I was channel surfing the other day and the PBS show, "Frontline" had an episode where some so-called whistleblower from one of the oil companies was reporting that the oil companies knew fossil fuels were causing global warming, but did nothing (or something like that; I didn't watch much :) ). I sent the following email to PBS about it: ("most of your shows" is referring to the Frontline show, not PBS in general :) )
Although I enjoy most of your shows, you definitely showed your leftist, un-educated, bias in this episode. "Climate Change" is a political movement with very limited scientific basis. Global data collected during the past 50 years, in particular, global sea level rise data, do not support the "man-made global warming" theory. Without a significant increase in the rate of global temperature rise (it's been rising for thousands of years), the "man-made global warming" theory falls apart. The best indicator of this is global sea level rise. Global sea level is the best indicator of global warming because not only does sea level respond to an increase in water volume due to glacial meltwater contributions, but also to simple thermal expansion of the ocean surface layers. If there was a significant increase in the rate of global warming occurring, these two factors would produce a significant increase in the rate of global sea level rise. There has not been a significant increase in the rate of global sea level rise in the past 50 years. Case closed. (EPA even had a report published in 1984? where they predicted that at least a 1 foot rise in global sea level would occur in the next 30 years, and I believe they even thought it could go as high as 2 feet higher, but the rate has remained virtually unchanged) Of course, now, the term "man-made global warming" is no longer used, with "climate change" taking its place. You MUST have global warming to fuel "climate change". In order for any perceived change in climate to be attributed to man's contributions of CO2, there HAS to be an increase in the rate of global warming consistent with the increase in CO2 levels; THERE HAS NOT! Just because we see what may be significant changes in climate (of course, we don't really know if these changes are significant, because we don't have data very far back in history, and that is only selected locations on Earth. Other secondary evidence is speculative.) Sorry to burst your leftist bubble, but you should be concerned with the truth, wherever it lands. I realize, as leftists, you will never apologize for the lies you promote, but at least this email will help you to better understand the lies you continue to promote. As always, when looking at big picture things, just follow the money. Who do you think will make the most money off "climate change"?
Yeah, they won't respond or otherwise change their content, but good for letting them know that people understand what's really going on. FYI: If you are really going to make your case against sea level rise, you need to also mention something known as "land subsidence." This is why the "sea level rise" advocates focus on South Beach, Chesapeake Bay, Louisiana Delta, and Venice, Italy...all those places are sinking due to overpumping of groundwater, with the exception of the Louisiana Delta. The Delta is sinking because the damming upriver is preventing the deposition of critical sediments. The older sediments are compacting, causing the land to sink.
What's truly infuriating is that these examples of land subsidence have, in most cases, a solution. But the longer the attention is focused on CO2, nothing will ever be accomplished, with billions upon billions wasted.
OH NO! you are wrong! Billions won't be wasted. Into the hands of politicians and all their cronies. Ever heard of Solindra?
It's pretty funny that a decade ago or so (maybe it's been longer), they started using satellite altimeter data, with a claimed accuracy of 5cm (I think it's probably a theoretical accuracy), to report on sea level rise changes of mm/yr! They liked the satellite data at the time, because it showed a higher rate than the 100+ years data sets from the global network of tide gages. In recent years, tide-gage data shows a higher rate than the satellite data, so I guess they are happy now :)
Tide gage data from known subsidence areas, such as New Orleans and Texas coast are not included with the global data, unless someone has an agenda, but even the "climate change" "scientists" exclude those data sets when analyzing the global tide gage data.
Excellent!
Nice! Thank you. Please let us know if they respond.
I would be shocked if they responded, but if they do, it would be interesting to see what they say :)
Anyone taking odds of a response from Frontline responding? I would say 100,000,000 to 1 would even be safe for the house
the Globalists are effective because they can steer humans into binary camps: Left-Right, Black-White, Republican-Democrat, Liberal-Conservative...
but their most effective principle is: "Believers-Deniers."
Do you believe or deny? life begins at conception. the Holocaust. global warming.
in this way they keep us arguing beliefs -- forcing one to oppose the other. we stay embattled while they, the puppet masters, pull all the strings.
what is the real 'climate change' agenda? their greatest fear is public awakening.
Covid woke up many to the globalists' plan for massive population reduction -- famine, pestilence, plague, and war. and total, centralized power.
watch this presentation to see what the real climate agenda is:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-watch-our-most-comprehensive-climate-engineering-presentation/
Short and sweet. When Obama moves inland I'll be more conducive.
I received the response to my email today:
Thank you for taking the time to write, and for sharing your critique of The Power of Big Oil. We value your feedback and your comments have been reviewed and noted by our editorial staff.
Best wishes,
The FRONTLINE Team
I'm so glad they are going to change their leftist tune now :)