David Gilmour Guitar Sale. He’s Helping Fix the Climate.

[RegMolehusband]

He is going to donate ALL the proceeds to a climate change charity according to his video on his Facebook page last night.

What shame and what a waste from somebody who has supported worthwhile causes in the past. Welcome to the machine David.

[Cohen123]

Imagine the carbon footprint he left in the 60s/70s/80s, though. But good on him for repenting. Has he sold the derelict mansion yet?

Edited by Cohen123 on Thursday 20th June 11:32

[otolith]

Anthropogenic climate change scepticism is something of a fringe belief - not sure why you’re surprised that Gilmour has mainstream beliefs about it?

[Cantaloupe]

He's a disgrace to Rock Stars, never mind fellow Floyder Nick Mason will continue to kill polar bears wth his
big f*** off engined Lambos and Frarris.

[Cohen123]

Blimey

David Gilmour’s legendary ‘Black Strat’ breaks world record for any guitar sold at auction as his entire collection sells for millions

Christie’s auctioned off Gilmour’s 1969 black Fender Stratocaster for $3,975,000 (£3.13m). The six-string was used on songs including ‘Comfortably Numb’, ‘Money’, ‘Shine On You Crazy Diamond’, and more. Gilmour also used it in his solo career, playing it on the albums ‘About Face’, ‘On An Island’, ‘Rattle That Lock’, and his 1978 self-titled solo debut.
Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/music/david-gilmour-guita...

Edited by Cohen123 on Friday 21st June 10:42

Edited by Cohen123 on Friday 21st June 10:43

[Mark Benson]

All hail the new religion.

We are all sinners. Repent! The end of the world is nigh!

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

Anthropogenic climate change scepticism is something of a fringe belief - not sure why you’re surprised that Gilmour has mainstream beliefs about it?

That's what you're supposed to believe - and you believe. At least the focus on a belief system is apt, and in any case this is good; the new religion cannot tolerate non-conformist units.

As it happens, surveys show a fairly even split; last year a USA poll put the level of true belief in American citizens at 60% and 40% is hardly 'fringe'. A survey this year found that Indonesia and Saudi have the 'worst' proportion of heretics who deny the new religion. The UK has a decent supply of conformist units at around 75% but even here, 25% isn't 'fringe'.

The usefulness of measurements of the impact of relentless indoctrination in schools and propaganda in the media is questionable but it's certainly interesting.

Mark Benson said:

All hail the new religion.

We are all sinners. Repent! The end of the world is nigh!

"Believe and Repent"!

We must truly belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve!

[otolith]

turbobloke said:

otolith said:

Anthropogenic climate change scepticism is something of a fringe belief - not sure why you’re surprised that Gilmour has mainstream beliefs about it?

That's what you're supposed to believe - and you believe. At least the focus on a belief system is apt, and in any case this is good; the new religion cannot tolerate non-conformist units.

As it happens, surveys show a fairly even split; last year a USA poll put the level of true belief in American citizens at 60% and 40% is hardly 'fringe'. A survey this year found that Indonesia and Saudi have the 'worst' proportion of heretics who deny the new religion. The UK has a decent supply of conformist units at around 75% but even here, 25% isn't 'fringe'.

For the UK;

• 95% think climate change is at least partly due to human activity when asked about relative
contributions of human and natural causes.
• 36% say climate change is “mainly” or “entirely” due to human activity.
• 53% think human and natural causes are equally to blame.
• Just 2% claim that climate change definitely is not happening.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_clim...

Gilmour's view is unsurprising, I would say. People with a contrary view tend to be either pretty ignorant of the debate, or pretty obsessed with it. People who are informed but not especially interested tend to trust the predominant narrative.

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

turbobloke said:

otolith said:

Anthropogenic climate change scepticism is something of a fringe belief - not sure why you’re surprised that Gilmour has mainstream beliefs about it?

That's what you're supposed to believe - and you believe. At least the focus on a belief system is apt, and in any case this is good; the new religion cannot tolerate non-conformist units.

As it happens, surveys show a fairly even split; last year a USA poll put the level of true belief in American citizens at 60% and 40% is hardly 'fringe'. A survey this year found that Indonesia and Saudi have the 'worst' proportion of heretics who deny the new religion. The UK has a decent supply of conformist units at around 75% but even here, 25% isn't 'fringe'.

For the UK;

• 95% think climate change is at least partly due to human activity when asked about relative
contributions of human and natural causes.
• 36% say climate change is “mainly” or “entirely” due to human activity.
• 53% think human and natural causes are equally to blame.
• Just 2% claim that climate change definitely is not happening.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_clim...

Gilmour's view is unsurprising, I would say. People with a contrary view tend to be either pretty ignorant of the debate, or pretty obsessed with it. People who are informed but not especially interested tend to trust the predominant narrative.

Which supports what I said.

Climate has been changing for billions of years and there's no reason for it not to be changing now.

The 2% who think the climate isn't changing are quite possibly under-educated but that view has no relevance to manmade climate change as the issue is causality not occurrence.

The reasonable reaction of Prof David Bellamy to the tirade of abuse he received after rightly pointing out that the notion of permanent dangerous manmade climate change is poppycock sits in contrast to the hysterical reaction of his abusers. He noted that the only reason he hadn't been burnt at the stake as a heretic was that his bulky frame would release too much carbon dioxide.

Slim heretics beware

[turbobloke]

That survey figure of 60% (Americans) who 'believe' humans are mainly or partly responsible for non-existent manmade global warming may be edging down a tad.

