A public meeting was held last night which saw a hefty turnout, with residents eager to hear the views of Paul Burgess to present why he thinks "net-zero will be a disaster for the Isle of Man".
Mr Burgess describes himself as a climatologist who's spent his career looking at the extremes of weather, and claims the Isle of Man's attempts to reach net-zero and tackle climate change is 'rubbish'.
Manx Radio's Christian Jones sat down with Paul Burgess after the meeting drew to a close.
Hello and welcome along to another episode of Manks Radio's Newscast. Now a public meeting was held last night, which saw a hefty turnout, with residents eager to hear the views of Paul Burgess, who was presenting what he describes as an alternative to net-zero. Mr Burgess also describes himself as a climatologist, who spent his career looking at the extremes of weather. He claims the Isle of Man's attempts to reach net-zero and tackle climate change is rubbish. I sat down with him when the meeting grew to a close. Let's start by just asking why are you on the Isle of Man, what brought you here? Well, it's very difficult to move the pendulum that's against me, and I live in a country of 60-odd million people, and we tried doing Leeds area, and then what happened was the Isle of Man came up, and people said to me, "Can you come and help us?" And I thought about it because it's quite a lot of time and work, because I've made three or four videos before I even got here for the Isle of Man. But if I can have an influence in a small place like this, I have more effect. Let's talk about the bunch that you were wearing earlier, which says, "I heart CO2." Would you call yourself a climate denier? No, I think the climate denier are the alarmists, because if they think, "I believe the climate is changing all the time," so in that sense, it is. In this sense, they actually think that you can dial a CO2 dial down or up and control the climate and that controls the climate. So you categorically say you're not a climate denier? I can categorically say, "I'm a scientist," that accepts what the climate is. I just note in some of your YouTube videos, you're using graphs by the CO2 coalition, which is recognised as a climate denial organisation. No, because you're defining them as climate deniers. Well, the New York Times Newsweek, the Independent, the Washington Post, and they're also locked in a Facebook battle, which keeps removing its content due to being classified as disinformation. Yes, that's right, because journalism today is totally corrupted. Journalism today reports things like the Heathrow temperature record at 40.1, alongside the wrong way at Heathrow. So what you define, if I define you as an alien, it doesn't mean to say you're an alien. Well, let's just look at some of the graphs that you've used. One of them from the CO2 coalition, which you've described as fact in a very recent video, which says, "Global temperatures change dramatically during the past 10,000 years." Can you tell me who was tracking temperatures 10,000 years ago? Yes, I mean, basically, we can track temperatures by isotopes and by Greenland ice cores. So if you look at, I used different ones at the top of those graphs if you looked. So all of those are well-established scientific methods that we used. These are alarmist organizations. Well, NASA says, and I'll quote, "Scientists have been building estimates of the Earth's average global temperature for more than a century using records from weather stations. But before 1880, there just wasn't enough data to make accurate calculations resulting in uncertainties in these older records. So are you saying that NASA is lying? No, there's a difference. Yes, actually, lots of dude and I. But I don't know about that one. I can answer it. Look, let me explain something. You've got to estimate what we call proxies. Now the entire alarmism basis is based on a hockey stick going back 1,000 years. So the entire alarmism, the entire IPCC alarm, the whole industry is based on the 1998 hockey stick of 1,000 year temperatures done by tree rings, which is a totally corrupt science. Does that mean to say the lying? And that's your fact. They did lie in that one. But that is the case. You have to use proxies when you're going back. So just to bring back to the question, you are saying that NASA is lying? No. You're trying to get me to say something. You just said that NASA does lie. No. No. Really? You did say NASA does lie. NASA can lie. Yes, I'll give you an example. So in this case, it's NASA lying. No. I don't know if they're lying in that, because I don't know whether the person knew it or not knew the truth or not. When someone makes a claim, that's not true, and that's not true claim. It doesn't mean to say the lying. It means to say they don't know. So to accuse a personal lie, it means they've done it intentionally. Now there are things that NASA has done intentionally. That were not true. And they're our lies. And that's how you define a lie. Okay. Let's move on. Greenpeace has conducted an undercover operation in the past, which revealed that two prominent climate skeptics were available for hire by the hour to write reports casting doubts on the dangers posed by global warming. You're buying into those types of reports, aren't you? No, I'm not. Who are these people? I mean, I buy into evidence and science. I don't even know who you're talking about. I mean, you can say things like that. Name the scientists, and I'll tell you. One is William Harper. One of the founders of the CO2 coalition. That's not true. I know William Harper. No. That is not true. You dispute that. Well, William Harper did that science there, which is accepted by the other side. What you've got is people. And journalists are very good at it, totally disrupting the information and miss it reporting all the time. So they'll say things which are totally untrue to get the headline in. So William Harper is a man of integrity, and he was the adviser to three American