By now every person in the climate debate knows that Monckton used a swastika on a slide in LA.
UPDATE: By the time I wrote this, Monckton had already been roundly condemned for his unnecessary hyperbole, and unreservedly apologized. I couldn’t see much point in joining in the chorus. Yes, I agree, he did the wrong thing. The ends doesn’t justify the means. We can hardly complain about namecalling, if we do it too. I’m just trying to add perspective on the magnitude of the crime. People are suggesting we exile the man for — as far as I can tell — one clumsy joke and one very poor choice of slide.
None of this would be necessary if the media had reported information from both sides of the story.
I groaned when I saw it. The fascist comment has been used many times before (and Garnaut is advocating ad hoc extensive government control over business). The Nazi swastika, though, is a new low in rhetorical excess. Definitely not one I would have used, and I’m glad Monckton has apologized so quickly, and won’t be using it again — it’s a cheap shot.
This is a very dirty war. There are 2.3 million references to “climate denier”, with You-are-a-Nazi-Sympathizer-and-Holocaust-apologist implied at large. It’s a dehumanizing label and a demeaning insult that’s meant to bully people into silence. Rudd, Gillard, and Garnaut have all used it. Where is the outrage? (Where is their apology? )
Monckton’s apology:
“Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as ‘fascist’. I apologise humbly.
Will there be similar apologies from those who have called us ‘climate deniers’ or ‘denialists’, or who say we should be tattooed with our opinions, or imprisoned, or barred from Australia, or tried for ‘high crimes against humanity’?”
The cheap shot makes most skeptics uncomfortable, and rightly so. It sinks to the level of the average alarmist. I dryly note that Monckton gets his message in the media. [Herald Sun, The Age, The ABC]. You can rightly ask if that’s worth the price? It’s not the kind of media we want, but along with the apology, this, the real core of the debate, will appear tomorrow:
Professor Garnaut’s carbon trading scheme will cost $11.5 billion a year, rising at 4% above the annual rate of economic growth. He wants another $2.5 billion a year – again, rising at 4% above the growth rate – spent on “renewable” energy and “innovation”. And the Climate Change Department is already spending $1.6 billion a year. These are not the only costs, but let us assume they are.
Applying Professor Garnaut’s own discount rate of 2.65%, the cost of his policy over the next ten years will be close to $200 billion, with the aim of forestalling 25% of Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn represent 1.2% of global emissions, which – if the policy worked at this cost – would accordingly fall by just 0.3%.
In the absence of any mitigation, CO2 concentration by 2020 would be 412 ppmv, but Australia’s near-$200 billion of spending would cut this to 411.934 ppmv, forestalling 1/2750 of a degree of warming by that year – less than 1% of the threshold below which modern methods and instruments cannot measure any global temperature change.
If the whole world were to pursue Australia’s proposed policy, the cost of forestalling each degree of warming would be $545 trillion, or $18,500 from everyone on Earth. Preventing the 0.24 Cº global warming predicted to occur by 2020 would cost $130 trillion, or 18.3% of global GDP over the period.
The cost of the climate damage from doing nothing, however, would be just 1-4.1% of global GDP. Doing something would cost more than four times as much as doing nothing.
We can and should take the moral high ground, but for all our purity, it can take years to be heard. There are better ways than being reduced to an own-goal-ad-hom, but note that after Monckton overstepped the mark (and apologized immediately) the media have performed right on cue. I’m relaying messages asking for radio interviews to him today. (BTW You can probably hear him today in Melbourne interviewed by Bolt.)
In a perfect world, skeptic’s arguments would be heard without the performing circus and theatrics. But witness the difference between the Monckton tour and the Watts tour of 2010. I’m in the Watts camp — in the sense that I play it straight, and say reasonable things — but what happened when the Anthony toured Australia? Here’s a man who’d set up an extraordinary project, coordinating hundreds of volunteers to audit a national institution (which had a $4 billion dollar budget) and he’d found egregious failings, yet despite all that, the media in Australia went out of their way to ignore him. Watts was too “dangerous” for his normalcy.
One radio station in Perth was very interested in talking to Watts, but gutless. They wouldn’t interview him without also interviewing “someone from the other side”, presumably for fear of being labeled “deniers”. And the local university, UWA — which doesn’t even have a climate change specialty department, and sends out a psychologist to break laws of reason — o-so-conveniently announced they had no one who could do it. So Perth listeners were denied the chance to hear Anthony speak on radio and many were unaware of his lecture. (The venue was still nearly full, but for a man like him, it should have been packed.)
Compare that to the Monckton tour of 2009. The day Monckton arrived he told me the media were falling all over themselves to interview him. The ABC especially, were lining up to “showcase” him every which way they could. Why were they so keen to hear Monckton and not Watts? Because they thought they’d make Monckton look like a fool. They’d read the ad hom attack pieces, and were duped by the caricature. Instead of an easy target, Monckton took all those opportunities, and savaged their unresearched questions with humor and grace. His detailed research, thanks to years spent bed-ridden with Graves disease, meant he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the science and the history. The crowds filled every venue, lining up in queues til the venues overflowed. People were turned away in disappointment. The ABC had inadvertently played right into his hands. The dismayed recriminations flowed afterwards.
He doesn’t get everything right, (please, let’s avoid the Nazi theme and baseless insulting hyperbole) but he’s a very well informed commentator, and he’s taken nearly every insult under the sun. No that doesn’t excuse it, but it puts it in perspective.
Monckton is drawing attention to the double standard. Those who call us baseless insulting names on a daily basis suddenly get up in arms when someone throws baseless insulting names back at them. Don’t mistake me. I want us to stick to higher standards.
Ultimately the term “denier” has to stop. We can’t start talking science until the name-calling ends. It even hurts the so-called mainstream-science team, tricks them into underestimating their critics time and again, and twists their mindset so much they could waste hundreds of thousands of dollars making a movie advert that was supposed to be funny, but instead they graphically blew up children in the marketing disaster of the century.
Eco-fascists with grand ambition
BTW: How apropos, this comment below was posted on this blog two days ago. Note my highlight. This fascist doesn’t just want control of our businesses, he wants our children too.
From Tim.
We were having a good laugh at the posts at work (from both sides of the “debate”) so keep it coming. I though we ( the under 30’s at work anyway) should make you aware that no matter what side is right those in the “skeptics” camp are being change managed. You will go through many stages of this but will most likely not make it to the end state of acceptance before you die. Chin up though, we have your children and will make sure they live in a carbon constrained economy. Also take comfort that they will not want to smoke cancer-sticks, they will tolerate non-white australians and refugees, they will not pray to Jesus to save them and they won’t believe in an intelligent designer of the universe. Please dont let this stop you from “going down” screaming, we’d have to start reading dilbert or something or *heaven forbid* work in your businesses. Love and kisses … 😉
Dear Tim, if you want to brainwash kids, you’ll have to grow up and have some of your own. (Rest assured tho’, we’ll do all we can to save them from your eco-fascist future.)
There are some interesting comments at ClimateMadness.
——————————————————————
Menzies House has dug out versions of Nazi insults thrown at John Howard and compared the “condemnation”.
I never thought Monckton was as good a defender of climate scepticism as you do. A combination of Cold War politics and aristocratic arrogance jars on me. Calling someone a ‘denier’ is not as bad as calling them a Nazi. The best response to the phrase ‘denier’ is not to say “don’t put us in the same league as holocaust deniers” but “defend freedom of speech”. Otherwise, you are effectively saying “don’t deny freedom of speech for us – we’re not like those evil holocaust deniers”. First they came for the holocaust deniers…
REPLY: I agree that holocaust deniers should have the right to speak. My response to “denier” though is to point out the namecalling. If they had evidence….
11
Regarding the quote from ‘Tim’, it would seem to be an echo of this one:
“When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
– Adolph Hitler Quotes
http://www.allgreatquotes.com/adolf_hitler_quotes.shtml
There is no doubt that those using CO2-alarm as a vehicle for their own political and financial ambitions have been deliberately targeting children. My site contains many examples and links on this, one of the least forgiveable of the actions of alarmist groups.
10
Your defence of Monckton and his so-called apology is a prime example of moral equivalence. The use of Nazi images is a dehumanizing label as you point out and your claim that “There are 2.3 million references to “climate denier”, with You-are-a-Nazi-Sympathizer implied at large” does exactly what you tepidly admonish Monckton for doing. He does it up front and directly, you by unsupported innuendo and unsupported references.
REPLY: In fairness – these first three comments came in while I was still editing — and I found them useful. Thanks John. Your comment helped me clarify my text. There would be moral equivalence, if those who call us deniers, said sorry, and stopped using it. Organized denigration on a repetitive basis is in a different league. The 2.3 million references is what you get if you google “Climate denier”. — JN
10
Morning all.
That can’t be right, can it? Ross Garnaut isn’t a scientist, but he is an economist. As such, surely he must realise that cash flow discount rates are more realistically about 8-10% ???
If he’s not being misquoted in this statement, then Garnaut is either a fool or a con artist. And he should apologise.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Just found a video link to the conference where Monckton spoke: here
I haven’t had a chance to watch it as it is past my beddy time (yawns)
10
Just exactly what is wrong with calling it like it is? Isn’t the truth a total defense?
The CAGWers are calling for the total take over of the world’s economy and the moment by moment minute control over the lives of every producer of wealth on the earth. The producers are to be sacrificed to a total fraud by means that have never done anything but destroy lives and wealth. If anything, calling the alarmists Nazis doesn’t go far enough! Their programs have cost at least ten times the lives that the Nazis caused. See the DDT ban for a case in point. It too was a total fraud and is still costing suffering and death.
[It’s true those decisions have cost lives, but the Nazi insult is the wrong one to use. Killing with unintended consequences is not the same as deliberate premediated murder on a mass scale. I think we should keep our language accurate. — JN]
10
Plus…
Garnaut should cost his advocated policies at the market interest rates. (Hands up if you’d like your mortgage at 2.65%!)
All this to reduce the atmospheric level by less than 0.7 ppmv?
Get real, please.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
[…] Joanne Nova comments here. […]
10
Lionell Griffith,
The DDT ban is a complete and total myth. Information is readily available on the Internet for anyone who bothers to look. There’s no need to believe me or disbelieve me. If you don’t know the facts yourself, be a true skeptic and go research them.
10
@speedy #3
“If he’s not being misquoted in this statement, then Garnaut is either a fool or a con artist. And he should apologise.”
It is hard to work out which Speedy, Con Artist, Fool, or Both.
I prefer to look upon him as a hapless sociopathic spin merchant, who’s mathematical ability does not match his so called ‘ecomonic credentials’.
If you think his discount rate ‘error’ is a one off, read his UN contribution cock up.
Garnaut’s figures of $1.8 Billion per year,for Australias’s contribution to the UN Green Fund (which is based on current contributions to ‘UN Fast Start)‘ is blatently and arrogantly incorrect.
1.) He can’t add up a simple column of countries contributions.
