Piers Morgan is a cock.
I realize this isn’t exactly front-page news but every now and then he reminds you what a low-grade, puffed-up, bloviating poltroon he truly is.
Most recently he did so on his breakfast TV show Good Morning Britain in an interview with the German climate skeptic Naomi Seibt.
Seibt – whom I was lucky enough to meet at the last UN climate conference in Madrid and interviewed here – is a very brave, very admirable 19-year old German climate skeptic.
She is known as the Anti-Greta — a nickname I believe I may have coined myself in this article — because, unlike the feted Ms. Thunberg, she believes that catastrophic man-made climate change is a politically motivated, scientifically baseless scare story.
Because Seibt’s educated view does not accord with the current fashionable narrative she has been treated by the world’s politicians and media rather differently from the way they treat St Greta of Thunberg.
While Greta travels all over the world, feted by everyone from the Pope to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and gets to lecture world leaders on how to run their economies, Seibt’s reward for her principled skepticism is canceled events, death threats and rape threats from the likes of Antifa – oh, and snotty interviews from blustering pillocks like Piers Morgan.
As the Express reports, when Seibt was invited on Good Morning Britain to debate with some Greta Mini-Me, Morgan just couldn’t wait to crush her with his trademark bullying indignation.
“So I got interested in climate change because I wanted to get to know the science behind it and what’s really going on and what effect do CO2 emissions actually have.”
Piers interrupted to ask: “Let me ask you. Do you believe that the planet is heating up at a dangerous rate?”
She replied: “No I do not believe that.”
But Piers wasn’t happy with her answer and shot back: “If you don’t mind me saying, that is a clear demonstrable fact supported by 2000 of the world’s leading scientists.
“And with all due respect to you I get that you want to have the publicity of being the ‘anti-Greta’ but that is a fact that can’t be disputed it is just a fact that the planet is heating up.”
Don’t you just love that ‘with all due respect to you’? Morgan is quite incapable of treating anyone with respect unless they happen to suit his purpose.
His purpose, in this case, was not to give Seibt’s skepticism a fair hearing — as if! — but rather to parade his virtue by emphatically declaring how totally on board with climate ‘science’ he is and how totally not a climate change denier he is.
That aggressive interruption of Seibt’s argument is also classic Morgan: it’s designed to unbalance and dismay so that he looks like the clever, in-control one while his victim flounders.
Usually, it works, unless he encounters someone familiar with his bully-boy technique — at which point his intellectual weakness is sorely exposed, as it was when he was famously owned in a debate about the Second Amendment with Ben Shapiro.
Anyway, on this occasion, Morgan was made to look like the idiot he is twice: first by the graciousness of Seibt’s response to his rudeness.
@piersmorgan Of course I forgive you! 😄 thanks for inviting me to appear on #GoodMorningBritain! How about a more thorough debate or interview next time? 🤗 https://t.co/yjxR8xciUe
— Naomi Seibt (@SeibtNaomi) March 4, 2020
Second, by his audience, which pointed out in the ad break how thoroughly unfair – and scientifically illiterate – he had been and forced Morgan to retract.
Returning from an ad break, Piers noted he had in fact been mistaken and corrected himself.
“I just want to be fair to one of our guests Naomi,” he began.
“When I said to her ‘Is the planet heating up?’ and didn’t say at a dangerous rate, all the viewers are saying that I did say ‘Is it heating up at a dangerous rate?’”
Susanna Reid chipped in: “And that is what she took issue with.”
He continued: “So if that is the case then she was quite right to push back on that.”
There is nothing gracious or admirable about Morgan’s arse-saving retraction. He’s an idiot well out of his depth on the subject of climate change — and outside the wankerati bubble that Morgan inhabits lots of real, ordinary people know it.
Will media influencers like Morgan change their tune — at least to the point where they give courageous, informed skeptics like Naomi Seibt a fair hearing?
Of course not.
So long as the official narrative remains that man-made climate change is the greatest threat of our age, liberal elite mouthpieces like Piers “I’m a close personal friend of Donald Trump. That shows how counterintuitive and controversial I am” Morgan will carry on supporting it because, hey, why rock the boat?