The notice pictured below in 2017, once prominently on display in the Visitor Centre of the Glacier National Park (NPS USA) stating that the glaciers would disappear by 2020 due to manmadeup climate change, has been removed very recently without fanfare - you'd think the zealots would be pleased - after several years of heavy snowfall made the latest in a catastrophically bad series of agw prediction failures fall flat on its egg-covered face. At least, that's their excuse (weak).

Based on the large number of previous false agw predictions over the past 30 to 40 years, this won't stop similar harmful verbal emissions in future, and disciples will still believe. Naturally the naughty computer models have been sent for reprogramming. Next time it'll be worse than previously thought

[JagLover]

otolith said:

For the UK;

• 95% think climate change is at least partly due to human activity when asked about relative
contributions of human and natural causes.
• 36% say climate change is “mainly” or “entirely” due to human activity.
• 53% think human and natural causes are equally to blame.
• Just 2% claim that climate change definitely is not happening.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_clim...

Gilmour's view is unsurprising, I would say. People with a contrary view tend to be either pretty ignorant of the debate, or pretty obsessed with it. People who are informed but not especially interested tend to trust the predominant narrative.

That may well be true, but asking people if they are willing to pay higher taxes or energy prices to combat any human contribution gets rather different results.

Which is why the 2050 commitment (rammed through without any consultation) has created a massive future headache for our political classes. Because it may well be achievable, but at the cost of a HS2 project each and every year from now on.

[otolith]

JagLover said:

otolith said:

For the UK;

• 95% think climate change is at least partly due to human activity when asked about relative
contributions of human and natural causes.
• 36% say climate change is “mainly” or “entirely” due to human activity.
• 53% think human and natural causes are equally to blame.
• Just 2% claim that climate change definitely is not happening.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_clim...

Gilmour's view is unsurprising, I would say. People with a contrary view tend to be either pretty ignorant of the debate, or pretty obsessed with it. People who are informed but not especially interested tend to trust the predominant narrative.

That may well be true, but asking people if they are willing to pay higher taxes or energy prices to combat any human contribution gets rather different results.

That's true of anything. They want other people to do something. Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.

In this case, though, Mr Gilmour has put his guitar collection (or 20 million dollars, depending how you look at it) where his mouth is.

At the end of the day, it's his money, he means well, he's donating it to a cause that the mainstream narrative says is a good one - I don't think it's fair to judge him harshly for it, whether or not you are personally convinced by anthropogenic climate change.

[bloomen]

I think you'd have to be supremely weird to not think a century and a bit of burning, spewing and spilling is going to leave things 100% au naturel. Good luck to everyone all the same.

[turbobloke]

bloomen said:

I think you'd have to be supremely weird to not think a century and a bit of burning, spewing and spilling is going to leave things 100% au naturel. Good luck to everyone all the same.

The issue isn't whether there's a lower order effect lost in the noise of natural variation. The claim is permanent dangerous warming i.e a catastrophe which is only supportable with faith or a suitable vested interest or both.

Demonising carbon dioxide is foolish, it's propping up the global food chain for starters and plants aren't far off starvation levels; previously atmospheric levels have been more than 10x higher including as the planet entered an ice age..

[smn159]

If only there was a thread dedicated to climate conspiracy theory bks

[Down and out]

smn159 said:

If only there was a thread dedicated to climate conspiracy theory bks

It died out.

[3.1416]

Why not start one?

"Harrabin's constant and unrelenting agenda pushing unfounded publicly funded climate nutjob guesses."

[biggbn]

otolith said:

That's true of anything. They want other people to do something. Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.

In this case, though, Mr Gilmour has put his guitar collection (or 20 million dollars, depending how you look at it) where his mouth is.

At the end of the day, it's his money, he means well, he's donating it to a cause that the mainstream narrative says is a good one - I don't think it's fair to judge him harshly for it, whether or not you are personally convinced by anthropogenic climate change.

What a sensible, polite post. Well said.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

The issue isn't whether there's a lower order effect lost in the noise of natural variation. The claim is permanent dangerous warming i.e a catastrophe which is only supportable with faith or a suitable vested interest or both.

Demonising carbon dioxide is foolish, it's propping up the global food chain for starters and plants aren't far off starvation levels; previously atmospheric levels have been more than 10x higher including as the planet entered an ice age..

The problem with people like you turbo is that you live in your own little world, where everything is quite black and white.

Unfortunately, in the real world, it's not actually like that.

What is foolish is not properly, and scientifically consider the actual hard evidence and simply state "climate change is a hoax". And if you do that, without bias, you will most likely join the ever growing number of people who now believe that yes, the climate is changing, (as it has always done) and that the rate of change is now abnormal and accelerative, and that our human population density makes that rapid rate of change a significant issue (especially if you are poor, or live in disadvantaged areas).
You can trot out the "ah, but there's been a higher concentration of Co2 in our planets atmosphere" line, and yes, you are quite right, but not when 7.5 billion people lived on it, and that results in an enormously different risk profile.....

Events such as sea level rise, extremely hot or cold weather, droughts, storms have all happened before, and will continue to happen, but today, when billions of people rely on our environment to stay alive, it's a very different situation to those same events happening say 150,000 years ago and killing a few dinosaurs.........


https://time.com/5611385/india-chennai-water-crisi...


It's easy to sit back, having grabbed a nice cold glass of water from the tap, and "call everyone on the internet stupid" for suggesting Man is affecting the climate, but the evidence is now, in my opinion and the opinion of many highly intelligent and highly qualified scientists, mounting for that very effect.

[Down and out]

What would you like him to do then?