2.) He assumes Japan will contribute 50% to the UN Green Start Fund – $50 Billion.
If you think Japan is going to give the UN $50 Billion a year, every year, then I’m afraid Ross Garnaut, that you are as ecomonically illiterate as Wayne Swan.
Australia’s contribution to the UN will be between $3.5 Billion and $4 Billion a year by 2020. (based on Garnauts theory and japan’s contributions)
Get real Garnaut, you are nothing but a govermnent stooge, with ever diminishing credibility.
10
Jo,
Check your premises. They do INTEND to cause the poverty, despair, death, and destruction. The last century PROVES their policies create that end. It cannot be escaped. Even if they evade reality, they CHOOSE the evasion and thus are RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Unless and until we call them out on the reality of what they are willfully intending to create in absolutely explicit terms, they will continue unabated.
A fundamental axiom of morality is “he who puts a cause into effect is responsible for the consequences”. Claims of “good intentions” or “I didn’t know” are not excuses for such errors. Their error here is monumentally greater than a simple mistake of knowledge. When you are advocating the control of the types of energy generation to be permitted on a global scale, YOU are responsible for finding out and accepting the consequences of its implementation. The consequence is the abolishing of technological civilization and the extinction of almost if not all human life on earth. Words of good intentions, explanation to the contrary, and claims that the result was not “expected” cannot and will not erase the evil they are planning and in the process of accomplishing.
Calling them Nazis in spirit is the least we can do.
10
@Sphaerica (Bob): #8
“The DDT ban is a complete and total myth.”
Yes, Bobby Boy, we know the background, JFK etc, india still makes it etc.
.
TRY THIS ONE:
“In 1995, the Catholic Women`s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries”
IT WAS A STERILISATION PROGRAM BY STEALTH.
.
Oh Dear, Billy Gates and his mates have contributed $40 Billion to a NEW vaccination program for Women via the UN.
Must be in Billy’s NEW PLAN for reducing the World’s Population to under 8 Billion.
A
NaziLeopard dosn’t change its spots Bobby Boy.10
Stick to the science. That’s all I can say. Most people who want the carbon(sic) tax do so out of a need for justice. They believe C02 is a pollutant and corporate greed is responsible for the problem. You cannot construct a political argument against the tax, otherwise the believers would take the responsibility on their own shoulders and use less energy. This won’t happen because there is no justice in them curtailing their energy consumption while everyone else goes about their lives with ‘business as usual’. It’s a nice ethical catch-22.
When we well and truly demolish the science for everyone to understand, even those who are not prepared to do the research then, the politics will simply evaporate.
While I’m no conspiracy theorist, I acknowledge there are, and will always be, people in the world who would see us under their subjugation. However, running around calling everything you disagree with a big plot to take over the world is non-sense. Human society after all, is one big conspiracy. Which is why we’re so successful. All we need to do to prevent enslavement to these unhelpful social forces is to conspire to take over the world with peace and good will. Which has been pretty successful for us schemers so far.
Once the global warming panic becomes nothing more than a rotting corpse, those that seek to enslave us will move onto some other scare. So, it has been and so it shall always be. In the mean-time, panicking people by evoking notions of a third-reicht style of government is almost upon us can only promote disempowerment. There are a multitude of steps that we, as a democracy, can advance to strengthen our own conspiracy. Fear is the tool of fascism. Let’s not be tempted to use it, simple though it may be to employ.
10
Lionell, yes, the noxious arrogant fools who kill-through-their-inept policies deserve a shellacking, and probably a lot more. (I’ll leave punishment to the courts).
I object to the Nazi comparison. Apart from being an odiously overused cliche, the death camps were an order more evil and it demeans the deaths of all those who suffered in them to toss the term so lightly.
No I still think Monckton shouldn’t have used that slide. But nor will I abandon him for one mistake. He plays the clown for the media, and got it wrong this time, but in the big scheme of things he gets media (usually for more benign reasons) and achieves a lot for skeptics.
See, in the end, I’m not sure anyone intends to cause poverty death and destruction. Sheer stupidity and narcissistic arrogance explain a lot.
10
Joanne Nova:
June 24th, 2011 at 3:11 am
“See, in the end, I’m not sure anyone intends to cause poverty death and destruction. Sheer stupidity and narcissistic arrogance explain a lot.”
Agreed. But not helping a person in distress is a crime; when the Western Greens are campaigning for the prohibition of DDT, boycott produce from areas where DDT is used in-house, and campaign against electrification of, say South Africa like Slick Willy did, trying to block the World Bank from financing a coal power plant (unsuccessfully), they are committing this crime and MUST be held accountable.
They are blathering about ethics constantly so this very simple piece of reasoning should not be too much over their heads. Well, actually, causing death by neglect is their crime and it’s clear to see for everyone who opens their eyes.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/06/20/callous-der-spiegel-organic-food-business-more-important-than-the-lives-of-millions-of-africans/
10
DirkH:
June 24th, 2011 at 3:50 am
“Well, actually, causing death by neglect is their crime and it’s clear to see for everyone who opens their eyes.”
Sorry – i made a logical error. The examples i mentioned can best be compared with pushing a drowning person who tries to climb out of the water (trying to help himself) back into the water. Hmm. What’s the right term for that?…
10
* Early in the war between the states a battle was fought at Shiloh Tennessee. The casualties from this single battle outnumbered casualties from all of the previous US wars combined. In the immediate aftermath of the battle, Northern newspapers vilified General Ulysses S Grant for his performance, accusing him of being drunk, falsely alleging that this had resulted in many of his men being bayoneted in their tents because of a lack of defensive preparedness. Despite the Union victory, Grant’s reputation suffered in Northern public opinion.
Bipartisan calls from Senators and Congressmen for Grant’s removal inundated the White House.
After listening patiently for a long time, the President, gathering himself up in his chair, said, with the utmost earnestness:
“I can’t spare this man; he fights!”
Similarly, Monckton speaks for me.
10
Jo,
The ONLY difference from the Nazis is that they do not YET have the power to set up the death camps, the gas chambers, the ovens, the death panels, and the death trains. In every other particular beyond the words they use and the uniforms they wear, they are exactly the same in purpose and consequence.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, swims like a duck,… it IS a duck no matter what words are used. Not to identify them for what they are is to blank out the memory of the death and destruction the ideas engendered. To hold the ideas and to work to put them into effect is to purposefully enact the only consequence possible: death and destruction.
As I said, claims of ignorance and good intentions don’t count. Especially in the face of the evidence of the past 100 years. They are not and cannot be innocent in the matter. Even if they are truly ignorant, they are guilty BECAUSE they are responsible for knowing the consequences of such monstrous ideas and actions. They should be held fully accountable.
I say let’s call them for what they actually are: monstrously evil. It is way past time to be polite. We are in a battle for our lives AND the continuance of technological civilization. Nice words and cream puffs are totally inadequate weapons. If you are going to a knife fight bring a fully armed and prepared swat team and don’t bother being nice about it. Make sure there is only one outcome: in your favor!
10
@Jo Nova #13
Whilst I found the ‘Nazi’ comment unhelpfull, in what is, so far, a politically correct campaign on our side. (Supposed ‘Death Threats’ to Scientists aside)
I do think that Monkton was somewhat justified in his description of Garnaut. (The Guy is a sociopathic, narcissistic ,liar)
.
In our modern day society, the meanings of some words have become distorted.
Nazi no longer means ‘a member of the Nazi Party’, and Gay no longer means ‘Happy and Blithe and Merry and Gay’.
It is easy, if you are young, to judge a persons values by modern day standards, when this may neither, be correct, or applicable, to the standards of the time period of their upbringing.
I mean, during WW2, wasn’t every German considered to be a Nazi, regardless of their rank, duty, sex or age.
.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
The Nazis believed in the supremacy of their ‘Aryan’ race.
The Nazis thought that their survival required them to create a ‘New World Order’.
LET ME SUBSTITUTE.
The Greens believe in the supremacy of their ‘Warmist’ kind.
The Greens think that their survival requires them to create a ‘New World Order’.
.
Is either of the above statements wrong ? are there any similarities ?
.
I noticed Simon Sheik, from ‘Get Up’ taking advantage of Monktons comments on ‘Agenda’ today.
I wish we could prove that their funding originally came from the Nazi collaberator, Soros.
.
10
The Nazt comparison is both insulting and technically wrong. The CAGW side follow after Stalin and Mao, not Adolf.
10
Joanne Nova,
I think it is important for people, regardless of their own beliefs, to recognize that those on the other side are not evil in either nature or intent.
People who object to the prospect of climate change think that action on climate change will harm economies and agriculture, and so cause suffering and perhaps death.
People who subscribe to the prospect of climate change think that inaction will cause dramatic environmental changes that will harm economies and agriculture, and so cause suffering and perhaps death.
Anyone who is confident enough in their own understanding of the issues is free to feel frustration with those who do not agree with their position, but attempts to vilify them by casting their beliefs as a conscious effort to hurt others is quite simply wrong and unacceptable.
Arrogantly declaring such people to be irresponsible in their own stupidity is fine, but you’d better be pretty darn certain of your own position before you take that step.
Everyone believes in what they are doing. The hard part is being able to believe in what you have done.
To take it one step further, anyone who dances around the implication that some people in the equation are actual villains, and by so doing incites such beliefs and anger in others, is similarly guilty. There may be people on either side who, in the long run, can be proved to have willfully mislead others for their own gain, and to the detriment of everyone. If anyone can offer such incontrovertible proof, either before or after the fact, then so be it.
Until then, and in all other cases, vilifying your opponent is a convenient excuse to avoid being rational and wise, and to avoid moving things forward as opposed to just reveling one’s own, righteous, and misplaced anger.
10
While it is wrong accuse someone of being a NAZI because they have been fooled by the CO2 is bad propaganda it is also naive to think that this group is not out there getting involved to recruit members and gain influence.
Have a look at the authors of this Socialist Green sustainable enviroment web page.
What do they call themselves?
Also note the common origins of the CO2 warming myth and NAZI Eugenics.
Notice the last sentence of that went missing from the Svante Arrhenius wiki page.
It is my view that our planet could sustain a far far higher population than it has right now with ease. Those who think that something should be done to lower population should realise that poverty increases population and prosperity sends population into decline. Increasing Atmospheric CO2 would therefore reduce population via the cheaper food it directly causes to grow. Cheaper energy from the process of increasing atmospheric CO2 would produce even more prosperity and reduce populations further.
Lets hope that todays greens do not become NAZIs and like Svante Arrhenius begin to see the benifits of CO2.
Taxing CO2 and making Energy too expensive to afford are the exact wrong things to do for the planet. Especially when the solar decline and recent volcanic activity mean that savage global cooling is about to begin.
10
I have expressed my opinion of this matter at Menzies House – HERE
10
I may be wrong in my understanding of Moncton’s intention but the way I took it was not all fascists were Nazi. Mussolini wasn’t a Nazi. Hitler was fascist before he he started Nazi(ism). The swastika was a symbol used in Korea a thousand years before Hitler. The slide with the swastika, was a reminder of what fascism led to in the past.