Read more at Breitbart
Why are people so ignorant? Just keep it simple: weather manipulation by HAARP & CHEMTRAILS:
Senator Claiborne Pell, Senate Intelligence Committee USA/USSR, 1978:
– “Now that we control the weather, create earthquakes and tidal waves and, use it as a weapon of war, we do not need a treaty.”
William Cohen, former secretary of defense of the Clinton Administration, “Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and US Strategy”, 1977:
– “Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set of earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves…so there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts [counter-terrorism].”
Zbigniew Brzezinsky, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, quoted by Chossudovsky, “The Elephant in the Room at Copenhagen: Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the ability to trigger climate change”:
– “The emerging techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.”
James Schlesinger, US Secretary of Defence informing ‘the Pell Committee”, 1974:
– “There is reason to argue for the use of localized weather modification where possible, as a humane replacement for modern weaponry.” – (so instead of killing people with weapons, freak ‘natural disasters’ are created)
United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques”, Convention May 1977, Geneva, Article 2:
– “It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns [clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms]; changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer and changes in the state of the ionosphere.” – (so here we see that it’s not our CO2 emissions which are damaging the ozone layer – it’s chemtrails and Haarp)
– “The term ‘environmental modification techniques’ refer to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.”
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, economist, “The Elephant in the Room at Copenhagen: Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the ability to trigger climate change:
-”The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department of Defense to further developing these capabilities. Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the world’s climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus.”
US Air Force Document, “AF 2025 Final Report”:
– “Weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary and, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally…It could have defensive and offensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth to modify space weather,…and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in us, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach and power.”
International Committee of the Red Cross, “Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons”, Lucerne, Geneva, 18th October, 1974:
– “The expert who put forward the subject of geophysical warfare for consideration stated that it included such activities as the modification of weather or climate and the causing of earthquakes. He stated that man already possessed the ability to bring about on a limited scale certain geophysical changes for which military applications were conceivable. In his view these would inevitable be indiscriminate, and could give rise to unforeseeable environmental changes of prolonged duration.”
T. J. Coles, “Weather Weapons: The Dark World of Environmental Warfare”, pag. 4:
– “Coupled with the Pentagon’s commitment to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance by 2020, the fact that the MOD and the US Air Force had the capability to destroy an entire village with 90 million tonnes of rainfall as far back as the 1950’s, means we must take seriously the possibility that weather weaponisation is being used, under the cover of anthropogenic global warming (which is no doubt happening, but provides the perfect cover for freak weather events). The US Air Force 2025 think-tank stated in a long-term study that weather weaponisation ‘provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The Air Force is counting on the fact that some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather modification.”
Sally Pook, “Deadly flood blamed on RAF rainmakers”, Telegraph 31st August, 2001, citing a Ministry of Defence (MOD) Document:
– “Weather modification will continue to be explored. The aims are to obtain more water, reduce hail damage, eliminate fog, or other similar practical result in response to a recognised need. Manipulation of the weather may affect changes in operating conditions, limit aviation flight envelopes, generate poor visibility while providing concealment and disrupt lines of communications. Weather modification may also affect morale.”
Its quite plain to see that Naomi Seibt has not attended School run by the NEA and Greenpeace she must be a Home Educated Child, Good News
We all should follow our own curiosity and gather knowledge for ourselves, and draw our own conclusions. If that’s what “home educated” means, she certainly has done that. She attended public school, though. She says she heard the scary climate stories at school and that she too was was one of the children scared about it.
Morgan is an ignorant ass . He intentionally sets a trap or he is can’t remember what he said 10 seconds before . The twit he was sharing the show with
sits their bobbing her head like a dash board poodle oblivious to what he actually said .
No predetermined agenda there .
Hey Piers do some actual research for a change .
The IPCC refererences climate models ( they actually don’t do climate
modeling ) and those models have consistently been proven to grossly exaggerate any warming sometimes by 200 % .
We are coming out of the most recent ice age , it is warming , humans are making a small contribution to it and climate changes . When has it not ?
CO2 has increased , not to historic levels , that before volvos , but represent under 1/2 percent of the atmosphere . Natural variables , sun , ocean currents
volcanos , cloud cover etc still run the climate and human caused CO2
is a thimble full of water in an Olympic pool .
Catastrophic global cooling was a “scientific fact ” in the 1970’s too .
A well spoken 19 year old has actually done the research unlike you and the cotton head beside you .
