entertainment

Harrison Ford attacks leaders who deny climate change

38 Comments
By Alberto E Rodriguez

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

Ever met actual scientists in person to discuss it (I dont mean celebrity CNN types)? I have. They told me that climate change is real and natural, and that human influence on it is infitessimally small. A lot of people are making a lot of money with the myth of human influenced climate change. Very un PC to say so - which will be reflected in all the downvotes. Fire away.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

He should then be selling his personal airplanes that he pilots if he wants to practice what he preaches.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

No downvotes from me.

But the first 2 responses above make me sad.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

bearandrodent, that would be very unliberal of him.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Kestrel

Who and how many have you met? Care to share so we can help explain the truth to them?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I've met 'actual scientists' in person and have discussed climate change with them. The consensus is that humans are responsible for a lot of the changes.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Oh. A guy who's famous for playing make-believe in front of a film camera is telling us not to deny "climate change." I guess that I should change my opinion, then.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

LudditeToday  08:40 am JST

I've met 'actual scientists' in person and have discussed climate change with them. The consensus is that humans are responsible for a lot of the changes.

Science is not about "consensus." It's about fact. And fact is not up for popular vote, which is what "consensus" involves.

It's okay to be skeptical, even when someone with a "scientist" badge says something. Scientists have been wrong about a lot of things, many times throughout history.

Also, remember that scientists need money. They need research grants. They need governments and other organizations to give them money.

And there is heavy, heavy competition to get that money. There is only so much money to grant to all of the causes and research efforts whose leaders have their hands out.

One of the best ways to get that money is to wildly exaggerate the severity of a problem -- or in some cases, even to invent a problem that doesn't exist at all.

You cannot deny that this sort of hanky-panky has occurred many times, with many issues -- environmentalism, obesity, and so on.

"Scientists" have a long and dubious record of inventing problems that don't exist, and blowing out of proportion problems that do exist but are not really that serious.

Follow the money.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Jenni, why should we believe an American political ideology over the scientific process? Please explain how a political ideology would know a subject better than those who dedicate their lives to it.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Okay Han Solo........ are you willing to get rid of ur private jet? And ride coach on the train Instead? Doubt it.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Okay Han Solo........ are you willing to get rid of ur private jet?

In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Harrison Ford used his Cessna 208 Caravan to support Operation Smile.....Ford made several flights over two days in February transporting medical supplies and more than 20 volunteers including an anesthesiologist, surgeons, and nurses.

Hard to do that riding coach on a train.

https://www.hotcars.com/car-force-one-harrison-fords-car-and-aircraft-collection/

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Okay Han Solo........ are you willing to get rid of ur private jet? And ride coach on the train Instead? Doubt it.

You mean get rid of the millennium falcon, right.

Anyhoo... The human race is destined to be destoyed by its own greed.  The planet will do just fine without them.  Nothing new there.  The environment will endure despite the humans' impact on it.

S

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Kestrel: up vote from me, its all about money and population control.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I can’t see any problem with taking Ford’s word on it. He’s been to the future and come back several times. He ought to know about the effects of global warming.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

An article about a Hollywood big wig talking about science, but where’s the science?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

In the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Harrison Ford used his Cessna 208 Caravan to support Operation Smile.....Ford made several flights over two days in February transporting medical supplies and more than 20 volunteers including an anesthesiologist, surgeons, and nurses.

Hard to do that riding coach on a train.

So succes, free will, and the means to do it via gasoline, escapes the concept that Ford would not be able to help anyone in the carbon socialist world.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Climate change deniers rubbish everyone that disagree with them; experts, celebrities, members of the public. We are either all lying or stupid.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Ever met actual scientists in person to discuss it (I dont mean celebrity CNN types)? I have.

You'd need to be more specific for that anecdotal information to have any value at all, though like as not, it still wouldn't. What sciences did they specialize in, what were the circumstances of your meeting them?

Manmade climate change is not a minority opinion among scientists - not even close - particularly those sciences most directly related to the issue. So it's an achievement to meet scientists who say the opposite, especially if you've met only scientists who say the opposite. That tends to happen under carefully controlled conditions, or as a result of cherry picking.