10
Madam,
The last part of the above sentence is pure demagoguery from your side.
And now here you are dead and damn wrong, I wonder how you would have written the words. 🙁
Lionell Griffith is 100% right.
I suggest to read all the comments on WUWT site on the same topic for better understanding.
Regards,
Przemysław Pawełczyk
10
Joanne Nova
Would that it was that simple.
I desperately want to agree with you and I think that all decent people do but something is happening (not climate change) and people of my age who have lived through at least ons world war, are disturbed by the apparent lust for power of many of the proponents of AGW. These people seem to be ignoring the science and proceeding on the basis of the precautionary principle which in turn is being distorted.
What are we to think?
10
My observation, though some may feel Monckton has gone a bit over the top, is that many Aussies, who are less than impressed with Gillard, her motley crew and her carbon tax feel some sympathy with Monckton’s view of Garnaut. We can all be a little precious about what our opponents call us. All is fair in love and war. On the other hand I think Monckton hasn’t got it quite right. Goebbels would be my choice for Garnaut and perhaps the fixed staring Combet is more aptly characterised as the big H.
As we know Gillard is more the Middle Eastern leader, who is still in a bit of strife, type. And that is gospel if one is a Liberal Party true believer.
10
@Sphaerica (Bob): #21
“There may be people on either side who, in the long run, can be proved to have willfully mislead others for their own gain,…”
Bob
From your post you sound a little undecided, at least you are looking at both points of veiw, (as most of us on this site, beleive it or not, actually do).
Let us weigh up the gains from “Global Cooling”, “Global Warming” , “Climate Change” or whatever the ‘Current’ word for it is.
(All I know Bob, is that it has been a ‘Scare Campaign’ since I was a teenager in the 70’s and it changes it’s name with the weather)
So:
Who stands to gain most:
SKEPTICS
No TAX
No ETS
No DECREASE in Co2-e
No GAIN
.
WARMISTS
TAX = Government
ETS = Banks + Government
No DECREASE in Co2-e
GAIN = approx $1 Trillion market globally.
.
Who has most to gain Bob and who, ‘on the balance of probability’, is most likely telling the truth ?
.
Google GreenX (carbon exchange) and see who, really, really, want’s this.
If Bankers say ‘It’s Good for us’ should we believe them ?
10
“We can and should take the moral high ground, but for all our purity, it can take years to be heard.”
Nobody can ever attain the moral high ground, because there’s always someone else, or other groups, that claim the exact same thing. To claim the moral high ground is the testament to arrogance and the highest hippie horses.
Of course I’m of the logic that the good Lord only should’ve apologized if it served a tactical advantage.
Though, I fail to see your apologetic reason in this since you yourself aren’t exactly void of ridicule. Or is it because it is ok to link by jester by word but not by imagery?
10
Whether Chris Monkton was whipping up media interest or not I’m not sure but I think our mate Baa Humbug has got it right. Bob Malloy reposted BH’s post from Bolts blog yesterday but I think since Jo has started this separate thread on the topic it needs reposting again
“That’s not a knife…this is a knife”
10
Sorry I meant @ 28 to block Baa Humbugs comment in blue but it didn’t work.
REPLY: Done 🙂
10
TrueNews,
I look at the science, and the science alone. It’s either right or it’s wrong.
Conspiracy theories do not interest me, because in the end they are irrelevant (or, rather, they are only relevant to people who are not themselves able to absorb and understand all of the science, and so must themselves instead figure out who is telling the truth, rather then determining the truth for themselves).
10
Ahh Sphaerica… if only you were so passionate in searching for proof of positive feedbacks. Therein lies your duplicity. Smoke, mirrors, terms like “climate change” which you know are meaningless and deceptive. You are part of the problem, not the solution. You seek to mystify not clarify.
I ask for simple answers. You offer only obfuscation, motherhood statements and double speak.
10
Sphaerica @ 30
I’m with you all the way, brother. we know that science works by using theories to explain the observed phenomena in our world. We modify or reject our theories when they fail to match the real life observations around us. For example:
1. Increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the global temperatures by a significant extent. (IPCC et al)
2. The earth’s oceans contain 50 times the tonnage of CO2 that are contained in the atmosphere. (Chemical Engineer’s Handbook)
3. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the temperature of the water increases. (Henry’s Law, Chemical Engineer’s Handbook)
We then take these facts and use them to explain the world. But there’s a problem isn’t there? As soon as we get any warming of the oceans, they will release CO2 to the atmosphere. The higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will warm the atmosphere, and, in turn, the oceans. Then the oceans will release more CO2…
We’re all doomed – and have been for the last 4 billion years! I can see why you would be calling for governments to take urgent action NOW! Either that, or one of our assumptions is wrong. I wonder which one it could be?
Science is great, isn’t it?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Monckton is no fool. He’s one of the most intelligent guys around the climate discussion table. WHAT HE DID WAS PLANNED to get the media spotlights, make people know that there is a hot discussion and that this discussion is two sided and not settled at all. He knows that it wasn’t right to use the nazi symbol, but in time, this will be forgiven, while the publicity would stick. Meanwhile the hate-filled ‘denier’ label so much loved by the AGW extremists has now been equalled by the much hated Nazi symbol, thus, the denier label will now be deleted, from the warmists’ thesaurus. From now on, the discussion will be more on equal terms, thanks to Monckton
10
Bulldust,
Your venomous anger and hatred are duly noted (and ignored).
10
Sphaerica # 33
As is the scientific paradox in post 32 I suppose…
See ya!
Speedy
10
Sphaerica @ 33
As is the scientific paradox in post 32, I suppose…
See ya!
Speedy
10
I realized long ago already that science has nothing to do with climate change except to those who don’t want to admit, or can’t see that it’s really a political disease.
It’s a means to power, money and other more sinister goals — witness James Hansen in league with Keith Farnish or Al Gore simply making money hand over fist.
The science only matters to those who haven’t tumbled to the truth…or worse, have but try to deny it.
Some might back out of it if we could give them a safe way out. But I know of no way to do that.
It’s of no concern whether they’re Nazis or your local corner church. If they work against you, you must work against them. Name calling will not help. Identify them. Design strategies to defeat them. Carry out tactics to implement your strategy. Use science only if someone important enough to personally defeat really believes the science (and that ain’t journalists and politicians folks).
It’s political. Fight it politically.
10
The “under 30s at work” are all global warming alarmist, left-wing nutters? As an eighteen year old skeptic, I find this blatant stereotype offensive.
10
For what its worth i agree with Jo 100%. CM put one in our own goal. Its not fatal. Lets move on (as Julia would say). And get back to the science and the campaigning against their disasterous tax. The carbonistas will be thrashed at the next election. We only have to keep working away at the issues and the opportunists, liars and scammers are done for first politically and eventually in the science.
10
Got to love the haughtiness. It makes me smile that you have absolutely no comeback on the positive feedbacks. Bravo. Admission of defeat accepted.
10
It is a fact then that the climate change agenda has a part in the overall war on Christianity.
I don’t know the figures but it seems to me that the majority of refugees coming into Australia are refugees from Islamic countries.
As Christians put a cross atop their churches symbolising Christ crucified, The Muslims put the crescent Moon atop their mosques symbolising their Moon god.
Not many people of the Christian faith would know that “Allah” is actually a Moon god.
A wonder is it that the ancient name for the Moon is SIN a rendition of SUEN.
The Crescent Moon is the symbol of the chief Babylonian god “Sin” which was also the chief god worshipped in ancient Arabia at the time of Mohammed.
The Crescent Moon today is still the symbol of the Arab/Islam Moon worshipers and goes under the name of Allah which translated means – The God.
The Muslim festival of Ramadan starts at the sighting of the first new crescent Moon.
Sins chief sanctuary was at UR and named E-gish-shir-gal,the house of the great light.
The crescent Moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba in Mecca today and is the central symbol of Islam on every mosque throughout the world.
Bible readers would be interested in the fact that the name Jericho near the Jordan river is a Canaanite word meaning “The Moon”. See Deuteronomy 17:2-5. And Sinai means The Widerness of Sin.
10
The one fact is the apalling ignorance of the goals and aspirations of the Fabians – Christopher Monckton is one of the few who recognises it – the rest of you need to do some homework – unless you have fallen for the poisonous rhetoric of the welfare state ideal proselytised by the Fabians and think they are some gentle folk with delusions of socialist goodness.
A good starting point is http://www.keynesatharvard.org
10
Ross,
Spot on in interpreting Monckton’s controversial comment and raising the standards even higher.
10
Sphaerica:
In all seriousness, because you are such a fabulously serious person after all, why is it that after months of avoiding this site when the threads were chock full of science debates, you chose to return now and weigh in on two threads mostly unrelated to climate science?
No really? I call shenanigans. The timing clearly illustrates that you are merely trying to score points the one time a prominent sceptic made a slip of judgement. Where was your magnificence when the the serious science was being discussed?
Or alternatively, if you only venture out of your echo chambers when such moral outrages are discussed… where were you when the 10:10 videos were blogged? The Richard Glover Nazi-esque tattooing and modes of killing of sceptics? The Greenpeace death threats to all sceptics?
But noooo, you come waltzing in here when one sceptic makes one wrong move. Seriously, get a grip. Your sense of morals and balance is found wanting. I know BS when I see and I calls it.
10
“TrueNews” (19),
This may be of interest.
Nazi collaborator George Soros behind Carbon Cate’s (Cate Blanchett) ‘tax me’ ad…..
Foreign billionaire hedge fund speculator, drug pusher and Nazi collaborator George Soros is the éminence grise behind the Cate Blanchett carbon tax ad, which is sponsored by Soros’ Australian front, GetUp. “The media circus over Cate Blanchett is irrelevant,” Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood declared today. “The real issue is George Soros’ underhanded intervention to manipulate Australian politics.”
By his own admission, George Soros was a witting participant in the Holocaust, as a Nazi collaborator with the extermination machine run by Adolf Eichmann in Soros’ native Hungary. In at least two television interviews, in 1994 and 1998, Soros freely admitted to his Nazi collaboration, and declared that he felt no guilt over his actions, or over the extermination of nearly a half million of his fellow Hungarian Jews. Even worse, he exulted in his autobiography that, “It was actually, probably the happiest year of my life—that year of German occupation. For me it was a very positive experience.”
Soros went on to become an agent for the City of London, using his Quantum hedge fund as a political battering ram to smash nations and national currencies, under the personal direction of British cabinet minister Lord Malloch-Brown, a board member of the Quantum Fund.
Aside from forcing British imperial economic policies such as free trade and deregulation onto targeted nations, Soros has used his ill-gotten loot to madly push the legalisation of hard drugs and euthanasia. And, on behalf of British geopolitical strategy, he has helped topple national governments by financing the creation of fake “grassroots” protest movements, such as the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” and Georgian “Rose Revolution”, aimed at destabilising Russia. And GetUp is just one more fake “grassroots” movement. Look at the history.
