Posted on 03/31/2024 4:36:39 AM PDT by Sam77
Guyana President Mohamed Irfaan Ali obliterated a BBC reporter who accused him of contributing to climate change by allowing oil drilling off its coast.
BBC journalist Stephen Sackur slammed Ali for allowing the drilling, asking id he had the "right" to do so.
"Let's take a big picture look at what's going on here. Over the next decade, two decades, it is expected that there will be $150 billion worth of oil and gas extracted off your coast," Sackur said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyfetched.com ...
The climate has always been changing. Man has nothing to do with it.
Remind me, does the UK still have a massive oil extraction operation in the north sea?
BBC climate clown ideologue “reporter” kicked to the curb
This is the type of defense/attack all interviewees should adopt when the “reporter” frames the issue with a lie. Challenge the leading comment/question. Don’t let interview/lecture go beyond that.
Saw a similar interview of a Brit politico when some weasel led off with something like: “people are asking questions....”. Politico’s response (while snacking to show his contempt) : “which people, give me names” “which precise questions?”. He refused to let the interview go further without response. Reporter has his script and kept on without responding so when the politico finished his snack he walked off.
Give them nothing. Do not compromise. Not on anything.
These are animals that will corrupt the definition of words and then attack you. Demand definitions or treat them with the contempt they have earned.
[[I enjoyed that. Just one problem, he still gives credence to globull warming by arguing his forests offset it.]]
Yup- good point- i was a bit dismayed that he did that- He could have pointed out that the earth’s total forests are way more than enough to absorb CO2 with lots to spare- and point out how insignificant man’s total CO2 really is- and point out that there is nothing that needs to be done about a purely natural process-
The more CO2, the better the world will be - because that means longer growing climates, more areas that can grow better and longer food.
The plants absolutely have to have CO2 to live. If we reduce CO2, we reduce the planets growing season, and then, reduce the actual CO2 the powerful want to reduce, us plebes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.