Agree with most of that except “coming out of the last ice age” is evidentially wrong, by 10Ka.. I suggest the current interglacial is probably over/ending…. but only on the evidence we measure, you can always believe otherwise ;-)..
The highest temperatures of the earlier warm periods this interglacial are already long past the top temperature records of this ice age (earlier were all warmer) in the ice cores, and recorded history of agriculture and development at these times also supports that. Mediaeval, Roman, Minoan/Egyptian, etc..
The current interglacial warming started 17,000 yrs ago, give or take, and, like previous such events, was established by 10,000 years ago, as the exponentially increasing natural feedback of ocean evaporation and the resulting clouds shut down the warming by evaporative cooling and increased albedo. The reason tipping points are unlikely is this control dominates the worlds surface climate by the large negative feed back this produces to changes in either direction, far more powerful than the GHE effect it also causes, except the effect diminishes naturally per deg with cooling, and vice versa.
From the interglacial stabilisation temperatures went up and down a few degrees each way on a roughly 1,000 yr cycle to now, which is also well proven in the proxy record.. Nothing changes detectably in human lifetimes. The point here is that most interglacials have been shorter that 10Ka, so, if we believe in the natural cycles, massively more powerful than human effects , we are already into borrowed time before the neo glacial begins, perhaps already over the top of the hill, but sliding slowly down over thousands of years while short term changes continue, up and down, on the short and probably solar cycles we observe in the natural record, FAR more closely correlated with measured reality than any monotonic (AGHW/one way change) signal, THAT IS NOT SEEN in the frequency analysis of the observed temperature record, BTW.
All we see is cycles, of which the recent warming is a small rising part of the the cycle since 1650 or so, when it changed from cooling to warming. It is due to coo agin now, but then rise again, as before, probably to a lightly lower maximum each 1,000 years or so, as before in natural record.
This evidence now available of other effects the models discounted to load all observed change onto CO2 by “forcing” assumptions, now quantifies the theory of CO2 as a primary cause as wrong on the observed facts, and indeed any AGW effect, and hence disproves most IPCC models on these observations. Real science.
So I would suggest we prefer to follow the evidence from the direct and proxy data we actually observe, rather than. computer predictions based on assumptions that dismiss important effects presumptively/without evidence for such a an assumption, to allow the model to over amplify another, the so called forcing effect they made up but can’t prove as real, and hence the models forced to fit historic data this way don’t predict reality as a result.
BUT, on historically cyclic fact, the interglacial end is nigh, I suggest.
The ice age is coming – as we PLUNGE into the glacial abyss at perhaps 8 degrees globally over 16,000 years, or 0.05 deg per century. Climate CRISIS! Obviously government must act, to monetise the panic for their lobbyists and themselves, as much as they can induce at public expense in their short crooked lifetimes.
Time to prepare the return of Europeans to Africa and Europe becomes Tundra again, and the caves of Riviera are the farthest North humans can survive though agriculture.etc. As it was 25Ka ago. And this has happened many times before humans were in Europe. Nothing humans do will change that dominant natural cycle, directly driven by the huge forces of three MIlankovitch cycles. I have even suggested a quantified cause for this in a pre pub paper.
Variable submarine volcanic heating of the oceans can heat them the 8 degs needed to achieve an interglacial warming event over 7Ka, driven by the orbital eccentricity of Earth. The numbers work using the direct heating given from the evidence of quantity and variation of magma emissions to the ocean as observed over the last decade.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
Key take away is that the old GCM models are built on guessed and very atmospherically partial weather model science, computers making data fit history using guessed assumptions about which does what to the others, and what does not, all guessed, and now decades out of date so lacking key factors it initially dismissed as insignificant that aren’t, to amplify the chosen problems of AGW that academics were paid to prove by the UN IPCC, for socialist political aims of reversing the ever improving environment driven by the development in energy use and agricultural productivity in the west, destroying the advances we have made that deliver the best environment ever for humans on Earth, rather than bringing the less developed world up to this level, just as possible, and better for all. That is the UN IPCC’s stated ambition. Another text is needed to cover the UN’s 40 year of plotting and funding propaganda and pseudo science to control energy and agriculture globally, but you can research the reality yourself.