presidents. He's the one responsible for the work tonight I showed on CO2. And that work is agreed by the alarmists. Let's just come to that, Harper is reported to have been appointed by Trump to counter evidence linking CO2 emissions to global warming. Not true. He was appointed by Trump, and he didn't like Trump actually, so he resigned. But... No, no. He resigned because White House officials became skeptical of his plan, would harm Trump's reelection. No, no. Now, let me explain something. William Harper is advised to advise on science with Trump. That's it. Right. William Harper knows the truth about CO2 because he's done the work. Now, the William Harper work is agreed by the other side, which I explained tonight. So what are you getting at here? He's done scientific work, agreed with observation by satellite. So you can't argue with it. It's been agreed by satellite. The other side accepted. All we disagree on, the two sides, is the feedback which we discussed tonight. That's all we have. What you're trying to do is... But William Harper is listed as a founder of CO2 coalition, which we've covered is a climate denial organisation. No, you're talking absolute nonsense. This is totally illogical. Let me explain something. I can call you a Martian. Does that mean to say you're a Martian? No. So use this word. You see, this is not scientific what you're doing. You don't do ad hominid attacks, which is one stop after the other, one after the other. That's not science. You're not dealing with the evidence. Deal with the evidence. You've named William Harper a completely man of high integrity, a really great scientist who's done work that the alarmist degree is correct. Right? That's not him. And how dare you do that? How dare you ask me to say... The founder of Greenpeace, the founder of Greenpeace, is totally on my side because of Greenpeace and their corrupt ways of doing things and their corrupt ways of reporting things. Do you know that? Do you know who the founder was? Well, he left Greenpeace. The founder of Greenpeace, there was one or two people who found it at the beginning. He founded it. He did great work with the whales and all that, right? He today is a member of the CO2 coalition as well, by the way, right? He gives talks all over the world on it, and he is totally on my side. Totally. He argues we want more CO2 just like I do because it's so beneficial to the world. So... Okay. Let's just round up. Given there's so much discrepancy that we've covered here, you're saying one thing. Some people say another thing. No, no, no, no, no. I can't let you offer that. How dare you do that. Who are the some people? You have to name these things. When you say something, if you're saying something... Well, we've just covered that, for example, CO2 coalition is being recognized as a climate denial organization. So that suggests that there are other people on the other side. No, no. There are also other people on the side. So you do acknowledge that there are some people on the other side? No, there's people on the other side, but let you know what the subject is. It's very difficult. Generally, I acknowledge totally that there's a whole industry of alarmism on the other side. Yes, that's what I'm fighting. So, what you're doing is pure personal tax. What you're doing is so unscientific, so unfair, and so unreasonable. It's beyond belief. I hope you don't edit this. That's all. I just find every word repeated. Okay, so now that you have acknowledged that there are people on the other side... Of course, I stood up tonight all the time saying that people on the other side. Okay, so why should anyone from the Isle of Man trust anything you're saying? Because I've got the science I've shown them the science. That's why. Because the science is there, which they can check against the sources. That's why. Because I've used NASA. I've used NOAA. I've used NASA. I've used IPCC. Why should you claim? I'll give you an example. Are there any more floods in the world caused by mankind? Are there? IPCC says it's not. In the latest report. Are there any more droughts in the world caused by mankind? IPCC says it's not. Do you believe IPC? Are they some sort of alarmists? Are they... You said earlier that IPCC is a government into governmental organisation, so it's political. Yes, it is. You're right. But it's trusted by the alarmist side. Right? I'm asking you a direct question, but you're cheating. You won't answer it. This is an interview. Not a debate. I'm the one asking the questions. No, no. You're asking the questions. But then you're asking very smeared, incorrect questions. The fact is that the alarmists say and spread alarm, spread alarm based on floods, all these frequency of this and that and the other. Forest fires, for example. The IPC say that. Right? They say there's no more forest fires. They say they're in a tree, they're in a tree that causes them, no mankind influence. Right? So when the other side, I use their own data from the other side to challenge them and the other side's an enormous industry. Right? Are the alarmists? They teach kids in school and abuse the minds of kids in schools, teaching them unfounded science. Right? So what you're doing is you're using the term climate denier, defined by somebody else. So if I call you a Martian, all right, you're a Martian. Well, I've now called you a Martian. Does that make you want? I could be a Martian. Pardon? I could be a Martian. Well, fine, let's accept your Martian and in the same way you're a Martian. I'm a denier. Paul Burgess, thank you for joining us. That's OK. Bye. Thank you for making it to the end of the Manx Radio Newscast. You are obviously someone with exquisite taste. May I politely suggest you might want to subscribe to this and a wide range of Manx Radio podcasts at your favorite podcast provider, so our best bits will magically appear on your smartphone. Thank you. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] (upbeat music) [BLANK_AUDIO]