What it comes down to - that bit about "un-PC" is a dead giveaway - is that you're seeking to throw most of the current science on the subject down the crapper. Really, the only way to do that is by offering better science, and considering the amount of accumulated data pointing to manmade climate change, you'll need very large quantities of it to make the case. That's a gargantuan task, and one you'll want to step away from.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

He's a great actor but how much CO2 has Ford helped spew into the atmosphere during his illustrious acting career?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

News flash for Harrison Ford.

CO2 is essential for life, it's at the very bottom of the food chain since it's plant food. No CO2, no life. The more CO2 there is, the bigger, healthier and faster plants and trees grow. Therefore it's great for humans and all other life.

Currently the concentration of CO2 is measured at about 400 parts p/million in the atmosphere (source; Wikipedia). The amount of circulating CO2 is minuscule compared to that of other less dense gases. To give a very rough analogy, think of a pencil in an average sized living room with the room representing the atmosphere, the eraser on the end of the pencil representing all CO2 (volcanoes, decaying plant life ... etc) and the tip of the pencil representing the amount CO2 produced by man. In other words the CO2 molecules are so far apart in the mid - upper atmosphere that any warming effect is negligible. I wrote this recently but water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas (H2O) -- think of a humid day. Should we ban and tax that too?

Unfortunately the media and others conflate toxic pollution from industry, cars etc with CO2. They are not the same and I agree that these other gases and pollutants should be filtered or restricted. I know this won't go down well with some but, again, CO2 is essential for life and the more the better.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

These blowhard celebrities are NOT scientists. These are the same people who turn to Scientology, juice diets, and all the latest trends for their daily lives. People living in fantasyland should not be trusted.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Failure to meet those goals, scientists have said, could result in irreversible sea level rises, disastrous droughts and higher temperatures.

Not sure whether many people are aware this but in the 1970s many of the same kind of stories were being pushed in newspapers and the media about climate change. Except at that time it was global cooling. It was the same then as it is now; gloom and doom. Here's a short extract from a April, 1975 Newsweek article entitled 'The Cooling World' ...

"During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree--a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage ..."

https://iseethics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/the-cooling-world-newsweek-april-28-1975.pdf

Harrison Ford is much older than me and he would remember this.

"If we are to survive on this planet, the only home any of us are ever going to know, for our security, for our future, for our climate, we need nature now more than ever," he said. "Nature doesn't need people. People need nature."

I can't prove anything but it seems that his statement is more about virtual signalling and for personal gain than it is about any genuine altruism. I wish these people would go away.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I've been wondering of this one.., in the UK we often have Christmas card depicting people skating upon Frozen ponds or the Thames, but in my Lifetime, I have never seen that happen.

So I understand Global Warming leads to extreme Weather conditions at both sides of the scale (Hot/Cold) but, are we sure that this hasn't happened before, and it's simply an equilibrium thing ? Also, has anyone actually bothered to measure the changes in distance to our Sun over time ?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

From my understanding, it’s not about the CO2, it’s the methane gas sitting under the permafrost.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So I understand Global Warming leads to extreme Weather conditions at both sides of the scale (Hot/Cold) but, are we sure that this hasn't happened before

Yes, it's happened before, many times. There was the medieval warm period a thousand years ago before any industry or cars were about. Greenland is called Greenland because it wasn't covered in ice at that time. Vine Street in London is called that because the warmer climate allowed grape vines to grow. Samples taken from ice sheets show that the global climate has been alternating between warm and cooling cycles for millennia. And the reason that global warming was changed to climate change™ was because the temperatures started tapering off about 20 years ago. Pretty clever because the climate is always changing; so now mostly any bad weather, hot, cold or otherwise can be blamed on humans. But it has virtually nothing to do with humans and everything to do with the cycles of nature like sunspots, cloud cover and so on.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The war on science is depressing. It's like fundamentalism has overwhelmed any rational debate & suddenly science is feared.