Back to legacy biased models, designed to prove a single belief and justify control of energy and agriculture, using very dubious, or actually disproven assumptions on the modern science, observed facts that were simply denied by modellers as inconvenient denial of their carefully engineered “proof” about how the global climate system works, wrong as regards the theoretical assumptions concerning CO2 forcing, and the strong effects of clouds and geothermal effects, so simply wrong, on multiple grounds. But they justify a climate change protection racket that academics profit from in support grants, to justify the regressive and ineffective energy poverty cost to the public that profits insiders to destroy our use of cheap energy to proper.
So politicians will fight to prolong their green deals, that are in science and electrical engineering fact simply a legalised protection racket, run by the government for renewable and other subsidy taking commercial lobbyists, using the new consensual science its climate priests (“Scientists”) no longer have to prove, to establish the actual energy racket on the engineering facts as law, not physical law but legislative. They need only agree it to prove it, testing by observation as with regular science used in engineering is denial, and you must believe, and pay for forgiveness. To question is heresy.
It used to be pay to avoid the fires of hell, or wake up with 27 virgins, these days they say “save your kids” – by destroying your energy dependent prosperity, hence social health, food supply, and safety from natural events.
So lose all this to save our kids from what observed and unnatural reality, exactly? Those who profit will be long gone before reality dawns on the deceived public, and the children who currently “believe”, in fake science peddled by crooks for their own gain.
CEng,CPhys
Well said Brian R Catt. Hopefully people like Piers Morgan read your comments
Amber
Grade 9 .
This could,nt have happened to a more lower then a snake in a wagon rut snake like Morgan someone has just Humiliated this miserble reptile
Well done Naomi ! You handled yourself with class that really shows up the bully’s .
No feigned tears or lip quivers .
You are doing what very very few people can do .
Please keep up the pursuit of truth and articulating your views .
There seem to be few journalists capable of mathematics that exceeds their number of digits and even fewer with any grasp of STEM subjects.
But lordy do they like to pontificate as if they do.
In this respect they are unable to argue against the hysteria and simply go with the flow in a vain posturing attempt of appearing that they know what they are talking about.
Vanity in their own ignorance.
Thank you Naomi Seibt for battling the politically correct but climate and energy ignorant. May you get all the rewards you deserve. A little more CO2 has done nothing but green the planet, shrink deserts and bring a string of world record crop yields. And fossil fuel powered development has decreased climate deaths from five hundred thousand a year (one hundred years ago) down to our current fifty-six thousand. So let’s not abandon the energy that not only makes our environment a little greener. It also makes us the best fed, longest-living, most prosperous human beings that have ever lived!
Yes this is the point that the Media fails to grasp. The greater masses of the World have seen through the Climate Alarmist Con, and all the blanketing and exclusion of those who speak reason will never prevent common sense winning through in the long run. Tyrants have always used such methods to quash all opposition, and like Hitler, Stalin’s Red Europe, and Idi Amin, they eventually collapse into a pile of ruin.
When the big turnaround comes quickly as it did with the Third Reich, then the bullies like Piers Morgan and dunderheads like Greta can face a very nasty backlash.
Bite me, Piers.
Consider Greta vs Naomi.
The Warmists promoted Greta as the young, mentally challenged girl who sees the OBVIOUS. If she sees it and you don’t, or won’t, you’re a denier of their OBVIOUS.
Naomi is young and intelligent. She questions their own OBVIOUS, climate alarmism . The BBC sent Peepee Piers to sort her out Oops. I say that Naomi’s future is brighter than Greta’s.
I agree that climate change issue is simply a catastrophic man-made issue that is a politically motivated, scientifically baseless qscare story.
This is all about some academics looking to get monetized by some baseless junk science thereby getting paid by a tax to support a lifestyle play … their theories fly straight in the face of how hurricanes are developed and what process or procedures could be developed to minimize them and their effect on word climates as they have no proposed idea but because it would help developing countries as opposed to developed countries no one wants to hear it let alone implement a strategy that would work as insurance premiums and tax revenues would be diminished
How about ” I got a diploma that says I’m a genius, I’m a member of MENSA, where’s my money? I’m entitled ” The IPCC says “If you want it, come and get it. You’ll get a complimentary membership to our in – house twinge-of-conscience therapy sessions. Lots of new friends. They’re lined up outside the door and around the block “