GetUp is the Australian counterpart to Soros’ MoveOn.org in the United States. The two co-founders of GetUp, Harvard graduates Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, both worked for the Soros-funded MoveOn.org in the U.S. to also launch the global web “movement”, Avaaz.org. Madden was previously a consultant to the World Bank and Heimans previously consulted for the UN, OECD and ILO. And when GetUp suddenly popped up in 2005, this “people’s organisation” boasted among its founding board members: John Hewson, former federal opposition leader, former Macquarie Bank Executive Director, and Trilateral Commission member; Don Mercer, a mining chief, former ANZ CEO, and a past Director of the Australian Institute of Company Directors; and Evan Thornley, the super-rich Labor Party money-bags who was also National Secretary of the Australian Fabian Society, to which belong all of the ALP’s leading advocates of population reduction—Julia Gillard, Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson.
The Blanchett ad is also sponsored by the Australian Conservation Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
Mr Isherwood said, “It’s not exactly surprising to see the Prince Philip-founded ACF in bed with a former Nazi collaborator, Soros. After all, Philip’s own family in Germany was full of ranking Nazis as documented in the new film Unlawful Killing, while his two partners in founding the WWF in 1961—the mother of the world’s entire environmentalist movement—were former Nazi SS member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and British Eugenics Society President Julian Huxley, and here in Australia the guy he deployed to do all the legwork in setting up the ACF, Francis Noble Ratcliffe, was a professed admirer of Mussolini. And of course Hitler’s Nazi Party grew out of the post-World War I ‘green movement’ in Germany in the first place. Most of the top Nazis were Greens.
“So what is the ACTU doing in bed with Philip’s ACF and WWF and the old Nazi George Soros? Perhaps it should explain to its members why it is spending their money to support a Nazi agenda, and one which will tax them out of existence, literally!”
To find out more on the fraud of global warming, click here.
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html
For a rundown of the apparatus behind the Nazi green movement, click here
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?id=free_new_citizen_cv7n2.html
10
I agree that he went too far with the Swastika photo.He also went too far with statements like this:
“Heil Hitler, on we go,” said Lord Monckton in discussing Prof Garnaut, as a quote was displayed beside a swastika.
LINK
It would be more effective if he attacked Ross Garnaut’s presentation as economic fascism.Attacking the proposals is always better than attacking the person who makes them.
I think the media has made it clear they will be very sensitive to what the Viscount says.But overlook vile presentations such as the 10:10 video.Or to throw pies at people.The way Mark Lynas did to Bjorn Lomborg.
I call it selective indignation and frankly I consider it unfair!
10
Bulldust,
Sorry, but there’s no science to be found here.
10
Bulldust
Priceless.
10
I will probably get jumped on for saying this but most people get their historical “facts” from their watching of Hollywood movies.
Why did Churchill and Rooseveldt “love” Stalin and hate Hitler?
Googling the war crimes of Eisenhower and Churchill puts things in a different perspective.
Govern-ment means ruling the mind. Government is about managing perceptions.
10
It is incorrect to label CO2 cultists as “Nazis”.
Unlike CO2 cultists, not all Nazis were mass-murderers.
History will not record CO2 cultists as “being like Nazis”.
History will record Nazis as “being like CO2 cultists”.
At worst, maybe 20 million deaths can be directly ascribed to the Nazis.
If the CO2 cultists have have their way (and there appears little that can stop them now) they plan on the deaths of upwards of two billion people over the next decade or so.
There really is no comparison.
10
Sphaerica:
And you claim to come here to teach us how to be proper sceptics. Once again I call shenanigans. You can dish it, but you simply can’t take it. Where were you weighing in on my economics contribution which tears down the entire argument for taxing GHG emissions in Australia?
What are you going to do next? Scurry back to your quiet nook on the net and blog about the evil that is Bulldust? It seems a likely outcome, because you can’t answer a single straight question on science posed to you.
10
Przemysław Pawełczyk, Lionell, I’m with you 100%. This is war for our survival and that of technical civilisation. Those on the other side know this full well and are happy to see billions die. Whether they do this directly or indirectly is irrelevant. Death camps are in fact more honest. There’s no hypocrisy and the defence “we didn’t mean for that to happen” won’t wash. Stalin starved millions of kulaks to death as a matter of deliberate policy. Does this make him a better man than Hitler just because he didn’t round them up and gas them? Likewise Mao.
I’m not sure where we are in the battle. We may have already lost. However Jerry Pournelle keeps saying “despair is a sin”, so we have no choice but to keep fighting.
As for Garnaut, he’s just a cheap whore selling himself to the government, like Flannery and others. Psychopaths.
10
Better to attack what the person says than to attack him personally.
Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?
10
When my 15yr old daughter was just 7 attending a catholic primary school, she told me she was being hassled and bullied by an 8yr old boy.
Me: What does he do?
Daughter: He cuts me off, he pushes me. He makes fun of me and he and his friends laugh at me.
Me: What have you done about it?
D: I told my teacher
Me: What did she do?
D: She spoke to him
Me: has he stopped
D: No
Me: How long has this been going on?
D: Ummm about 3 or 4 weeks
Me: Really? You go to the teacher each time?
D: Yes
Me: What has your teacher done each time?
D: Talk to him
Me: That’s all? Has he not been punished?
D: No, they tell him it’s the wrong thing to do, wrong choice to make or something.
Me: Do you want advice to stop this?
D: Yes
Me: Will you do exactly as I say?
D: Yes
Me: OK, next time he comes up to you and starts pushing, punch him right in the belly as hard as you can, then trip him so he falls down to the ground. Once he is on the ground, go straight to your teacher and say exactly this…”I’m here for my punishment”. She will ask you why, tell her what he did and what you did, then tell me about it straight away.
Two days later
D: Dad, I did what you told me
Me: What happened?
D: I punched him in the stomach, he started crying and fell to the ground himself.
Me: Did you go to your teacher?
D: Yes
Me: What did she say?
D: I told her I was here for my punishment, she laughed and said “what punishment?” I told her what I did.
Me: What’d she say?
D: She said it was the wrong thing to do and asked me why I did it. I told her you told me to do it.
Me: What’d she say?
D: She said dads don’t always know the right things to do and that this was the wrong thing to do.
Me: Well we’ll see if it was right or wrong over the next few days. Are you OK?
D: Yeah I’m fine, I’m not worried about it or anything.
My kid hasn’t been bullied since, NOT ONCE. Though she is of small stature for her age (gets it from her mother) she is chock full of confidence with her peers, meaning her demeanour doesn’t invite bullying.
We just need to hit the nut with a hammer to crack it, no need to use a sledgehammer. In the case of this thread, we hit a nut (The Garnaut nut) a little too hard, but the nut survives, he didn’t wake up with leprosy in the morning because he was offended the night before.
But the nuts now know we can hit, so maybe they’ll pull their heads in and stop bullying. Do you hear me Jill Singer, Richard Glover et al?
10
Of course if we are talking pure Fascism then Mussolini and his bundle of sticks is the lad. Nazism is a more virulent strain with a bit more emphasis on the blue eyed blonde Aryans and their rights.
10
You know I was initially dismayed by Moncktons imagery and Hitler references. But as the news makes its way into newspaper recycling bins, I’m starting to realise that this might just be a tactical loss on his behalf. I mean – why would he make references to a relatively obscure Australian economist while speaking in the USA? If he was going to attack anyone, why not Bob Brown, Christine Milne or even Julia Gillard herself? There is plenty of rich material.
But I’m beginning to see the plan (if it is a plan and not just a figment of my imagination). The one thing he cannot have in Australia is empty lecture halls and media ignorance. Rightly or wrongly, just about every person who watches the news now knows (a) who he is and (b) what he believes in. Not even a $50 million advertising campaign could bring about the awareness that one single throwaway slide has done. He’s even been trending in Twitter for Australia for 48 hours straight. Now that is exposure.
With the mea culpa and calls for even treatment, he has announced his upcoming tour in a blaze of publicity, as well as highlighted the previously un-commented columns portraying tattooing and gassing. Newspaper articles about him will get read, radio interviews will happen. I assume, as Jo says, when he does front up to the Australian media, instead of a rabid fool, they’ll find a well-researched and well-spoken debater with a very firm grasp of the facts. I sincerely hope he ends up on a morning TV show with one of those soft-brained academics they like to pull in from time to time on the ABC. The ones who like to quote rising commodity prices as a harbinger of planetary doom from lack of resources rather than a rational market response to widescale currency printing by the Federal Reserve. The ones that insist that the sea levels will rise at least 1m (they used to all say 6!) unless we start taxing ourselves to death. The ones that use terms like ‘climate denier’ (what does that even mean?). Yes, I hope he is brought on to discuss issues with one or more of these people, who probably think they have a real chance of shooting him down by invoking discussion about his use of Nazi references.
I still don’t agree with the nazi imagery, and I worry about the uncommitted reasonable adults sitting on the fence might allow themselves to be swayed by the continual government calls that anyone who doubts all this is a bunch of conspiracy nutters. So I’m against the methods, but as an effective PR stunt, I think he puts even Richard Branson in the shade.
10
Monckton’s comparison of Garaut to the Nazis was an ill-judged piece of namne-calling which did nothing to advance any arguments he was trying to put. Garnaut’s attitude may well be fascistic, and the pint could have been made by stopping with that observation, rather than resorting to hyperbole (hyperbowl?). Speaking as one whose family was directly affected by the Nazis’ policies of oppression and liquidation of opposition, I did not find monckton’s comments offensive, but rather childish andinept. The Nazi label, like the denier label, has been used over and over through the years as a rhetorical device to demonise one’s opponents, rally the troops, and avoid directly confronting the other side’s arguments. Let’s leave the name-calling to those without the wit to construct and defend an argument.
10
Baa Humbug @ 54 –fantastic.
I find it interesting that the “other side” is jumping up and down about Chris Monckton –they even have “rap sheet” of his supposed errors. Why do they get this way if he is so hopeless ( in their opinion ) ? Why don’t they just shut up and not given him any media coverage etc. ?
The cannot shut up because they know he is a very effective and well informed communicator so they have to try shut him down in other ways. But I think , as brc , has commented they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
10
[…] Monckton stirs the pot with a cheap shot, and the media obediently perform […]
10
Sphaerica
You are a concern troll. When you post on Real Climate you invariably use the term ‘denier’ and other derogatory phrases regarding skeptics. As there is no science here in your opinion and you all about the science why comment at all.Then again with no traffic on your blog and Real Climate in decline ( I guess Gavin had a rap on the knuckles for blogging instead of working for his salary on GISS time) you need to find other outlets.