We haven't seen this types of wiflul ignorance and suspicion since Galileo was tried.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's like fundamentalism has overwhelmed any rational debate & suddenly science is feared.

It's not just like that, it IS that. People have decided that a right-wing American political ideology makes more sense than the findings and research of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate.

Delusion.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ever met actual scientists in person to discuss it (I dont mean celebrity CNN types)? I have. They told me that climate change is real and natural, and that human influence on it is infitessimally small.

Were these people climate scientists, how many did you talk to, and what are their credentials?

I tend to go for scientific consensus over political beliefs limited to a particular group in largely one country and the crackpottery of conspiracy theorists.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

People have decided that a right-wing American political ideology makes more sense than the findings and research of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate. Delusion.

Ok, but what about the scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate or related fields but who do not support AGW and are marginalised, ignored or ridiculed in the media and elsewhere. Do you know about them? Are they deluded and ignorant too? At least one or two of these scientists are Nobel Laureates if that means anything?

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

30,000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming

[...] The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is "settled science" has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31,072 American scientists who reject the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/30000-scientists-sign-petition-on-global-warming

Debunking the "97 percent" lie

"A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased."

https://www.naturalnews.com/055151_global_warming_science_hoax_climate_skepticism.html

It's an interesting thing that people will support the official story (itself spurious) because famous people, govt funded scientists and the UN say it's true. If people knew how corrupt the UN panel on climate change was and how they came up with their consensus then they might think twice.

Once the 'deniers'/sceptics are shut down then we'll all be paying carbon taxes or monitored for CO2 usage or, ultimately, everyone having to live in small apartments in the city in order to 'save the earth' when it may not be necessary.

Note: JenniSchiebel is right, it only takes one piece of evidence or fact to overturn the whole consensus and there's more than enough of that with global warming. Too bad the debate is over.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

in the UK we often have Christmas card depicting people skating upon Frozen ponds or the Thames, but in my Lifetime, I have never seen that happen.

Much of the 19th century was a particularly cold one, and Xmas in the UK still has a big Victorian / Dickensian influence which you see on the festive cards. The lake near my home in Lancashire froze over until late May in the 1870's.

(Hot/Cold) but, are we sure that this hasn't happened before, and it's simply an equilibrium thing ?

It has happened many times before, and there has always been a cause. For instance, increased volcanic activity can pump gases into the atmosphere that affect the climate for millennia. The data we are seeing is that 7.5 billion people burning fossil fuels, deforesting the planet and extinguishing species is having a devastating effect. If you think about it logically, how couldn't it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Jenni, Weedkila,

Excellent posts. I wonder if those posters here making narrow, ideological responses actually read them through.

Kobe, thanks.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Excellent posts. I wonder if those posters here making narrow, ideological responses actually read them through.

I’m afraid it’s more a case of a narrow, ideological view of the right, particularly concentrated on the US right, against a scientific consensus. Given that this particular group is also populated with many who believe in a 6,000-year-old planet, they haven’t excelled in terms of scientific awareness.

The conspiracy theorists are a different story but equally useless in these areas.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Scientists" have a long and dubious record of inventing problems that don't exist, and blowing out of proportion problems that do exist but are not really that serious.

The reason you were able to type that sentence and I was able to read it is because of "scientists". Science has advanced every area of human life. The beauty of science is that bad science doesn't stand up for very long because it is based on demonstrable facts, not emotions.

Follow the money.

Go on then, follow it. Tell us where does it lead? Big oil? Arabia?

its all about money and population control.

Is that a line from a Hollywood movie? Sounds ominous, but Continuing to rely on dwindling fossil fuels enriches the people you most hate. The downside of seeking alternative energy sources is

1 ( +2 / -1 )

.....cleaner air, energy independence, less wars (I can't imagine any Wind Wars or Solar Conflicts) and less Rolex watches for the Arabs

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ford, who famously played the title role of Indiana Jones and also Han Solo in the "Star Wars" franchise, was in Dubai to address climate change at the World Government Summit.

