disproving the “consensus” would be enough

            So at what point was the “consensus” position that humans control the oceans’ temperatures proved? How does one “disprove” something that has never been proven in the first place?

          8. AndyG55

            Poor seb, your CO2-HATRED gets in the way of any possibility of rational thought for you doesn’t it.

            There is no proven down side to enhanced atmospheric CO2, and MANY proven benefits.

            Efforts to reduce CO2 emission are always a MASSIVE burden on society, needing to be forced through at large WASTES of funds that could be used for the betterment of society.

            Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are also a massive burden of avian life, and in the case of sea based wind, almost certainly a burden on sea life.

            The only pessimism I have is that the AGW anti-CO2, anti-life Agenda will not be broken until it is too late, and human society is back living in caves and dark basement.. .

          9. AndyG55

            “it’s based on overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics.”

            ROFLMAO

            You haven’t produced ONE SINGLE PIECE of the so-called evidence

            And you have proven that your grasp of physics is extremely poor, to the stage of FANTASY FIZZICS.

            Just repeat the brain-numbed AGW MANTRA , seb.

            repeat, repeat , repeat. !!

            That will solve you EMPTYMESS

          10. SebastianH

            Your belief that humans control the temperature of the oceans is not rooted in observational evidence.

            It is and is it not MY believe.

            So at what point was the “consensus” position that humans control the oceans’ temperatures proved? How does one “disprove” something that has never been proven in the first place?

            It has not been “proved” nothing in physics is “proved”. Proofs are a math thing.

            It’s one huge belief-system and anyone who wants to show conclusively that the currently thought of mechanism are wrong, only needs one example where the current “belief” doesn’t explain the outcome. Voila, disproved.

            So don’t act like you can’t disprove a belief. Galileo did. Einstein did. Hawking did. Be like them, don’t be a lame skeptic blogger with the gut feeling that CO2 causing anything is a lie.

          11. AndyG55

            “It is and is it not MY believe.”

            NO EVIDENCE.

            Any if its not something you believe, why the continued mantra chanting ?

            “CO2 causing anything is a lie.”

            There is NO EVIDENCE.

            It is a FANTASY and a scientific non-possibility.!

            There is NO proven rational mechanism for warming by atmospheric CO2.

  9. tom0mason

    Maybe the congregation of cAGW should watch more Willie Soon videos. They may understand that their ridiculous attempts at censorship is exactly what religion cAGW belief relies on.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close