10
Monckton screwed up. Simple as that.The offending presentation was given a month or so ago in the USA so it seems that Monckton’s Oz opponents went looking for examples of extreme over kill and struck paydirt just in time to land a killer blow.It diminishes much of the impact his Oz tour will have. It must be a great disappointment to those who are funding him. What I found interesting was the approach adopted by Tony Jones. Jones tried to score a point by interviewing a spokesman for the Jewish community. Unfortunately for Jones the spokesman condemned both sides of the debate for slithering down into the Nazi/holocaust denier brand of imagery.
10
Funny, I don’t remember the CO2 cultists getting so worked up over this Nazi slur:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/alp-rages-at-greens-nazi-joke/2007/04/01/1175366078761.html
From link on Andrew Bolt.
10
Titled “The greening of Australian Politics”,this article in the Geelong Advertiser on Monday May 27th 1989 is interesting.
By AAP correspondents
“The Fabian Society,the Labour movements think tank,has jumped on the international environmental bandwagon and its meeting in Victoria at the weekend could sharpen Socialist vision on protecting the eco system.
About 200 people attended the annual session at Lorne,west of Melbourne,to hear visiting American climate expert,John Topping,appeal to Australia to host a world conference on the Greenhouse effect,sometime in early 1991.
This is the first time the Fabians have hosted a speaker on the environment.
Mr Topping,president of the Washington DC-based Climate Institute,is convinced Australia heads the world on the environment.
Earlier in the week he said Australia led the world in the grass roots consciousness.
The Tasmanian electorate would agree with him although it may never have heard of him.
And the Tasmanian movement buoyed by the results of the Tasmanian election,could stand candidates in the next Federal and future State elections.
According to New South Wales Total Environment Centre director,Mr Milo Dunphy,discussions were taking place between conservation groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation[ACF] and the Wilderness Society on the feasability of directly entering the political arena.
He said the next meeting of the ACF Council was late this year,but a postal ballot could be held at any time if an early Federal election was called.
A move by conservationists into the Federal arena has long been viewed with fear by the major parties, particularly Labor,which has tried to highlight its own record with decisions like the Franklin Dam.
Coalition overture
The Federal Coalition has made overtures to conservationists with a pledge to prevent the exploitation of the Antarctic,while the Democrats are darkening their green tinge.
Victorian Senator,Janet Powell,said the Tasmanian result proved Australian people now led politicians in the concern for ecological welfare.
At the State level there is a belief by all parties they are on the right track.”
By the time this news made it into the major national dalies,no mention was made of the Fabian society.
10
Well I think Ross Garnaut has a fascist mentality, didn’t worry me
one bit. When he came to the UNE (Armidale) he rebuffed any questions that queried his climate change theory. The man is mazed, he wrote a paper to advise farmers to farm kangaroos, marsupials, instead of beef and sheep to cut down methane emissions. (Just Google – Garnaut – methane emissions). Now they are going to shoot wild camels from the air to cut methane emissions. Where’s the RSPCA now. No go for it Lord Christopher. If he was Australian he would have got away with it,
but Ozzies sometimes have a thing about another Ozzie being mocked by a posh speaking Pom, don’t you think that?
10
Gud one Kevin @ 62, Julia and Wayne Swann are members of the Australian Fabian Society. Now if that doesn’t explain their attitudes particularly when regarding to listening to rational
science.
10
followup on the other Lewandowski:
22 June: EU Observer: Andrew Willis: Alarm as EU budget chief questions global warming
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is apparently unconcerned that the chief architect of the EU’s forthcoming multi-annual budget has major doubts over the existence of global warming.
Environmental groups are sounding alarm bells however, warning that EU budget commissioner Janusz Lewandowski’s scepticism towards climate change is almost certain to affect his drafting of the crucial EU document which will shape the bloc’s policy for years to come (2014-2020).
“There’s an emerging point of view, that the thesis about coal energy as the main cause of global warming is highly doubtful,” Lewandowski told Polish trade magazine Nowy Przemysl earlier this month.
“Question marks are appearing ever more frequently over global warming itself,” added the Polish commissioner, whose country relies on coal for 90 percent of its electricity generation.
A spokesman for Lewandowski confirmed the accuracy of the statements.
“His overall line is that it would be impossible for Poland to shift away from coal overnight. But he also expressed his doubts over climate change, in a personal capacity,” Patrizio Fiorilli told this website…
Green groups said Lewandowski’s comments were deeply perturbing however, amid reports that next week’s budget proposals may include cuts for environmental schemes under the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP).
“It comes as a shock, especially following the commission president’s recent statements. So much for collegiality,” said Tony Long, director of the WWF’s Brussels office.
“That degree of climate change scepticism is now rare in Europe, and even rarer among politician’s of Lewandowski’s seniority.”
“One can’t have much faith in the commission’s budget proposals if one of the chief architects admits in a private capacity that he has doubts over global warming.”…
http://euobserver.com/9/32534
10
Why all the fuss from warmists over a possible 1 or 2C of warming is beyond me, nature does it nearly every day, month, year or decade regularly, even over 5 times this amount, and carbon doesn’t even come into it. My non science, amateur take on: Weather…
http://pindanpost.com/2011/06/22/its-weather-alright/
10
Being of a generation old enough to have lived through World War II gives one a different perspective on many subjects.
Many younger people would not realise that AGW guru James Hansen was first to introduce the Nazi slur against opponents by referring to the rail transport of coal as “Death Trains”.
The Nazi theme has been continued by labelling those who question the AGW hypothesis as “Deniers”. The link between the two terms and what has become known as the “Holocaust”is undeniable.
Denier is particularly offensive to most of us as we do not deny climate change,neither do we deny historical and continued global warming or cooling as dictated by natural variability.
We question the hypothesis that a tiny human-induced increase in an essential trace gas will cause runaway catastrophic global warming.
Name-calling is never helpful and I too was disappointed at the way Monckton made a point that what was happening was a fascist tactic.
I welcome the fact he has made a genuine apology for any implied slur by the use of the very unhelpful swastika.
However, as I have done myself, I believe it is relevant to equate the brainwashing tactics so successfully used by Hitler and Goebbels with what is happening in the CAGW debate at present, but always with the proviso that we do not imply those using them have the same aims as that monstrous pair.
I welcome the fact that so many young people are so involved on both sides of the debate and I realise that many of them have never experienced the many changes in weather and climate that we older people have experienced in our lifetime, which is still very short in the whole scheme of things.
We argue endlessly on blogs,which at least gives us all a release of some the frustration no doubt everyone feels, but stripped of all the scientific and computer modelled projections of both sides it seems to me we must all ask ourselves the questions:
Do we believe that Man can control the climate and/or temperature?
Will a fractional increase in a trace gas lead to runaway CAGW?
Is it worth dismantling the present energy structures to replace them with huge costly subsidised other methods of generation on the chance the AGW hypothesis is correct?
Would it be wiser to prepare for the natural disasters we know will continue to occur no matter what the cause?
10
O/T but another ninemsn poll: Should there be a price on carbon?
ninemsn.com.au
10
Lord Monckton’s voice is being heard far and wide. He is in demand….. That is all that matters.
The man spoke. He called a fascist, a fascist and used a historical prop to remind us to what extent of monstrosity Fascism can develop into….. and he apologized for the offence that the words had caused…. The truth hurts those that can be stung by it, I suppose.
Was it smart?…. Well, his name resounds around Australia.
Let the criticism come. I’m sure Lord Monckton is more than able to explain succinctly why it is fascist to politicize a flawed hypothesis, pay for it to be called a scientific fact, while changing Australia’s economy and society without debate, based upon that false science…. Not to mention lying to get elected.
Not only that. This shameless Government just created a Government monopoly on Telecommunications!…. In the image of Mussolini style Fascism complete with Corporate Cronyism…… Then NBN and the Carbon Dioxide tax…. These are truely troubled times.
Anyway….. Mr Monckton. I accept your apology….;-)
10
Andrew Bolts Blog had this to say on Oct 23rd 2007:
“The issue isn’t just whether there is a Red under the bed but a liar as well.
Labors deputy leader Julia Gillard has claimed she was just a part-time typist in her university days to a mere debating society called the Socialist Forum,and has really has been a fiscal conservative all along.
In fact,she was on the management committee of this far left group which was formed by former communists to help them join Labor,and she stayed there even when she was well into her law career.
But how desperately she tries to deny the truth. Yesterday she was asked this on Adelaide radio:
Interviewer: So when did you cease being a member of the Socialist Forum?
Gillard: Well,many a long year ago,and obviously my most active involvement was when I was a university student more than 20 years ago.
The Herald Suns Gerard McManus runs this past the fact checker:
The parliamentary register of interests states Ms Gillard remained a member of Focialist Forum from 1998-2002,after which the group merged with the Fabian Society.
The Herald Sun has also seen a 1994 promotional flyer presenting her as a guest speaker at a Forum event. It describes her as a member of the Socialist Forum Management Committee.
Other documents show she authored numerous Socialist Forum papers and organised events,summer schools and conferences on topics such as being a Socialist Teacher”.
10
the farce continues….
24 June: Courier Mail: AAP: I didn’t mean to mislead on carbon says Julia Gillard
“I’ve explained of course to the Australian people that I never meant to mislead anybody during the last election campaign about carbon pricing,” Ms Gillard told ABC Radio.
She said she has always thought the best way of putting a price on carbon was a cap and trade scheme.
“We’re going to get there through a path I didn’t expect during the election campaign of a fixed price period for around three to five years,” Ms Gillard said. “So yes, the route to the objective is different.
“When I said those words in the election campaign I didn’t mean to mislead anybody and I understand that people heard those words and they look at what’s happening now and they perhaps say: ‘What’s going on? What did she mean then? What does she mean now?'”…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/i-didnt-mean-to-mislead-on-carbon-pm/story-e6freooo-1226081102803
10
POLL: Should there be a price on carbon (DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) ?
Vote Now…….
http://ninemsn.com.au/
CARBON DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD AND NOT POLLUTION.
GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY !
10
My two cents worth .
I agree totally with Monckton ……
I just don’t agree with the way he did it !,
One for the dumb journos , Hitler was a national socialist !
Mussolini was the Facist …….
Gumnuts will not debate a true scientist or a skeptic in open debate ! That is not democracy !
10
There is an old saying that in the PR business, there is no such thing as “bad PR”.
Shake it off and keep on moving forward.
10
The Climate Change theory is but part of the war on the Christian West.
The Socialist agenda I believe is wide in scope and it may be of interest some to look at this site:-
Modern Day Trojan Horse:The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
10
Baa Humbug @ 56
what a fantastic post !
I have done the same as well ,
and it worked …..
Cheers Raven (¥)
10
Australia has the largest CO2 emissions per person in the developed world. We contribute more than anyone else to global warming.
Saying we should not reduce emissions to encourage our economy is a terribly wrong argument.
These emissions affect everyone, including millions of people in the world who do not have their share in australian CO2-generated profits.
We make the money, they take the consequences. Nobody can justify that.
10
Gillard said: quote>>“We’re going to get there through a path I didn’t expect during the election campaign of a fixed price period for around three to five years,” Ms Gillard said. “So yes, the route to the objective is different.<<unquote
What this means is t hat Australia is led by a Prime Minister who did not know what she was saying before the lections, did not know what she was promising and now does not know what to do. No wonder Aussieland is going downhill like we've nver seen it before. Gillard, get out of here and leave the country in the hands of men and woman who know better, much better. They exist actually, but the left wing haw-haw media just kills, asassinates their character.
10
“The ends doesn’t justify the means.”
It does if you are a fan of Saul Alinksy – his book Rules for Radicals which he dedicated to Lucifer …
I’m sure Fabianista Gillard and her motley crew of Marxists have all read Saul’s masterpiece !
10
Jo,
My parents lived through the second world war and to differentiate Nazis on the basis that they cold-bloodedly planned and killed people brings back memories of discussions with them (they were not Jewish). After the war there was a different kind of denialism. No one could deny the Holocaust but my parents recollection was that all Germans, Nazi or not, denied having any knowledge of the death camps. No one saw the Jews being gathered up, no one saw the trains and no one saw the death camps. My prediction is when this global warming hoax finally collapses we will be witness to a new cult of denialism. Just imagine for a moment how a presenter from the ABC might behave!
Of particular relevance to this topic is a speech by a new member of the New South Wales Parliament who is an historian. See below:
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [6.20 p.m.]: I comment in this place on the latest adventures in the great global warming swindle that is gripping our nation and most of the formerly civilised world. I will assume that most people know that I am an historian by trade and I come from a time when, at universities, the humanities displayed a healthy scepticism for the self-assured absolutism of the sciences. However, nowadays it seems that the sciences have been corrupted by enough government money and political correctness to have them operating in parallel with their socialist brothers in the humanities. Government money is given to agitate for specific ends. Why are we surprised when the ocean acidification project suddenly finds that—guess what?—oceans are acidifying.
But we should not be so surprised that the contemporary science debate has become so debased. At the heart of many scientists—but not all scientists—lies the heart of a totalitarian planner. One can see them now, beavering away, alone, unknown, in their laboratories. And now, through the great global warming swindle they can influence policy, they can set agendas, they can reach into everyone’s lives; they can, like Lenin, proclaim “what must be done”. While the humanities had a sort of warm-hearted, muddle-headed leftism, the sciences carry with them no such feeling for humanity. And it is not a new phenomenon. We should not forget that some of the strongest supporters of totalitarian regimes in the last century have been scientists and, in return, the State lavishes praise, money and respectability on them. One writer, speaking about the rise of Nazism, said this:
‘Possibly we have not yet given enough attention to one feature of the intellectual development in Germany during the last hundred years which is now in an almost identical form making its appearance in the English-speaking countries: the scientists’ agitating for a “scientific” organization of society. The ideal of a society organized “through and through” from the top has in Germany been considerably furthered by the quite unique influence which her scientific and technological specialists were allowed to exercise on the formation of social and political opinions …
‘The influence of these scientist-politicians was of late years not often on the side of liberty: the “intolerance of reason” so frequently conspicuous in the scientific specialist, the impatience with the ways of the ordinary man so characteristic of the expert, and the contempt for anything which was not consciously organized by superior minds according to a scientific blueprint were phenomena familiar in German public life for generations … ‘
Does that sound familiar—the impatience with the ways of the ordinary man, the intolerance of reason of the scientific specialist, the contempt for anything not organised by them? Look at the way that Professor Ian Plimer has been pilloried and blackguarded by the scientific community; look at the way he was supported when he rightly attacked claims of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat but how swiftly they turned when their agenda was not being met by him. What was the net result of this?
The way in which, in the end, with few exceptions, her scholars and scientists put themselves readily at the service of the new rulers is one of the most depressing and shameful spectacles in the whole history of the rise of National Socialism. It is well known that particularly the scientists and engineers, who had so loudly claimed to be the leaders on the march to a new and better world, submitted more readily than almost any other class to the new tyranny.
Writing in 1927 Julien Benda wrote words that could just as well be used to describe today’s anthropogenic global warming [AGW] spinmeisters. He speaks of the:
‘… superstition of science held to be competent in all domains, including that of morality; a superstition which, I repeat, is an acquisition of the nineteenth century. It remains to discover whether those who brandish this doctrine believe in it or whether they simply want to give the prestige of a scientific appearance to passions of their hearts, which they perfectly know are nothing but passions.’
Indeed, how different are today’s global warming urgers from those in pre-war Britain, who looked forward to a Britain that would “be centralised and totalitarian”? Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The present idolatry for pseudoscience, the claims of settled science and of a scientific consensus—these are the leper’s bell announcing the approach of the would-be totalitarian. The bell was not heeded in the 1930s. It should be heeded now.”
10
Monckton has got serious form when it comes to sticking both feet in his mouth, like when associated with UKIP during the last UK elections he admitted he was clueless about some main policy item, and I recall during one of his early lectures on global warming he bought the sky fairy into the conversation, which does not exactly portray him as being a man of science in a what must remain purely a scientific debate.
10
Given that many promoters believe that all publicity is good publicity, is it possible that this incident will bring more public attention to his visit to Australia? I note that the media barely noticed nice guy Mr Watts.
I don’t agree with Lord Monckton’s use of the swastika (which is in fact a Buddhist symbol, among other things), and his apology is warranted. However, to me Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm best summed it up.Whether Right, Left (or Green) all totalitarian regimes end up the same, oppression of the masses by propaganda and brutality by an elite and privileged ruling class.
Calls for “suspension of democracy” (a la Green Clive Hamilton), the denigration, marginilisation, and eventual elimination of opponents (10:10, Richard Glover, Elizabeth Farrelly) based on a presumed immediate and dangerous external threat have typically preceded totalitarian states.
It is fortunate that Australia is infertile grounds for extremism.
10
Physicist Proves CO2 Emissions Irrelevant in Earth’s Climate
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/physicist-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-in-earth%E2%80%99s-climate
Australia’s emission levels are overstated
http://ipa.org.au/news/2406/australia%27s-emission-levels-are-overstated
10
Charles:
June 24th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
“Australia has the largest CO2 emissions per person in the developed world. We contribute more than anyone else to global warming.”
I’m not sure you are correct on the first point and the second is wrong because there aren’t all that many of us so our total emissions are quite small on the world scale compared to the US, China and Japan. You do know how to do multiplications don’t you or hasn’t your class at school got there yet?
10
Charlie @ 80
Try to use the internet and search for facts – you are no different to Combet & Gillard following a report in the Brisbane Times http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-model-shows-low-toll-on-top-100-20110622-1gfju.html which the the Greens & Labour are using to finalise a CO2 Tax deal, which has been presented by Connection Research – this group including its CEO and Research Director are both GREEN – see http://www.connectionresearch.com.au/AboutUs.htm
They claim
Author Graeme Philipson
Sydney, 2 June 2009
The political wrangling over Australia’s proposed emissions trading system (ETS) has descended into name-calling and blatant intellectual dishonesty. I’m no great fan of the government’s proposed system (a carbon tax would be much simpler and more transparent), but it’s a reasonable starting point.
You Charlie, are no different to the rest of the Alarmists (including Gillard, Brown & Independents)that only research for the answers that favour your pockets.
10
hey wait on – Monckton didn’t make a media release~!! he was giving a talk to an audience. That’s what he does.
10
Jo,
Do you not think it slightly out of character for Monckton to use the Nazi bomb? He also sees people who have been crucified for using it in the past or by mistake.
I think this was a strategic move on his part in a gamble for more media exposure. Can’t say he is not a sly old fox who has been at this for years and knows the media is looking for someone to stick their necks out to cut off.
Now that the media has their sights on him for a mistake, he has the opportunity for better exposure to the issues at hand. Just he has to tread extremely cautiously.
10
Charles @ 80.
No 1. Australia is not the highest per-capita for co2 emissions in the world. We still lag the USA on that one.
No 2. Australia’s actual contribution to world co2 is 1.4% – in other words, a rouding error. If we closed down and left the whole place to the kangaroos tomorrow, it would make zero difference as growth in Chinese emissions would replace this in about a month.
No 3. Australia has the lowest per sq km co2 emissions in the world. What does this mean? Nothing, the same as the per capita measure. You can torture data enough to say anything, that’s my point.
No 4. All the countries that pretend they are lowering emissions are just offshoring them. Eventually China, India and resource countries like Canada and Australia could end up with all of the global emissions. That’s because people aren’t going to stop driving cars, flying in planes and living in heated and cooled buildings. If Australia actually still manufactured most things here, our emissions would be off the charts, per capita wise, because we’d capture the entire value chain of all goods from dirt to display cabinet. You can offshore your per-capita emissions (see UK->India with steelmaking) but you cannot eliminate the emissions without either (a) a drastic reduction in living standards or (b) breakthrough new tecnology which produces widescale, affordable, baseload power. Note this precludes solar or wind as the energy densities just aren’t high enough.
(a) is never going to happen in a free democratic country, so forget it. If (b) happens then all the carbon taxes in the world are a completely moot point.
So Charles, you’re of the ‘we’ve got to do something‘ hand-wringing crowd. What would you have us do? Tell us your solution, we’re all ears. You’ve said someone is making a ‘terribly wrong argument’ – what’s the correct argument?
10
Gee how bad must poor old Obama feel , according to Gor if he doesn’t act now ! He will be responsible for the fate of mankind !! Due to the affects of CAGW ! …. blah … Blah … etc…… ( rolling stone interview )
Wow isn’t that just dandy .makes old Adolph and Stalin look like a couple of amateurs ……really don’t see much difference , the underlying intent is still there ….if ya want to read between the lines , gumnuts is just a lowly storm trooper sent out by uncle Al to do his dirty little job !! , Monckton is up against some heavy hitters and needs reinforcements . In America the battle is still not won , just because Bush was a skeptic doesn’t mean it’s all over in the USA , the economy is weak , true unemployment high , the nation needs to rebuild from within , democracy is still strong , and OBAMA is battening down the hatches and bringing home his boys!! .Few there are out there today who see what is really going on …..
Monckton should continue to expound his opinion in his own way , if something doesn’t compute, and it won’t stop , you stop it any way you can ! . Many see CAGW religion in this way , it could threaten world stability and for no good purpose , more people need to push harder for answers that is obvious , I wonder why those smarter than me don’t see any of this …..and were worried about a few sieg heils ?
I wonder why our lords and masters don’t smell a rat , because I sure as Hell do !
10
So he used the age old Nazi symbol (actually stolen from Budhdism by Adolf himself!)
Well Al (eco nutter Gore isnt much better and probably deserves something similar said about him.
here.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/al-gore-agenda-21-and-population-control
So exactly what is Agenda 21? The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21….
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
When you start doing deep research into Agenda 21, you will find that describing it as a “comprehensive plan” is an understatement. Virtually all forms of human activity impact the environment. The rabid “environmentalists” behind the green agenda intend to take all human activity and put it into a box called “sustainable development”.
Comprehensively shows what the “agenda” Climate scam is trying to achieve.
10
Australia is 12th in per capita CO2 emissions and 16th over all.
10
Penndragon @ 83 Thank you! Excellent post. Anyone that passed by 83 because it is a bit of reading, need to go back and take the time to read it! It appears there are some observers of history still able to see clearly. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS is one.
10
So would it be ok to say something like this?
That’s ok because I get called a lot of names on your forums? But hang on; in this same post you say “The ends doesn’t justify the means.”
Confused be you easily how!
10
I’ve said this before and I get roundly ignored. I suppose it’s just how society goes. But I’ll say it again differently and perhaps someone will listen.
I don’t care that Monckton used the Nazi flag or said heil hitler in his presentation. He was trying to demonstrate a parallel in thought control and propagandizing, I think his parallel was worthwhile.
I think it is silly that other people care that he used them.
Ask yourself what would you or anyone else say if instead of a nazi flag, and ‘heil hitler’, what if Monckton had used the USSR flag and said, “Long Live Stalin!” Would you or anyone else be as offended? The parallel he was trying to draw would perhaps not have worked quite as well. But for some reason people don’t get offended at references to the Soviets as they do the Nazi’s. Stalin’s regime killed far more people than Hitlers did and controlled a population with propaganda for far longer. Why the special place in ignorance for Hitler and the Nazi’s? Is it because they were “westerners” that all the developed nations in the west try to act as if the Nazi’s are some kind of special event in history that must be tip-toed around.
The Nazi’s were humans killing humans. They did it no less brutally or efficiently than many other horrific situations throughout history. Pretending that they don’t exist by specifying that they cannot be mentioned in an argument for any kind of parallel is silly. While their use for parallel might be trite at this point, it cannot be said to be more offensive or less appropriate than any/all of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres
In short, Godwin’s law is dumb. You have not lost an argument if you find a valid parallel between the Nazi’s and someone else. This is true because the Nazi’s are no different from any other episode of brutal human stupidity throughout history but no one else gives a !%^#& if you mention those other horrific acts as a parallel do they? In fact, if you find a true repetition of what the Nazi’s did, you should point it out so that people remember. Monckton was doing this.
10
Many sceptics took issue with this article… Sceptoid; I, Global Warming Sceptic”
However this is worth repeating and acknowledging as a step to bridge building…
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/
“So, yes, I am now persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real. That’s because I’m a skeptic.
To my friends on the Left: Do you want to convince more skeptics? I mean really? Is the truth more important than your politics? Great. I have some suggestions.
Stop calling people “deniers”. That’s very clearly a slap in the face, designed to link skeptics to holocaust deniers. Maybe it plays well with the base, but you’ll make no friends nor influence people with that kind of disrespect. Don’t poison the well.
Stop calling it “climate change”. That’s a weasel-worded political phrase that dances around the real issue. It looks stupid. Of course the climate is changing. It always has! If the problem isn’t human-caused warming, there isn’t a problem. So call it what it is: anthropogenic global warming.
Stop blaming every unusual weather event on global warming. “We blame global warming” has become a joke on the Right, and for good reason. Scientists need to do a better job explaining why a global average temperature change so small that nobody could feel the difference (how about I warm your room up a half a degree and see if you can tell?) can change weather patterns in a way that some places might actually get colder and some weather may get more intense – sometimes. But blaming every heat wave, hurricane, tornado and earthquake on global warming only confuses the issue. It’s hard enough for most people to understand the difference between climate and weather.
10
Baa, Wecome back, i missed your wit and wisdom. I also did the same with my daughter when she was the same age, with the same outcome!Good on them!
I understand Moncktons reasons behind this problem, BUT, it goes back to Jos post a few weeks ago on this name calling and threats. It CHEAPENS the debate !!!!! Blimey and Sphearica, neither of you have said a thing when sceptics are vilified, denigrated and threatened with death by sealevel rise, carbon monoxiode or the hangman so why are you here now other than to disrute the debate on this thread now ! By the way weres Brookies with his 2 cents, actually minus 3 cents, as that is about as much sense as he contibutes. Just a little fun John. Sorry for this extra after this sentence my delete button quit working for some reason.id l
10
Joe Lalonde @ #90
Marvellous. He knows they’re mostly lazy, unprepared and will always go after an east, already made story.
They’ll have to get up very early to catch him out.
10
With all due respect, Jo, a Nazi comparison is not in and of itself an insult, or wrong on all occassions. Monckton’s problem was in the target and also the use of stage props. But calling a Nazi a Nazi is not hyperbole, nor is saying that someone is “employing Hitler Youth tactics” wrong if indeed that is what they are doing.
We have already begun to witness the reprecussions (the “unintended consequences”) of an unrestrained policy on global warming (the rapid rising cost of food stuffs in impoverished 3rd world countries). While that may not be a systematic attempt at genocide on the parts of the perpertrators, the end effect is the same. It is the end effects that makes us realize that Stalin was no Saviour, and Pol Pot no hero. But just different versions of the same sickness Hitler suffered from.
It is therefore, with all due respect, that while I do not condone the frivilous use of the term Nazi (and its associated symbols), I support the comparisons at the right time and juncture. And there are times now that support that comparison.
10
Barry Woods:
June 25th, 2011 at 3:02 am
I looked at the site and left a comment. Craig Good is a gullible fool if by reading the skeptical science site and listening to an environmental bs artist (Gleick) he became a warmist. Did he read this site at all?
Bridge building be stuffed. It’s far too late for that. The barbarians are inside the gates and either we win or billions will suffer and die early. I’d prefer the warmies keep on the way they are. Any pretence at “reasonableness” is just that. They are a pack of lying bastards. Even when something they say is the truth you can bet it isn’t the whole truth and the listener will quite deliberately get the wrong impression.
The problem with regimes like the Nazis and commies wasn’t just the knock on the door at 3AM, never to be seen again. It was the utter and complete waste of human potential as people were prevented from achieving. The only way to get ahead in those regimes is to step on somebody else’s face. We’ve got a better way.
10
Baa @56,
I had to learn the same lesson myself, oh about 8th grade I’d guess. No one told me I should fight back. I just decided I’d had enough. It’s wonderfully liberating.
Good for you.
10
“It’s hard enough for most people to understand the difference between climate and weather.”
No it’s not. If you use the IPCC definition of climate as average weather then you are only going around in circles and can make weather events say anything about what is occurring to the climate by nominating a short or long period over which to observe them and only make guesses, even if informed, about climate.
The obvious way to define climate is to consider it in terms of all the variables, that determine it. When one begins to think of climate in this way it becomes obvious that CO2 is but one variable in that mix of many variables in what is a very complex and chaotic system.
At present very little is known about many of those variables and fully how even natural climate variability works so to jump to the conclusion that CO2 is the major reason for an almost miniscule 0.7C temperature rise over about a century is at best naive.
The still unresolved issue is climate sensitivity. That in part is due to the lack of understanding of how one vital variable, clouds, work in the climate system and thus not being able to quantify their effect. That is one major reason why skeptics reject the alarmist IPCC position which is based on GCMs. They are not programmed with empirical data on cloud effect and thus cannot produce an accurate value for climate sensitivity and hence cannot predict future weather events. That is why trying to distinguish between weather and climate” is an irrelevancy that tells us nothing about the role of CO2 in Earth’s climate.
Until that effect is determined empirically, skeptics, who know that temperature rises due to rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are constrained by a logarithmic relationship ie a “law of diminishing returns”, see no scientific reason to adopt the alarmist IPCC position.
10
you guys do realise that if I have a colleague who denies that chocolate milkshakes exist, and maintains this when I show them a chocolate milkshake, and I call them a Chocolate Milkshake Denier, that has nothing to do with holocaust denial, which relates specifically to denying the holocaust?
10
Penndragon: #83
June 24th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Thankyou for that contribution Penndragon.
10
Charles: #80
June 24th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
There was a time when working “industriously” was a good and honourable thing.
Then along came a generation, grown fat, living safe and being aided by technologies (especially medical) never before seen, who refuse to recognize the “industrious” hard work of their parents, (let alone be thankful the little pricks) who find it easy to blame the western way of life for all perceived ills of the world all the while mired deep in those ways themselves like pigs in $h!t.
The overwhelming majority of green – or environmental supporters if you will – are young under 30’s who’ve never known harsh living, have never been drafted to go to war, have never had to defend themselves because others defend them instead and are desperately trying to find some cause to hitch their lives on to. Something to make their lives worthwhile, something to lift their sense of self worth.
Whilst their parents left home at 16,17 or 18 and made their own lives, formed their own families, todays youth still live at home with mum and dad well into their late 20’s. Those who do leave can’t make it on their own and are forced to share with 3, 4 or even 5 others. IT’S DIFFICULT TO GATHER SELF-ESTEEM UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
These youngsters are very easily roped-in to any altruistic venture, THEY NEED IT FOR THEIR OWN SELF-ESTEEM.
Here is one advice from me, take it or leave it. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM, THERE ARE BETTER AND MORE WORTHY ENVIRONMENTAL VENTURES you can partake in if you need to bolster your self-esteem.
If other ventures don’t interest you, that’s fine, just knuckle down and do your daily work and choirs dilligently and honestly the best you can and STOP TELLING OTHERS WHAT THEY SHOULD(N’T) DO AND HOW THEY SHOULD(N’T) DO IT and in particular STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR EVERY ILL OF THE WORLD, remember, you are part of it and blaming yourself (effectively) will not do your self-esteem any good.
10
Do Trolls not work on weekends ?
10
Ooops spoke to soon ….. What size jackboot shall we order for mattb ….mmmmmmmm
10
Sorry Jo, but I enjoy Lord Monckton’s combativeness. His polemical stance is the stuff of Churchill. Churchill, by the way, is famous because he stood up to the Nazis. As we must do.
10
Hypocrites make an example of Monckton..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_hypocrites_make_an_example_of_monckton/
10
Moncktons statement are nothing to this facist raving by Jill Singer..
”
Jill Singer of the Australian “mainstream” Herald Sun newspapers has proposed a final solution to the problem of the climate skeptics:
Carbon tax sideshow must stop
She writes:
I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
She will kindly keep an open mind once the world’s 4 billion climate skeptics are killed in extermination camps with a mixture of CO and CO2. Note the “clever” method by which she has “confused” the carbon monoxide, which is toxic, with the carbon dioxide, which is totally harmless for humans. ”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/gassing-skeptics-confusing-co-and-co2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
Suggesting we get gassed does she ..
10
The trouble with Fascism, National Socialism, Communism and other central planned authoritarian systems is that they come creeping in one step at a time. If you were in Germany 1932 and you had said to the people who were voting for Hitler that in 10 years this guy would be putting people into camps, killing millions and driving the nation into the most disasterous war of history — they would have laughed. Even when the concentraion camps were in full swing, people didn’t believe it, they didn’t want to think about it.
So when we make some small step towards an authoritarian future, is that Fascism? We obviously not, it’s only one small step. What harm can one small step do? John Howard for example, introduced “sedition” laws, and various anti-terrorist laws, gave instructions to the Chief of Police, etc. These were each small steps toward an authoritarian police state, but calling John Howard a fascist would be an exaggeration.
Other government groups have imposed restrictions on landowners, that have cost them their farms, so is this Fascism? Oh no, it’s only yet another small step… in that general direction.
Now we are getting an Internet filter (for our own good of course) to save us from seeing the wrong things. Nothing to worry about, no one will hardly notice such a tiny change.
Put enough of these small steps together, and you know where it leads, but none of the people who make those small steps actually did very much.
10
Damian @111
It continues to push beyond politics to extremism , this government needs to be dissolved before more damage can be done . How our proud independents can sleep at night is beyond my comprehension ! That within our elite politicians holding our country to ransom, not one has the courage to do what is right and force an election . The world is in turmoil on the brink of another GFC , unrest and uncertainty blanket the globe ,our great country is grinding to a halt , and our wise leaders want to slug us with a tax of unprecedented proportions , all based on a scam called CAGW !, and they show alarm because the natives are growing restless , WTF ! these mothers are the ones throwing around fighting words , we didn’t start this fantasy and i do not bow to the UN, or a government railroading and betraying it citizens , against that I would fight to the very end !
10
Penndragon @83,
When I first read what you said I wanted to add the following but thought the better of it. Now I’m not so sure I shouldn’t say it.
Before the scientists and the humanities there was the church. The church was literally dictator of everything it could keep control over for centuries. And religion still is the dictator in many places. And before religion there was something else. And before that…
Now the million dollar question: after this current would-be dictator is overthrown (assuming it will be) what will we put in its place? You can be one hundred percent assured that if there’s a power vacuum at the top there’ll be some equally undesirable power sucked in to fill it up.
I don’t think it’s enough to know what we want to get rid of. We better be ready with something better to put in its place. What is that?
10
O/T Hi Jo and everyone, including MattB. Guess what the impending
ice age is now getting attention in the world media. Even Penny
Wong admitted in last years election night, in the ABC Tally Room
interview. Asked whether the abandoning of the ETS was one of the reasons why labor was losing support she said ‘No – there ARE
arguments that the planet is cooling..” AND THEY ARE STILL PUSHING THE POXY CARBON TAX and AGW… MILES BEHIND AGAIN.
10
Those with a passing interest in the Fabian Society might like to read this address by Bob Hawke:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Hawke%20Fabian.pdf
Actally, Lord Monkton got the last word on 3MTR Melbourne radio:
“I was completely in the wrong. I should not have said it. I have withdrawn it unreservedly.I have written to the Professor privately …..
In Australia) it is something that can be and is being exploited by everybody from your Prime Minister upwards…..”
10
As for the convolutions from Global Warming through Climate Change, to this and that … the purpose is to allow CAGW believers to blame almost every weather condition onto bad people, to lay on guilt.
It is logical that the next climate description will be IAN. This is an acronym for “Increased Absolute Normality”. Then, no matter what is to be blamed, it can be claimed that it was predicted by the CAGW camp.
10
Geoff, your IAN concept has already been done, by Homer Price and the Centerburg Tales with Ever-So-Much-More-So.
Strangely, schools don’t seem to read these to kids anymore 🙁
10
Geoff@117
Geoff,
That wouldn’t be another cheap shot , would it 😕
10
TheRealUniverse @112
I see Jill Singer’s suggestion for a final solution now graces her Wikipedia entry.
Perhaps Lord Monckton’s comments were misdirected.
The intolerance of the warmist camp just beggars belief, and her suggestion of gassing skeptics, however humorously intentioned, just presages what can be expected were they ever to prevail.
God forbid they are ever in a position to realise their warped fantasies.
10
Well may people condemn Lord Monkton for equating Garnaut as being a fascist, while displaying the Swastika in his PP display.
But where were these same critics, and I include Julia Gillard, when the extreme left displayed John Howard as Hitler, with a Swastika banner hanging behind him? I seem to recall John Howard was our Prime Minister at the time… a far more important position than an economist with alleged fascist views, right!
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/06/selective-condemnation-syndrome.html
So why is it always the same… that when the left indulges in inappropriate behaviour, ah… well… but that’s ok?
Yet when anyone else indulges in similar behaviour… Sacré bleu … the condemnation… the negative media coverage… the denouncing of the ‘guilty’ party by politicians and do-gooders.
Well I’m not falling for it. Anyone, with grain of salt as a brain, would have had the commonsense to interpret Lord Monkton’s presentation in the appropriate context in which it was meant.
The only regret is that Lord Monkton actually bowed to pressure and apologized. But then … that’s the gentleman he is. He needn’t have.
10
Merv @ #122
It is entirely appropriate that Monckton apologised, to the person affected, because it is indeed out of character for Monckton to be anything other than a model of respect and decorum towards the individual.
Garnaud wasn’t really the target. He was merely a proxy for the tendencies which Monckton was presaging throughout the warmist establishment.
It is that distinction between the person and their behaviour that we need to keep in mind whilst engaging with our misguided warmist fellow citizens.
No, Monckton wasn’t wrong, neither in what he said, nor in apologising.
10
[ Roy Hogue @115]
Your concerns are well founded but at this stage we cannot even identify the real enemy. A small group of sub prime scientists have been used. Is the real problem the philosophically and morally bankrupt former political left or totalitarians from within the United Nations or an environmental movement that has been infiltrated and perverted to another agenda?
If we defeat them and try to fill the power vacuum with something else we risk creating another monster. And as you so rightly point out it is difficult to foresee where the next problem will come from.
For me the solution is to repair the great freedom supporting institutions of the West. We used to pride ourselves on a free and independent news media. Much of that has now become a biased propaganda instrument, yet regulating them risks creating an even less free news media. We need to outlaw the propagandising of our children in the education system and ensure that it provides a balanced environment for them to develop their own views. We need to find a way to make the peer review process less susceptible to corruption. We need to make it illegal for our great scientific institutions to adopt a particular view of any area of science. They should be limited to referring enquiries to eminent members instead. Whilst they have often failed to live up to their original purpose, their ideal was to provide an open forum for new ideas to be presented in a receptive and friendly environment.
For example the motto of the prestigious Royal Society in London is “Nullius in Verba” which is usually translated as ‘on the word of no one’. When it was coined back in 1663, it was intended to distance science from the methods of the ancient universities, which relied heavily on the personal authority of the scholars. ‘On the word of no one’ highlighted the independent authority that empirical evidence bestowed on science; knowledge about the material universe should be based on appeals to experimental evidence rather than authority. Lately, however, the Royal Society has dropped any mention of ‘on the word of no one’ from its website and become too much of an instrument for one view of the science of climate.
Many of the leaders of these institutions have demonstrated by their actions that they are not fit for the positions they hold and the membership should be rising up and replacing them.
10
Penndragon @124,
If I may say it, I think you’re stating some of the things we need to replace the current dictators with.
On the matter of a free press — was it not for Fox News embarrassing the rest, not to mention grabbing the audience I wonder if we would ever see a free TV press again. The transformation has begun with CNN changing the way they do things and NBC may actually be following suit. Hooray for Rupert Murdock for just plain brass nerve to persevere. How far it will go remains to be seen, but the signs are encouraging for a change.
The schools are another problem. The Department of Education has to go. Then I would hope that the states would do the same and abolish their state education apparatus. I don’t trust even county boards of education actually. This would put responsibility for schools back exactly where it belongs, on the parents and voters of the school district and the only group of people with any legitimate interest in those schools in the first place.
I’ve been knocked for this opinion before but the argument always seems to be that the parents and the voters might make some terrible mistake. And so they might. But if they do it only mucks up one school district. And the control over things is local so there’s every good opportunity for the mistake to be corrected as soon as possible.
Contrast this with the problem now confronting us where the Department of Education is acting as an arm of the Obama White House. When they get it wrong it mucks up every public school in the country. And with the federal government holding money over the states heads like a hammer they have leverage to force the preferred curriculum on not only public but private schools and home schoolers as well. And there is no way to get the problem fixed except radical surgery on the federal government.
This invasion of our schools is the most pernicious problem of all. And I haven’t even mentioned unions yet.
I agree with you on all points and would be most interested in your comments on what I’ve just posted.
10
The big guns are blazing from across the way….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AUSTRALIA will be embracing “unilateral economic disarmament” if it adopts a carbon tax, says the key US Republican congressman on climate change.
In a devastating judgment for the Gillard government’s carbon tax plans, Jim Sensenbrenner told The Australian the US had turned its back on a carbon tax.
Mr Sensenbrenner said cap and trade – the US term for an emissions-trading scheme – was “dead in the US”.
“Any kind of direct carbon tax is dead in the US,” he said.
He said the Republicans, who oppose an ETS, had won every coal seat in congress in last year’s election – seats the Democrats would need to win back if they were to regain a majority in the House of Representatives.
Mr Sensenbrenner believes climate change stopped former US vice-president Al Gore from becoming president in 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
from today’s Australian .
Lord Moncktons reinforcements perhaps ……
10
Monckton made a BLUE! so tell me who is perfect? does not change the reality does it?
We as a nation are one of highest taxed in the world – but wait – there is more to come! The Australian Government has committed us to paying a ten percent additional levy /tithe to the United Nations. This is a self serving un-elected unofficial quasi Governmental Body, who have written their own charter and draw their finances from the nations around the world who have ‘signed on’. Now Australia is about to collect another new tax, of which 10% has been formally promised to the United Nations Green Fund.
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/you-are-to-be-commended-pat-yourself-on-the-back/
10
Moncktons lecture in the US has taken the climate debate and rammed it home to anyone who would care to listen , there is more dissenting opinion out there now than ever before, as the rats start deserting the sinking ship we will see even more join the side of logic & reason .US republican heavyweight Jim Sensenbrenner ,
Andrew Bolt making headway on television , not to mention the mining industry and business councils yet to seriously put their foot down . Noise coming from everywhere over of the dangers of radicals like the greens controlling policy , the major problem will be the damage left behind by this dysfunctional gaggle of traitors !
If it takes a bit of name calling and a tongue in cheek apology to stop skeptics being marginalized , then so be it , looking at the hold the EU & UN has over our supposed democratic govt makes me and others I’m sure very uneasy and concerned for the security of our Great Nation , the best for our children and beyond . Never before has a nation had to defend itself from such a vile and irrational Government which thumbs it nose at the majority while marching us all over an economic cliff !,the comparisons between Gillard , Adolph and Stalin all too clear !
10
Well, we are dealing with people who see humans a a blight on the planet, and think therefore that the state should control all land and productive enterprises, and that the human population should be reduced.
I say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; one should consider the possibility that it just might be a duck.
10