Coming back to the article, here's part of the speech Ford made at the World Government Summit. A few questions: When did World Government appear on the radar and who's behind it? Is the plan for the World Government to save us from global warming? Is it benevolent and should we be looking forward to it as humanity's saviour? Or is it just another conspiracy theory?

Harrison Ford - World Government Summit 2019 -- (33 secs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTwdSXfUv_c

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

 Is the plan for the World Government to save us from global warming?

Yep.

Is it benevolent and should we be looking forward to it as humanity's saviour? 

No, and no.

The Green New Deal is the gift from the Democrats that's going to keep on giving.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Do you know about them? Are they deluded and ignorant too? At least one or two of these scientists are Nobel Laureates if that means anything?

It means "appeal to authority", and in the list you link to, it's not at least two, but exactly two.

Before I continue, it's worth mentioning that Nobel Prize winning scientists have frequently achieved notoriety for talking drivel outside their area of expertise, often drifting into pseudoscience. Two names that spring to mind are Linus Pauling, for his baffling devotion to the concept that regular and excessive doses of vitamin C are beneficial to health; and James Watson, for his "trust me, I'm a geneticist" views on race and other topics that amount to borderline eugenics. There was also William Shockley (inventor of the transistor), an actual eugenics supporter; Philipp Lenard, a devout Nazi and proponent of the concept of "Jewish science"; Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV) for recent research that is considered utterly bizarre, and associated opinions that border on promotion of homeopathy - he has also jumped on the autism bandwagon; and Brian Josephson (physics), an adherent of pseudoscience with a paranormal flavour - telekinesis, telepathy and the like - and an intellectual overlay. Along with other cobblers like water memory.

The Nobel Prize in sciences is hugely (and justifiably) prestigious, and there's no suggestion that these people didn't fully deserve Nobel recognition for their achievements in their particular area of expertise. But it's also clear that a Nobel Prize is no guarantee whatsoever of credibility once they move outside that area. You advance two Nobel laureates as particular standouts in a field of scientists who don't go along with anthropogenic climate change; the obvious implication is that as Nobelists, they are worthy of special attention as they must know what they're talking about. So let's look at them.

One is Ivar Giaever, a physicist who labelled climate change science a religion, and signed on as an adviser to the Heartland Institute. This is the political/ideological/libertarian route. There are multitudes of these (see also geologist/lunar astronaut Harrison Schmitt). He hasn't done anything in the way of providing better science. They never do.

The other is Kary Mullow, a biochemist who in addition to his climate change views, has sullied his scientific reputation with AIDS denialism, astrology, and general weirdness.

If we were to take a closer look at your list of scientists, it would throw up a lot of this kind of thing. I won't though. There are limits to how much trouble I will take.

As to the Natural News link, oh christ. Have you any concept of how crappy and discredited Natural News is, or who Mike Adams is?

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/quackery/mike-adams-building-alternate-reality-online

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Green New Deal is the gift from the Democrats that's going to keep on giving.

Good point. This is getting interesting.

To posters talking about the "narrow, ideological view of the right" etc you might want to read what a Greenpeace Co-founder said a few days ago about what the Democrats have in mind. A few excerpts;

Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder

The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclusive interview [...] Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive.

*[...] If the scheme outlined in the resolution expressing the “sense of the House” is implemented, *it would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 — an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade.

[..] (He)was flabbergasted that something so ludicrous could even be proposed, much less be advanced in the U.S. government. “It is quite amazing that someone that is in government — actually elected to the government of the United States of America — would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he said in an on-camera interview with The New American from Canada. “This would basically result, if we did it on a global level, it would result in the decimation of the human population from 7-odd billion down to who knows how few people.” It would end up killing almost everyone on the planet, he added.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31465-green-new-deal-would-kill-almost-everyone-warns-greenpeace-co-founder

The above seems like a negotiating technique. There are 2 extremes; Trump and the Republicans on one side and the Democrats on the other. The solution is to have the people settle for something in the middle like carbon taxes, CO2 footprint monitoring, restricted use of cars, appliances and the like. Same team, different masks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites