No one says it quite like Rupert. Reprinted with permission, thank you. Read, enjoy the vivid panoply,
— Jo
My favourite extract — the 26 ethical flaws of propagandists
(For the full letter and context go straight to the post below – apologies to Rupert for discontinuous edits)
Climate change major risks: Such as? There is not one shred of empirical evidence for your assertion. There is, of course, an ocean of mendacious and fraudulent computer modelling by people with vast vested interests in promoting the scam.
You state that you do not underestimate my ‘strength of feeling on this important issue’. With respect, you are well wide of the mark. I have no strong feelings about climate change. Climate change is fact of life and, in that sense, is a banality. I do, however, have a prejudice against blatant chicanery and outright knavery.
Neither is this, anyway, a scientific issue. The science is clear. There have been and are no untoward changes in global climate outside those which flow from natural variability. There have been no recent climatic phenomena, which do not have numerous precedents. CO2 has nothing to do with the matter.
On the other hand it is an ethical issue. The ethical considerations arise from the activities of propagandists when:
- they seek to howl down any form of questioning or dissent,
- they use threatening vilification as a propagandist tool,
- they damage the careers of those who have the temerity to question their dogma,
- they wilfully and knowingly misrepresent data,
- they wilfully and knowingly suppress contra-indicative data,
- they claim data to be authentic and rigorous when, in reality, it is cherry picked from partisan environmentalist propaganda material,
- they undermine scientific method by refusing to disclose and share data/methodology,
- they wilfully subvert and prostitute their calling for personal gain and self-aggrandisement,
- they subvert hitherto trusted forums of scientific discussion and dissemination,
- they subvert the independence of peer review as a legitimate check and balance,
- they abuse the young by indoctrinating deviant ‘science’,
- they lay waste to the environment with worthless and hideously expensive machines (wind/tidal turbines) as well as other devices such as photo-voltaic cells,
- they oppress the poor by diverting land usage from food crop cultivation to uneconomic and inefficient mono-crop cultivation of so-called biofuels,
- they wilfully associate their personal conceits and financial interests with massive environmental pollution in the developing world,
- they are complicit, for the same reasons, in rainforest and other forms of environmental destruction,
- they manipulate the fiscal arrangements of entire countries on the basis of demonstrable falsehood,
- they spread lies designed to intimidate poorly educated and/or gullible populations,
- they claim economic insights based upon false assumptions, corrupted data and outright lies,
- they sustain vast departments of state to promote falsehood and scaremongering,
- they subsidise supposed independent pressure groups for the purpose of surreptitiously encouraging partisan lobbying,
- they lend succour and support from the safety of privileged positions, inherited and otherwise, to villains and scientific charlatans,
- they seek to close off and monopolise what should be legitimate debate on a controversial matter of importance, again from behind barricades created by privilege,
- they ostentatiously ignore whatever is inconvenient to their tendentious paradigm, however distinguished and credible the sources may be,
- they whitewash arrant knavery,
- they distort, in furtherance of their mendacity, the normal accepted meaning of language,
- they subvert the hitherto trusted organs of mass communication.
The questions are how to mitigate the damage/how to hold to account those responsible for it!
The letter in full below:
Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish
Bishop of Exeter
The Bishop’s Office
The Palace
Exeter, UKDear Bishop Langrish,Earlier in the week I listened to what you had to say following the welcome decision to withdraw the diocese’s application to erect wind turbines in Devon. I see that your remarks have now been republished in The Daily Telegraph. In particular, it is striking that you consider that you and your staff were subjected to abuse by objectors. Well, I was not part of any such exchanges and do not condone, in your own words, ‘bullying tactics’. On the other hand, I cannot help pointing out – to a churchman and so an ethical standard bearer, most especially – that such tactics are an absolutely routine component of the dialectical arsenal favoured by climate change proselytisers, amongst whose ranks the prelatariat of all denominations have constituted a prominent and discreditable cadre of alarmist partisans. Accordingly, whilst I will certainly not stoop to the use of opprobrious language, neither do I have any intention of pulling punches simply in deference to ‘the cloth’, if I may so put it.
Fortuitously, the story of your wind turbines has broken almost exactly with the publication of recent pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), supplemented by parallel pronouncements by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, another global warming alarmist body sustained, in this case, by the American government. These prompted me to write to my local MP, George Eustice – as you will know, an erstwhile press guru to David Cameron. Rather than going to the bother of re-inventing the wheel, as it were, what follows is a slightly altered text of what I wrote to him two days ago; the nature of the IPCC/NOAA pronouncements will become evident towards the end:
It is always intriguing to note how people such as yourself, who proselytise this issue, invariably settle for sweeping generalisation in preference to the more taxing task of addressing specifics; Yeo, for example, could give master classes in dissimulation. This has consequences. In an immediate sense, it makes it hard to decide whether you have understood my email of 8 June, which initiated this exchange or, indeed, have even read it.
Climate change major risks: Such as? There is not one shred of empirical evidence for your assertion. There is, of course, an ocean of mendacious and fraudulent computer modelling by people with vast vested interests in promoting the scam. These embrace individual scientists, to the lasting shame of each academia, scientific societies and publications, the prelatariat of all religious denominations (‘faith communities’, rather primly and sententiously I suppose we must now call them), NGOs, civil servants, politicians, the media and a number of industrial enterprises.
You state that you do not underestimate my ‘strength of feeling on this important issue’. With respect, you are well wide of the mark. I have no strong feelings about climate change. Climate change is fact of life and, in that sense, is a banality. I do, however, have a prejudice against blatant chicanery and outright knavery. You add that you, personally, do believe in dangerous human contribution to so-called climate change. In order to entertain such a proposition, you must accept that, within the context of a vast, chaotic system such as the atmosphere, minor changes to the concentration of a benign trace gas (let me remind you, in overall concentration amounting to less than 1/25th of a single percentage point) can of itself generate catastrophic climatic consequences; in any contemplated response, do please avoid the impulse to quote water vapour – for alarmist promoters like you, a very insecure, double sided argument! No, allow me to suggest, again with respect, that this is an intellectual construct which cannot be advanced with honesty of purpose. And yet, it is upon this vast inverted pyramid constructed on the summit of a sand dune that this disreputable government, as well as its lamentable predecessor, has founded the UK’s energy and economic policies.
Neither is this, anyway, a scientific issue. The science is clear. There have been and are no untoward changes in global climate outside those which flow from natural variability. There have been no recent climatic phenomena, which do not have numerous precedents. CO2 has nothing to do with the matter.
On the other hand it is an ethical issue. The ethical considerations arise from the activities of propagandists when:
- they seek to howl down any form of questioning or dissent,
- they use threatening vilification as a propagandist tool,
- they damage the careers of those who have the temerity to question their dogma,
- they wilfully and knowingly misrepresent data,
- they wilfully and knowingly suppress contra-indicative data,
- they claim data to be authentic and rigorous when, in reality, it is cherry picked from partisan environmentalist propaganda material,
- they undermine scientific method by refusing to disclose and share data/methodology,
- they wilfully subvert and prostitute their calling for personal gain and self-aggrandisement,
- they subvert hitherto trusted forums of scientific discussion and dissemination,
- they subvert the independence of peer review as a legitimate check and balance,
- they abuse the young by indoctrinating deviant ‘science’,
- they lay waste to the environment with worthless and hideously expensive machines (wind/tidal turbines) as well as other devices such as photo-voltaic cells,
- they oppress the poor by diverting land usage from food crop cultivation to uneconomic and inefficient mono-crop cultivation of so-called biofuels,
- they wilfully associate their personal conceits and financial interests with massive environmental pollution in the developing world,
- they are complicit, for the same reasons, in rainforest and other forms of environmental destruction,
- they manipulate the fiscal arrangements of entire countries on the basis of demonstrable falsehood,
- they spread lies designed to intimidate poorly educated and/or gullible populations,
- they claim economic insights based upon false assumptions, corrupted data and outright lies,
- they sustain vast departments of state to promote falsehood and scaremongering,
- they subsidise supposed independent pressure groups for the purpose of surreptitiously encouraging partisan lobbying,
- they lend succour and support from the safety of privileged positions, inherited and otherwise, to villains and scientific charlatans,
- they seek to close off and monopolise what should be legitimate debate on a controversial matter of importance, again from behind barricades created by privilege,
- they ostentatiously ignore whatever is inconvenient to their tendentious paradigm, however distinguished and credible the sources may be,
- they whitewash arrant knavery,
- they distort, in furtherance of their mendacity, the normal accepted meaning of language,
- they subvert the hitherto trusted organs of mass communication.
Well, enough to be getting on with, I suggest. The questions are how to mitigate the damage/how to hold to account those responsible for it!
So back briefly to my communication of 8 June. The point of that email was to draw to your attention a recent pronouncement – let it be stressed, not from a sceptical voice but from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after all your very own supposed primary source of information/wisdom in this matter, and backed up by none other than the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, another major climate alarm propagandist. And what were these two saying? Why, to be sure, that solar panels, one of the major supposed low carbon palliatives so much beloved by you and in such evidence in your own constituency, as by-products of their manufacture, are in reality delivering to the atmosphere what are now measurable quantities of greenhouse gases of a virulence representing entire orders of magnitude greater than any comparable effect produced by carbon dioxide which, in your declared philosophy, is the primary bugaboo. Moreover, these gases, in marked contrast to CO2, are entirely man made and are also vastly more long lasting.
As I stated at the outset of this message, it is not clear to me whether or not you grasped what was being said. In any event, if you can explain the logic of this wondrous contribution to the welfare of the planet, not to mention the rivers of treasure diverted to its promotion, I’d be interested to hear the case.
During the last few days, the papers have been awash with the C of E’s objections over the issue of whether or not a brace of homosexuals should be able to ‘marry’. As it happens, in relation to this specific issue, I am rather on your side. But, since I am also addressing a churchman, there also springs to mind the new testament reference to motes and beams. These, of course, are contained in a parable directed mainly at hypocrisy but which is also about relativities. What is being weighed in the scales is the comparatively minor issue of some aspect of personal conduct on the one hand and, on the other, the wilful corruption of the species’ greatest achievement, namely the forging of an instrument for the exploration of objective truth; I refer, of course, to scientific method. In terms of their relative importance, so disproportionate are these two contrasting alternatives that it seems almost ridiculous to consider them in the same sentence. And yet, you and your confreres agonise over the trivial and consider yourselves virtuous when you ignore the infinitely greater – indeed far worse, for, willy nilly, you take on board and promote a fallacious, corrupt and massively damaging pseudo-scientific proposition.
Of course, as the wind turbine affair makes clear, there is money potentially to be made from pursuing the global warming mythology and if, by nature or nurture, you are of a religious bent, I suppose that one mythology may be thought of as pretty much like another. In any event, I’m sure that cupidity in no way impacted upon the decision making processes of the diocese in its originally misguided efforts to reduce its ‘carbon footprint’. Clearly, though, the fatuousness of that soubriquet fails to strike you.
This letter is already long enough, so I will resist the urge to comment further – well, save perhaps to say that, with one shining exception, namely George Pell, Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, the positioning of the prelatariat in the so-called climate change controversy has been devoid of moral insight, but rich in sanctimonious self-preening.
Your own recent declarations are at one with that.
Yours sincerely,
R.C.E. Wyndham
cc. Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop of London Archbishop of Westminster As the spirit moves
UPDATED: A Biography (Who is Rupert Wyndham?)
Rupert Wyndham (68) of Cornwall, UK, is a former Times journalist, an MA of Oriental Studies at Oxford, and has held board positions in some large publicly quoted companies (including one as company secretary). He’s married with 4 daughters, ” six male grandlings and one little female, to whose number I hope more will be added.” His interests include ” travel across the world and enhancing my carbon footprint for its benefit. Challenging politicians, clergymen, dishonest broadcasters and other assorted riff raff.”
You have missed off the 27th ethical flaw They ignore those who find fault in their conduct
00
“They whitewash arrant knavery”
Third last dot point seems to cover this.
00
Outstanding letter. If only I could write so well.
00
Wyndham? Is that a euphamism for flying pig? 😉
Sorry. Old joke.
00
lol, I don’t know if I should thumbs up or thumbs down that post.
00
Thumbs up it is.
00
It’s always a pleasure to read clean prose from an articulate person, who can express themselves. When it also contains a cogent line of argument, the pleasure is doubled, irrespective of whether you even agree with it or not.
Pointman
10
But… “a brace of homosexuals”? A mite Shakespearean methinks. And yet a terrific metonymy.
00
Seems to cover the area pretty well and I can think of actual examples for most.
Another could be
– Claiming superior knowledge to the experts in other areas, whether statistics, economics or language.
Climate alarmists are false prophets in the religious sense of falsely claiming the gift of prophecy.
Matthew 7:15 used to have an apt description
(Tom Wright 2011)
However, they have long since shed the disguise.
10
The four main strategies of Climate Deniers
Strategy 1 – DISCREDIT THE MESSAGE
A. Highlight the scientific uncertainties
B. Emphasize and take out of context selected findings to weaken the scientific conclusions
C. Making false claims for the policy implications of scientific findings
Strategy 2 – DISCREDIT THE MESSENGER
A.Those eco-doomsters, alarmists, communists! – Plain old name calling
B. Proclaim all guilty by association
Strategy 3 – DISCREDIT THE PROCESS
Strategy 4 – BOLSTER THE COUNTER-MESSAGE
A. Put climate change (or at least the US and fossil fuel industry) in the best possible light
B. Sign-on petitions
C. Putting on a scientific front
D. The proliferation of skeptics organizations
——————————————
REPLY: Cassiopeia – you need to be logical to post for long on this blog. An “alarmists” raises alarms (are you denying that fans of AGW want to alarm us?) — what does a “Denier” deny? Name and explain that paper – you are the one name-calling. — Jo
10
Cassiopeia
The four main strategies of Climate Catastrophists
Strategy 1 – REMAIN ON MESSAGE (Irregardless of observations, data or facts to the contrary)
A. pretend there is scientific certainty, where none truly exist (Consensus, manufactured though it is, is not equivalent to certainty)
B. De-emphasize any findings that weaken the scientific conclusions, using couched phraseology and unscientific terminology or weasel words to modify meaning where possible.
C. Making false claims to allow policy facilitation independent of scientific findings.
Strategy 2 – DISCREDIT DISSENTERS/SKEPTICS
A.Those holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, creationists! – Plain old name calling
B. Proclaim all guilty by association- “fossil fuel shills”, “in pay of big tobacco”
Strategy 3 – BYPASS THE USUAL SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES, by marginalising dissenters, avoiding FOIA requests for data to avoid scrutiny, use of peer review to block papers where possible which conflict with “accepted” positions on climate change, “pal review” for those who stay “on message”, hiding inconvenient data and adjusting data to demonstrate a trend with no clear justification.
Strategy 4 – BOLSTER THE MESSAGE
A. Put climate change in the best possible light with “save the planet” message, ignoring the likely ramifications of these policies on entrenching 3rd world povety, increasing death rates among the most marginal and white-anting first world economies eventually leading to complete social order breakdown and economic ruin (Ie. save the planet, never mind the humans)
B. Media control, Indoctrination of children in schools to young to critically evaluate the evidence, and shameless advertorials like “An Inconvenient Truth”
C. Putting on a scientific front to hide an agenda of global governance/socialism.
D. The proliferation of activist organizations and NGOs like Get Up, Greenpeace, WWF ad infinitum.
00
Strategy 3 – DISCREDIT THE PROCESS
– Sorry I’m confused what is the process?
I’ll help you out with this with a quote ‘Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it’.
00
Sock it to ’em! Wow! But he did leave out the worst one — trying to take over the world, which I’ve no doubt is their ultimate intent.
00
PS: Impressive lexicon too. Or is vocabulary the right term? In any case, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a man with a better arsenal with which to fight a battle of words — and wits.
Wow again!
10
A wonderful letter and worth disseminating widely! I was worried yesterday when Jonova seemed to have been knocked off the Internet. What a lot we would miss then.
00
An absolutely brilliant letter, though I doubt the good bishop would truly appreciate the quality of the missive.
And thank goodness the glitch that took Jo’s site down has been resolved – had me worried about for a time dark forces at work.
00
[…] that can be said about Rupert Wyndham’s excellent prose to Bishop Langrish on the matter than what she wrote this morning. Wonderful stuff! Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Published: […]
01
Thanks, again, Jo.
Wonderful and uplifting read. And I learned a lot to boot.
Great news that your tech problems seem to be resolved.
00
From the “sublime to the ridiculous”. Jo gives a copy of this wonderful writing and then I get to see a copy of the Rio+20 document
http://www.cfact.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Rio+20-Pre-conference-final-draft-The-Future-We-Want.pdf
As well as the content being terrible the writing is appalling. For those who worry about Agenda 21 , start to get more worried. It is mentioned in this doc. many times.
10
Ross
You may find this interesting –
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/
00
The Church, mainstream religion, should be very concerned that they do not become a subset of the pagan religion of (CA)Global Warming.
00
The list is devastatingly correct! If only the MSM operatives had some concept of this!
00
Take them to court! There’s nothing like the stern gaze of a judicial officier to reduce vanity and shonky ideas to a dot of culpability.
Why isn’t it happening?
00
How intensely boring – if he had more time he would written a lot less. Anyone who signs themselves R.C.E. would have to having a good tug. Just the sort of toss-pot that Cohenite would love to defend.
00
Defend against what?!
00
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for just such as thee.
00
What’s more, No Man is an Island.
00
But he’s good against a Cyclops!
00
As usual the point is completely missed.
Wyndham originally wrote to Langrish asking for his thoughts on the topic of PV cells producing a lot of dangerous man made GHG’s during their production.
Langrish failed to respond in any cognitive way hence this latest letter.
You *Sounds fishy* are merely blinded by the very same faith that Wyndham talks about, your pathetic, childish attempts to demean this person due to the way they sign themselves (R.C.E) says it all.
Now crawl back under the rock whence you came.
00
One o your best yet.
00
(My reply is hypocritical. I indulge in exactly what I deplore in the letter.)
What? Some toffee nosed snot hasn’t got the brains to write in paragraphs and resorts to dot points.
At least it looks as though he (and I think I’m safe in assuming that RCE Tosspot is a he) has gone to his thesaurus:
howl down,threatening vilification, propagandist tool,dogma,suppress, wilfully subvert and prostitute, cherry picked from partisan environmentalist propaganda, abuse the young by indoctrinating, lay waste to the environment, hideously expensive, oppress the poor, demonstrable falsehood, spread lies, villains and scientific charlatans, barricades created by privilege, ostentatiously ignore, arrant knavery (my favourite), distort, in furtherance of their mendacity, subvert…
Like everything “skeptic”, the fact that he uses such immoderate language does not mean that he isn’t right. He could be, but by throwing together a grab bag of abuse, he doesn’t help his cause. And if he used to trust the organs of mass communication, then he is not only a knave, but a fool 🙂
10
John
Do you believe that the Earth is flat?
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/
00
Huh! Good post John. Deserves a thumbs up.
(Why the ‘ell don’t you use that intelligence a little more often?)
00
I’ll second that, well done John Brookes, your best post for some time.
00
Just a further point to add to John’s; and Jo Nova calls the scientifically literate name callers? Good grief does that woman ever read her own writing/stuff she posts? Talk about hypocritical!
10
I think you read something else John; something which wasn’t cogent, suberbly structured, erudite and witty. Perhaps you reread your own little effort and are commenting on it in an Ouroborosian fashion.
00
Mr. Brookes, it’s called a good dressing down. Or if you prefer, he got pissed and told the jerk off.
cc to the Archbishop of Canterbury too — I wonder what he thought of it.
Great fun at the expense of people who’ve worked hard to get it.
00
This was a joy to read. The only other person I’ve across recently with such deftness of expression and mastery of language (well, apart from Winston Churchill) is Lord Monckton. Mastery of language is obviously a sign of clear thinking.
If only I could put it so well!
00
Lol… the best mastery of language since Monckton is not an accolade to cherish. Wow and to think I get accused of twisting words.
10
Just questioning –
Quote, R.C.E.Wyndham
So when dry winds sweep across the North Atlantic Current and warm the air which in turn warms Europe, which portion of the atmospheric gases actually absorb and transfer the heat? –
Nitrogen and Oxygen are both four times more powerful at absorbing heat than CO2. Oxygen and Nitrogen together make up 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 makes up only 0.03811%. It is doubtful then in my mind that CO2 contributes anything to the warming of Europe.
If hot air rises how then do some say that heat transfers from cloud to ground?
If it is not CO2 and water vapour, what part of the atmosphere is it then that picks up heat from the North Atlantic Current and warms Europe?
00
Kevin,
I think you are mixing up two different processes.
Wyndhams quote is in reference to the CO2 molecule interacting with infra red energy and raising the heat content of the atmosphere thereby causing more evaporation ergo more WV in the atmosphere raising the temps even higher via the hydrologic cycle.
Wyndham has challenged Langrish to explain how a trace gas can cause so much additional WV i beleive.
Also something to note when you say this :
When CO2 interacts with infra red energy it absorbs that energy this causes the atoms/electrons to move to a higher state of excitement (they vibrate more if you like just like when you cook a pie in the microwave the H2O gets all excited).
Anyway……….the CO2 molecule can get rid of this excess energy in two ways.
A, It can re emit that energy (at a different frequency) in all directions where it is then absorbed by more CO2/WV depending on its frequency of course or.
B, It can pass on that energy as heat to Nitrogen and Oxygen.
The B scenario is how CO2 or the GH effect (if you like) works, no blankets no trapping of anything etc.
So to answer your questions no CO2 has no effect on the warming of Europe.
The process by which CO2 actually increases the heat content of the atmosphere is not fully understood and therefore the magnitude and direction of any change is poorly understood.
00
Good question – From what I read there are limits to the atmospheres water vapour capacity depending on temperature. So how hot would a CO2 molecule need to be to heat the Earth and ocean surfaces enough to raise the atmospheres temperature so that water vapour levels are ever increasing? But then you have to understand latent heat.Water vapour cools the Earth.
00
Obviously Mr Wyndham takes no account of his own scientific ignorance. An ignorance born of blind faith in the lies and mistruths of the denialist movement.
Halleluyah baby!
10
Siilyfilly,
When Wyndham stated that “the IPCC and NOAA both claim that during the production of solar panels a large amount of GHG’s are released into the atmosphere” was he debating from a position of scientific ignorance?
I know you wont answer as you are nothing but a stupid troll.
00
sillyfilly
Does any animal in this description of George Orwells “Animal Farm” have any resonance with you?
00
So sayeth the lord!
00
So help me, donkey. Amen.
00
So if sillyfilly is in for another drive by then Mr Wyndham must be pretty close to the mark.
00
And that very succinctly sums it up, one does not even need to read the post one only needs to see the name. If an article or thread here on Jo’s site has a comment from filly then one knows the material being discussed is relevant. Nothing further need be done as the only purpose of the filly is to disrupt that discussion. A purpose that cannot be achieved if one simply ignores the stupid horse.
00
What is this movement of which you speak?
Who organized(es) it?
How can I join?
What are the “lies and mistruths of which you speak?
What evidence have you of the lies and mistruths?
On the other hand, I know of a movement funded by the UN and the renewables industry, populated by activist greenie pseudo scientists who vehemently peddle lies and mistruths, tamper with evidence and data, con and fool well meaning gullible morons and make large personal gains out of “the movement”.
I wish to join the former. I see you’ve joined the latter. That would make me a skeptic and you a gullible fool moron.
“Silly Filly”…..aptly named.
00
My first thoughts exactly, then I thought, “silly filly”, “crazy horse” and decided it’s actually denigrating to a true historical figure.
00
Well, well, well. Yet another biting and incisive comment from equuleus stupidus. Yawn…… Zzzzzzzz…….
00
Thank you, JoNova, for publishing Rupert Wyndham’s well-written letter to Bishop Langrish on the 26 ethical flaws of propagandists.
World leaders started leading society into its present Orwellian (totalitarian) state in late 1945 in an attempt to “save the world” from destruction by the “nuclear fires” that had been ignited by the cores of uranium and plutonium atoms, respectively, to consume Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 6 and 9, 1945.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-132
Fred Hoyle published two papers in 1946 that abruptly changed opinions of the core of the Sun and other stars [1,2]. Alerted by Hoyle (?), . . .
George Orwell wrote the novel in 1948 on the dangers of totalitarian control of information, “1984”.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
In 1983 Fred Hoyle was not included among Noble Prize winners for work based on his 1946 papers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize
In 1994 Fred Hoyle publicly expressed surprise that mainstream opinions on the core of the Sun had been unanimously adopted without debate at the end of the Second World War [3].
References:
1. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946). http://tinyurl.com/6uhm4xv
2. Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946). http://tinyurl.com/8aal4oy
3. Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist’s Life, (University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, USA, Published 1 April 1994, 443 pages) pp. 153-154
00
Oh, my.
Blogosphere, bad science, bad papers immediately rejected on grounds of the data yet trumpeted in the mass media, fossil fuel funded groups like Heartland, massive conspiracy theories, etc.
I’m sensing a bit of projection here.
00
Stick to the science KR; at least you have a foot in the door.
I’m assuming you are not being ironic and speaking about the AGW; that is, the only paper which has been published and immediately withdrawn has been the Gergis Hockeystick paper.
00
No cohenite, KR has exactly the same style and substance whether arguing the science, the psyschology, or the history: Make pseudo-authoritative statements without any substantiating evidence. When I have prodded him in the past to supply references, they have had a tendency to show the opposite of what he claimed. He has no more support for his above claims than he has for anything else he says.
He is simply a True Believer in AGW.
00
You may be right BobC; I’ve asked him for one decent paper supporting AGW in a comment below; let’s see what he comes up with.
00
Its funny KR, but the “skeptics” tend to accuse the scientists of exactly the same tactics that they employ. Perhaps a recognition that such tactics are crap?
00
The government-funded ‘Climate Scientists’ are paid lots of public moneys to produce junk science and deploy unethical ‘crap’ tactics. Despite the lies that the poor scientists have to battle well-funded skeptics, the money trail has been uncovered — AGW advocates are funded at a 1000s to one ratio above skeptics.
Despite the fantastic advantage in funding and the free Bully Pulpit given them by the media, they still have to engage in criminal conspiracy, data manipulation, and unethical pressure on publications to maintain the illusion that what they are doing is science. This is well documented in their own emails and computer code.
As a group, Climate Scientists are unable and unwilling to police themselves. When skeptics catch them red-handed pushing junk (perhaps fraudlent) science, the media ignores it.
No John; What’s funny is that tools like you still try to defend them and denigrate the mostly unpaid citizens who are working for governmental transparency and accountability (not to mention defending your own liberty in the process).
Pathetic is more like it.
00
Oh my, indeed. The only paper that comes to mind that exactly meets those criteria is the Gergis Australian ‘Hockey Stick’ paper.
Is that what you were referring to KR, or did you have some others in mind?
00
BobC
Gergis et al 2012 has had some issues raised, and the authors immediately pulled the paper to work on them. Discussion on this paper reflects that, and the uncertainties involved; it’s an excellent example of how science should work, with authors taking responsibility for their work.
I was actually thinking of papers such as Beck 2007, Soon & Balinus 2003, Gerlich & Tscheuschner 2009, Spencer & Braswell 2011, anything by Scafetta & West, Lindzen & Choi 2009/2011, etc. – all of which have had significant issues raised, but where (A) the authors refuse to acknowledge the issues, and (B) the papers were and are trumpeted as “silver bullets” to the science, complete with press presentations harping them, including aspects that weren’t actually in the paper (S&B 2011 was particularly bad in this regard).
—
Again – the list of complaints in the opening post are a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.
00
Yeah; they cherry picked their proxies; they asserted that they had:
They in fact had done no such thing; in fact the cherry picked data was not significant, that is it showed no hockeystick, when detrended.
Finally, the cherry picked proxies repeated Mann’s egregious mistake of confusing negative and positive correlations.
It is a debacle; as were many other fundamental papers relied upon to prove AGW. In fact I would like you, KR, as an apparently scientifically literate supporter of AGW to name just one pro-AGW paper which you think is consistent with the scientific standard of proof.
In respect of the list of papers which you have listed as being defective in their opposition to AGW. Pick one and we’ll talk about it; I note your previous opposition to L&C but really I found your arguments repetitive and sparse; for instance at comment 149 here.
L&C clearly note why they dealt with the tropics and this makes sense because the tropics are the heat engine of the planet.
00
cohenite – Well, we’re now firmly off topic; discussing papers rather than the tactics decried by (but used by) many skeptics. However:
Gergis et al 2012 got pulled by the authors. That’s proper behavior. Many bad papers are not, which is a poor reflection upon the authors of those.
If you want to discuss a bad paper, I would
laughlove to see a defense of Spencer and Braswell 2011, particularly in light of Dessler 2011 and Trenberth et al 2011. S&B 2011 ran data from multiple climate models against observations, concluding (showing 6 models) that lower model climate sensitivities better corresponded to observations. However, the data which they ran but did not show contradicted their conclusions, indicating that for the short time period they looked at ENSO replication was a better criteria for the models, and that model climate sensitivity did not correspond. And yet they held multiple press conferences proclaiming that they had shown model climate sensitivity was in error…As to your request for a paper (not pro-AGW, as I really wish we weren’t seeing these effects, and everyone in the field I’ve spoken to feels likewise) I feel “consistent with the scientific standard of proof”? Here’s one that has held up to long examination, one based upon physics and observation, and I’ll even give you one that wasn’t run through the peer review system so many seem to decry. S. Arrhenius 1896, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. I will in particular note the general predictions on page 265, column 1, involving polar amplification, greater warming over land, in the winter, and in the Northern hemisphere, reduced difference between day/night temperatures, albedo feedbacks, latitude dependent warming anomalies, etc. And an estimated sensitivity expressed by a logarithmic form: “…to get a new increase of this order of magnitude (3-4C), it will be necessary to alter the quantity of carbonic acid till it reaches a value nearly midway between 2 and 2.5.”
All of which, I’ll note, are supported by current observations.
00
You mean like Michael Mann’s papers?
00
I would have to include every CO2 cycle model paper that ignores (and doesn’t try to reproduce or explain) the empirical data — which is 100% of them.
Then, of course, we have to ask: Who decides if a paper is bad? I don’t think that everyone will accept your solution, which is any paper you don’t like. After all, a published paper WAS accepted by the reviewers, who must disagree with you on your selection of ‘bad’ ones.
The idea that papers you disagree with should be suppressed is a non-starter and anti-scientific to boot. Let them be published and let people argue over them.
00
BobC
Mann’s papers had some responses published; those came under review in turn – and generally failed to hold up. In addition there are about a dozen other groups using different proxies, different statistical techniques – and they all confirm the broad outline of Mann’s work. That’s science that’s held up.
[Of course, I half expect you to claim that all of that work is produced by “pal-review”, distorted, and chock full of manipulated data and malfeasance. If you do indeed feel that way, well, I would have to consider that view an irrational conspiracy theory.]
Peer-review is just the first step, a first pass filter on the quality of work, reducing the “duh” issues. Review by the rest of the community familiar with the problem domain is the real review.
I would have to say that this is a complete strawman argument. I have certainly advocated not proclaiming invalid work as “silver bullets” – but establishing which paper holds up and which does not requires looking at it. I have never, ever advocated suppressing papers, and would ask you to withdraw that utterly false statement.
—
Just for you, I would suggest looking at Bolin and Eriksson 1958 (overview and link to primary article), where C14 (your favorite!) was used to determine the slow rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans. Using empirical data, they first discuss the 3-5 year residence time of individual molecules, but then go on to calibrate the Seuss effect on total CO2 change rates with C14/C12 ratios – concluding that to be due to slow oceanic absorption bottlenecked by buffering chemistry. And that our emissions would continue to affect atmospheric CO2 levels for hundreds of years.
The actual growth of atmospheric CO2 was ~20% over that period. Not a bad prediction, 40 years out, considering industrialization has been close to exponential.
00
Please. Mann’s work (and that of his buddys who use the same mathematical methods shown to create ‘hockey stick’ “temperature” graphs from random data) directly contradict hundreds of other studies showing the global presence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
So a small number of papers, done by a small group of collaborators, using a mathematical methodology shown to be inappropriate contradicts hundreds of other studies using diverse methodologies. Yet Mann’s conclusions are what you like, so you define them as “good” and those that disagree as “bad” — which should have been withdrawn by the authors, according to you.
All your defense of Mann convinces me of is that you haven’t the slightest trace of objectivity.
Well, you have advocated having “bad” papers withdrawn — it is a short step to advocating having them not published at all, which I think you are in favor of. The problem is that you want to decide which papers are “bad” — it’s not enough for you that a journal’s reviewers thought it should be published. It’s a short logical step to conclude that you think that a group of elites (yourself included) should decide what gets published. Perhaps you haven’t taken it that far in your own mind and would reject the conclusion if you did — in that case I appologize and withdraw the statement.
It would be nice if you would make an attempt to clarify what you think should be published and why. For example: exactly why should Michael Mann’s (and his colleagues’) papers — based on disputed mathematical methods — be considered to have falsified the hundreds of other diverse temperature reconstructions that his reconstruction disagrees with? His even disagrees with other tree-ring proxies that use less controversial mathematical means.
The only rational reason I can see for you preferring Mann’s results is that you want them to be true, and blind yourself to their flaws.
00
Well, not really: the C14 data was used to determine the fast absorption rate of atmospheric CO2. Then they started whipping out the unverified models to claim “it ain’t so!”:
But, this conclusion depends critically on the assumption that the Suess effect (depletion of both C14 and C13 w.r.t. C12) can only be due to fossil fuel use. This assumption (which they accept without evidence) is easy to test using other paleotemperature proxies, such as ice cores. When this is done, it is found that many episodes of C13 depletion have occured in the Earth’s history — usually associated with warming periods, and many far predating Humankind.
So, once again, the conclusions that they draw — that anthropogenic CO2 emission is the main driver of atmospheric CO2 increase — is based on unverified (indeed, in this case, falsified) models and assumptions.
The fact that they made a reasonably accurate prediction of CO2 concentration increase is irrelevant, as the same prediction would have been made by simply assuming that current rate of increase (for unknown reasons) would remain nearly the same in the future. About as sophisicated as drawing a straight line on a (logarithmic) graph, and certainly not a crucial experiment regarding their (already falsified) hypotheses, as you imply.
00
BobC – Clearly you have not read the paper I linked. See section 4, where the Sùess effect (sorry, misspelled it earlier) is measured directly from observed bomb spike C14 to C12 ratios. Definitely not C13, and definitely anthropogenic in origin.
—
WRT the hocky stick graphs – even
ranting aboutdisregarding Mann (who deserves considerable credit for introduced machine learning techniques/evidence evaluation into paleoclimate reconstructions), there are all the other reconstructions, such as the global paleoclimate works list at NOAA (look at those listed as ‘global’ and ‘hemispheric’). Some people make a great deal of noise about Mann, who appears to be a skeptic target – but honestly, this literature, these varied statistical techniques (including many with no tree proxies whatsoever, mind you) – they have held up in the field. You really don’t have a leg to stand on.And even if you are correct, that the MWP was large and global – that’s bad news for all of us, as that would indicate even higher climate sensitivities to the forcings that caused the MWP, and an even stronger climate response in the future.
—
Oh well, enough time spent on this sideline.
– The complaints about main-stream science in the opening post are a serious case of “pot calling the kettle black”.
– BobC continues to insist on ‘bomb-spikes’ to uphold fast oceanic CO2 absorption, despite 50 years of literature and evidence using C14 bomb-spike data that shows _slow oceanic CO2 absorption_. I see no point in arguing with someone who refuses to consider the data.
– And cohenite has failed to respond to the very challenge he raised, which (IMO) answers any question as to whether he had a point or not (apparently not).
Adieu for now.
00
Liberals commit to a policy as dumb as the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax – WTF !!!!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/liberals_commit_to_a_policy_as_dumb_as_the_carbon_tax/
The timid Coalition is determined to keep a futile green policy that is driving up power prices – and, no, it’s not the carbon tax:
Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.
Queensland senator Ron Boswell told a meeting of the Coalition joint partyroom in Canberra that the RET would have a bigger impact on the aluminium industry than the carbon tax, and the Coalition had to acknowledge higher electricity costs associated with the target were a serious problem for manufacturing.
But the Opposition Leader told the partyroom that people saw generating renewable energy as an important issue and the Coalition had to commit to it.
However, West Australian MP Dennis Jensen told MPs that if the Coalition had taken that position, it would have gone along with the carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, and “we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now” with the opposition in front of the government based on its opposition to the carbon tax.
Jensen is right, of course. Renewable energy is “crap”.
Looks like we need a new political party in australia !
One that actually cares about australia and australians !!!!!
Clearly the liberal party is full of anti australian traitors, just like the alp (australian liars party ) and the COMMUNIST greens !!
Global warming is the greatest FRAUD in history !
00
.
Yes.
And let’s not forget that the Coalition will in all likelihood be able to claim an overwhelming mandate to impose their particular brand of green madness.
Just imagine where we’d be now if JuLIAR had a 30 seat majority, for THAT is our future. Sticking with the impossible (and pointless) 20% renewable target means – amongst other things:
* – Retention of the Department of Climate Change – somebody has to oversee the madness.
* – Continued taxpayer subsidies for pie in the sky ideas like CCS, solar and wind.
* – Continued soaring electricity and gas bills.
* – Continued failure to develop meaningful, reliable base-load power sources.
* – Inevitable rolling power blackouts and brown-outs.
* – Inevitable “need” to limit household consumption – probably through smart meter technology.
Just to name a few obvious and inevitable outcomes. Chuck in on top of that a 15,000 strong “Green Army” which will be little more than a taxpayer-funded training and recruitment vehicle for Greenpeace and the WWF and our Coalition “green” future looks decidedly non-rosy.
Then, of course, we have all the standard Coalition “golden oldies” to look forward to – like the return of Workchoices, even more expensive higher education expenses for our children, even more taxpayer’s money wasted on meaningless “training” for the unemployed via the vast “employment” quangos set up by Howard, and, I have no doubt, the finalisation of the complete disarmament of the civilian population, also initiated by Howard.
And I haven’t even touched on the scary stuff.
War with China, anyone?
It’s inevitable the Yanks are going to do it sooner or later.
Liberal Prime Ministers seem to make a habit of dutifully following American Generals into battle.
00
Stop it, mv! You’re getting me (and others possibly) suicidal. We can’t give the Warmista that pleasure.
The worst bit is that you are at least 95% right. Clearly, Abbott feels the hot breath of the Turnbull cabal at the back of his neck. Maybe it’s time for another e-mail and fax carpet bombing of the type that got Turnbull the boot first time round.
Certainly, the more Abbott states that he will repeal all this mess, the less reassured I feel.
00
.
Apologies Mark, but I only state the blindingly obvious.
I look upon the Jo Nova crowd as a sort of extended family, with me at my age and life experience as a “grandad” sort-figure, and it grieves me that so many of them earnestly believe that somehow simply voting for the Coalition is going to change anything.
My greatest fear isn’t that the Coalition will be as bad as Labor; it is that with an “overwhelming mandate” they will be even worse.
Their written policies attest to that probability.
00
Money is the ruling power.
Even if the LNP tried to do the right thing the force of treaties signed, the United Nations and the Banks would quickly bring them to heel. And the minister for Goldman Sachs is just waiting.
00
The Renewable Energy Target this is what has been putting up the energy bills the last year or so no one even thinks about this.So really the compensation the government is handing out now is really for the RET scheme.So what compensation is coming for the CO2 tax.My guess NOTHING.
Interesting I read somewhere some time ago of two studies that were done that showed that once you got above 20% renewable penetration on the grid the amount of CO2 emitted was more than what would be emitted if the renewable power was not there at all.
00
Really, a no brainer, and applies to ANY use of renewables on a mainframe grid, not just an amount above 20%. Since “renewables” (solar and wind in OZ) are intermittent at best, then to maintain consistency of supply, somewhere in the background there has to be running some kind of base-load capable supply for the times when the renewables drop out.
Since there is no such thing as a totally CO2 emissions-free source of energy, then ANY mix of renewables plus backup will result in higher CO2 emissions. And the higher the percent of renewables in the mix, then the higher the combined total of CO2 emissions.
Of course, this is based on the current idea of an electrical supply system being able to respond to a constantly fluctuating demand, which is not what our “leaders” (including the Coalition) have in mind for the future.
Instead we are meant to live with a constantly fluctuating supply (via “renewables”) and our demand will be adjusted accordingly to what is available at any given moment.
Hence the “need” for smart meters that can turn off various appliances in your home at whim, according to what is available via the grid at any given moment.
00
Hi mv !!
Could you please explain just how your typical “Smart Meter” can turn off your kettle and leave your microwave running. Or turn off the television in your living room and leave the television in the kids bedroom running. Or turn off the fridge and leave the cappacino machine running. There are a host of other possibilities but these will do for now.
Looking forward to your prompt reply.
Cheers !!!!
00
.
Bangalow Bill!
You’ll have to contact Savepower NSW Government – re:
See “News Release Savepower”
Just google smart meters Australia – over 2,000,000 results in 0.24 seconds.
Pretty amazing technology, Huh Bill!
00
.
Bangalow Bill,
Forgot – if you want the following:
A sparkie could wire it up so the smart meter can do this – why you would want to do this I cannot fathom – but Hey – different strokes for different folks!!
Or use only wind power plus solar – guaranteed to work on sunny windy days!
Why would you want the fridge off and the cappacino machine to run???
Why have you even got a cappacino machine in a Bungalow?
00
Typical crap from a typical troll. Your comment doesn’t even address the issue I raised; how, for instance, would “turning off the television in the living room while leaving the television in kids bedroom running” fit the scenario I outlined.
The implementation will happen in stages. First is the requirement for a “smart meter”. Second is the requirement for “smart wiring”. This will be introduced in stages: first for all newly constructed homes, then for all existing homes put on the market for sale, and last for rental homes. All of these steps have been test-implemented in Australia, somewhere, already.
The home you live in is already “smart-wired” (multiwired). At the very least you have a circuit for power, and a separate circuit for lighting. If you have an off-peak hot water system, there is a separate circuit for that. And you might possibly have 3-phase circuitry as well. Forcibly introducing (via legislation) the requirement for an additional circuit as detailed in the paragraph above, is hardly rocket science.
Your new circuit will split power into two circuits; “necessary” and “luxury”. Your fridge and stove will be on the “necessary” circuit, and your hot water and air-conditioner will be on “luxury”. Supply to both will monitored and controlled via your smart meter. Power to the kitchen will be on “necessary”, and power to the other rooms (lounge room, bedrooms, bathroom etc) will be on “luxury”).
Unlike your intellectual wet dreams about unattainable “renewable” energy, this is all existing technology. There even exists a small device that can be plugged into a wall socket, and then an appliance plugged into it, which accomplishes much the same kind of monitoring and control via an attachment to your smart meter.
This is the here and now; this is YOUR future. And, by your comments, you are obviously too stupid and brainwashed to realise the implications for you and your family.
.
Hope that was prompt enough for you.
00
.
Bingalow Bull has disappeared? 🙁
00
You missed one item MV and that is the EV we will all be driving in this brave new world.
Will it be on the “necessary”circuit or the “luxury”circuit.
00
“Luxury” obviously.
Minions are supposed to use public transport.
00
Dave,
Clearly you didn’t read the posts. Comprehension is not one of your fortes.
And deliberately misspelling names is not a good look. You come across as a bit of a dill.
Sorry.
00
Hi mv!!!
You said a Smart Meter could turn off appliances at whim. I gave you a whimsical scenario. You still have not answered the question.
I think you are confusing “smart wiring” with systems like Clipsals C Bus. They are home automation systems and can be installed in various locations within the house. While obviously connected to the Distribution Board, they are not controlled by the Smart Meter. In the case of wireless C Bus systems, they operate on a different frequency to Smart Meters.
The “smart wiring” (multiwired), you refer to is the standard wiring for a residence. The last house I built in 2008 had two light circuits, two power circuits, and one for the oven: hot water is gas boosted solar. We also retrofitted an air-conditioner and that also has its own circuit. There are also two safety switches. My first house in 1978 was wired the same way. My parents house was wired the same way.
I watched our Smart Meter being installed. There is no way it can control separate circuits. It can turn power to the whole house on or off and transmit usage data back to the supplier but that’s about it. It may ultimately have the capability to turn various appliances on and off, but you would have to rewire the whole house and put everything on separate circuits. The cost would be horrendous.
There are “Home Monitoring Systems” or Energy Managers, Appliance Modules and Circuit Meters such as those made by Jetlun. These are being trialled in Sydney at present. They are monitored online by the user and the electricity supplier. Until such time as all appliances are on separate circuits, control remains with the user.
Finally, given the tone of your responses here, you come across as one of those propagandists Lyneham describes.
Cheers!!!!!!
00
Bungalow Bill,
Smart meters are called smart meters because they are………….for example currently if you do not pay your bill the company will send out an electrician to disconnect your power but not anymore. With a smart meter the company can simply stop the meter from supply electricity to your home.
Another example is that they no longer need to physically read your meter they can now do it remotely via computer.
In your house you will have multiple circuits usually one for you oven/hot plates, several for your power (lights etc) these circuits will/can be wired to your meter individually and yes as MV has stated these circuits can be turned off at the behest of the power company.
Velcom to the new diktatorship comrade
00
crakar24
That’s precisely what I said crakar24: it saves them the cost of employing meter readers etc.
But, the way the smart meter is currently wired, it cannot turn off the oven or aircon separately (these being the only appliances on separate circuits). All other appliances are run off GPO’s on either of the two power circuits on the switchboard, and the smart meter cannot turn those off separately either. To rewire the house to put all appliances on separate circuits would be outrageously expensive, and I won’t be paying for it.
As I said, there are moitoring systems which sit between the appliance and the GPO and can be accessed via computer by the resident or the power company. Volunteers are trialling these at present in Sydney. The whole thrust of this is to encourage people to use their power more efficiently(given the ability to apply variable tariffs for different time periods) and to enable suppliers to monitor loads over the grid. Until such time as all appliances are on separate circuits and smart meters are wired in accordingly, it’s all voluntary and you can pull the monitor out of the GPO if you want.
I have no problem with someone monitoring how much power my fridge uses and they can always disconnect me completely now if they want. But, if there is a power shortage and I have to choose between a fridge or an aircon or have power completely disconnected, I’ll opt to do without the aircon.
Cheers!
00
Bill says this:
The psychology of this statement is inexplicable to most people but is common enough. It reveal another dimension to AGW believers; the willingness to accept subjugation and similtaneously demand that others conform to the same constraints.
It’s like volunteering to be a slave.
00
Cohenite :
Do you use a Credit Card or own an iPhone?
In both cases you movements can be easily tracked. And your iPhone can be remotely turned off. The government can easily montor your phone if they so desire.
You clearly use the internet.
Every site you visit is logged and can be monitored. Your viewing habits can be analysed and strangely enough advertisements for particular products and be directed to you.
Do you drive a car?
The police use radar guns, cameras – fixed and mobile to monitor you. You car is registered. You should have a Drivers License.
Have you walked through the city lately?
You would have been recorded on surveillence cameras on every corner.
Have you ever travelled by aircraft?
You would have been scanned and searched. If you have travelled to the USA you would have been fingerprinted as well.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
I am not subjugated in the slightest, and I don’t expect others to conform to the same regulations, if they do not desire to do so. I expect you observe the speed limits when driving your car, and stop at red lights – or do the rules not apply to you?
I understand you are a lawyer. It seems to me you’ve spent too long propped up against the wrong bar.
This is modern society, if you don’t like it, leave. Maybe a cave with all it’s freedoms will suit you better.
And I’d get rid of that superiority complex.
Cheers.
00
Oh, all very true Bill but unlike you I don’t like it.
00
But you still choose to live in mainstream society.
Oh the hypocracy!!!!!!!
Would total anarchy please you?
00
No, why whould it; but neither does the nanny state which you have so vividly described and apparently support.
What I particularly object today is “green tape” which is misanthropic in intent and which is strangling individual rights as well as the the cornerstones of a free democratic society, that is scientific integrity and due process. The CO2 tax compromises both of these.
But you don’t care.
00
Wyndham has taken action, and i only wish the public in general – everywhere – would do the same. surely PTA’s, for example, should be demanding that schools stop teaching their children that “climate change” is what the UN tries to claim it is, namely CAGW. what damage must that be doing to children’s education?
surely all scientists, teachers, etc should also be demanding that the UN revoke its definition, for the sake of science.
nothing depresses me more than hearing the words “climate change” being used in the UN “(non)sense”, and yet it seems impossible to override. that the MSM uses it daily only serves to reinforce the lie. we need concerted action.
00
[…] – the climate propagandist’s dying art June 20, 2012 No CommentsBy ChucklesJoNova quotes Rupert Wyndham’s excellent prose to Bishop Langrish on the 26 ethical flaws of […]
00
a perfect example of the mis-use of “climate change”. here we have implicated Jenny Barchfield of Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Mayor of NYC (who has been giving pension funds to Al Gore’s company) and a former President, Bill Clinton:
20 June: WaPo: AP: Mayors vaunt progress against climate change, as nations fight over Rio earth summit goals
“He (NYC Mayor Bloomberg) added that two-thirds of the C40 initiatives to combat climate change were financed solely out of municipal budgets, with no funds from national governments.”…
The C40 already works with the Clinton Climate Initiative on global warming issues, and the former U.S. President Bill Clinton was beamed in via video conference to address the participants.
“When I first began working on climate change more than two decades ago, a (projected one billion ton reduction) would never have been thought of as possible,” Clinton said…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mayors-vaunt-progress-against-climate-change-as-nations-fight-over-rio-earth-summit-goals/2012/06/19/gJQAK7uboV_story.html
think of the furore, which continues, about certain evangelical attempts to have intelligent design taught in the schoolroom. u still have people freaking out about it.
yet you can carry on in scientific & financial circles, schools, govt, MSM, etc non-stop about “climate change” as if it were CAGW – even tho humans were not on earth for almost the entirety of its 4.5bn years of existence, and nothing and no-one can stop this nonsense.
wake me up when it’s over.
00
OT but something that people must be made aware of in any case!
=================
Another corrupt UN organization involved in the global warming fraud – “ICLEI”
ICLEI – “International Council for Environmental Initiatives”.
Gillard is not on her own in imposing climate change fraud on Australia. Here is a UN group that collects money from your local council and imposes Agenda 21 on your area without your vote or permission.
They are called “International Council for Environmental Initiatives”. They are unelected and not voted on but they take over all development in councils that agree. They represent the UN and their mission is to impose Sustainability on all regions of the world. That is what they think is sustainable, not what locals know is sustainable.
Wonder how the Victorian bushfires were so bad? I bet these clowns were running the local council agendas.
So Gillard thinks she is safe in imposing a destructive CARBON DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax based on a scam on Australia because these socialists have been imposing the conditions since 1998.
Here is the link to the contact page for this UN anti Australian treasonous group:-
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-contact-us
Link to the COMMUNIST UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21…..
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
The Totalitarian Threat of Agenda 21
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-totalitarian-threat-of-agenda-21.html
Agenda 21 Exposed
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Agenda-21-Exposed/150975061627200?sk=wall
Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: “Sustainable” Development’s Unsustainable Contradictions
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7380
Liberty or Sustainable Development?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Shaw/michael118.htm
ICLEI MEMBERS IN AUSTRALIA……..
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454
• Adelaide City Council
• Alice Springs Town Council
• Ashfield Municipal Council
• Australian Capital Territory Government
• Australian Local Government Association
• Ballarat City Council
• Bass Coast Shire Council
• Bega Valley Shire Council
• Benalla Rural City Council
• Brisbane City Council
• Burwood Council
• Cairns Regional Council
• Cardinia Shire Council
• City of Boroondara
• City of Brimbank
• City of Bunbury
• City of Burnside
• City of Geraldton-Greenough
• City of Greater Geelong
• City of Greater Geralton
• City of Joondalup
• City of Kingston
• City of Lake Macquarie
• City of Mandurah
• City of Marion
• City of Melbourne
• City of Melville
• City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
• City of Onkaparinga
• City of Perth
• City of Port Phillip
• City of South Perth
• City of Stirling
• City of Subiaco
• City of Sydney
• City of Vincent
• City of West Torrens
• City of Whitehorse
• City of Whittlesea
• City of Wodonga
• City of Yarra
• Clarence Valley Council
• Coffs Harbour City Council
• Colac Otway Shire Council
• Devonport City Council
• District Council of Mount Barker
• District Council of the Copper Coast
• East Gippsland Shire Council
• Frankston City Council
• Fraser Coast Regional Council
• Gold Coast City Council
• Gosford City Council
• Hobsons Bay City Shire Council
• Holroyd City Council
• Hunter’s Hill Council
• Kogarah Council
• Leichhardt Municipal Council
• Liverpool City Council
• Manningham City Council
• Maroondah City Council
• Mike Galea (EnvironArc Pty Ltd)
• Mildura Rural City Council
• Moira Shire Council
• Moorabool Shire Council
• Mornington Peninsula Shire
• Mosman Municipal Council
• Murrindindi Shire Council
• North Sydney Council
• Palerang Council
• Parramatta City Council
• Penrith City Council
• Richmond Valley Council
• Rural City of Wangaratta
• Shire of Augusta-Margaret River
• Shire of Dardanup
• Snowy River Shire Council
• Strathfield Municipal Council
• Sunshine Coast Regional Council
• Swan Hill Rural City Council
• The Barossa Council
• The City of Unley
• The Shire of Peppermint Grove
• Toowoomba City Council
• Town of Kwinana
• Townsville City Council
• Warrnambool City Council
• Wyndham City Council
Is your local council listed ?
Email them and let them know of your ANGER !!!!!!
00
“ICLEI” isn’t pronounced “icy-lie”, but ought to be.
Town of Kwinana has been squandering ratepayer’s money for a couple of years now, including the construction of one of Australia’s most dangerous intersections surrounded by a quarter of a million dollars worth of unnecessary landscaping, “calming” traffic on B-distributor roads slowing down responding emergency vehicles, re-constructing OK roads making them more fragile, planting substantial trees on median strips on (former) B-distributors, …
I’m guessing that that is because they know that they are soon to be dissolved (absorbed in Rockingham and Cockburn) and are emptying the accounts to make sure that they get all their bonus points.
Kwinana used to be the heavy-industry heartland of Western Australia. The Town of Kwinana joining an anti-industry, anti-development organization was bound to end in tears.
00
19 June: Fairfax: Maribyrnong Weekly: Adam Morton: IMF backs carbon price
A CLIMATE change policy guide by the International Monetary Fund has broadly backed the federal government’s starting point, recommending a minimum initial carbon price of about $20 a tonne…
The IMF report Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change was released last week as its managing director Christine Lagarde gave a speech arguing emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes on airlines and shipping were needed to tackle economic, environmental and social crises…
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said businesses could raise prices, but must not falsely blame the carbon tax.
The watchdog has already received about 200 complaints, with suspect rises ranging from a slab of beer to the construction of a swimming pool.
http://www.maribyrnongweekly.com.au/news/national/national/general/imf-backs-carbon-price/2594962.aspx
19 June: Australian: Rosanne Barrett: Carbon tax helps push Brisbane City Council rates up $55
AUSTRALIA’S biggest council has blamed the carbon tax for almost 40 per cent of its rates increase next financial year, flagging an average overall jump of $55 per year…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/carbon-tax-pushes-brisbane-city-council-rates-up-40pc/story-fndttws1-1226402804126
00
arbitrary as ever:
20 June: Herald Sun: Malcolm Farr: Council rubbish tips to get relief from carbon tax
COUNCIL rubbish tips will get some relief from carbon pricing as the Government continues to tinker with the scheme just 10 days before it hits corporate and municipal budgets…
Local government is set to get greater certainty on how carbon emissions from land fills will be calculated and some will be told they will not have to pay an emissions penalty at all.
And they will be told how they might harvest carbon credits from their garbage, which could be sold to bigger polluters…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/council-rubbish-tips-to-get-relief-from-carbon-tax/story-e6frf7l6-1226402723990
AUDIO: 19 June: ABC: Apprenticeships on hold over carbon tax fears
Businesses aren’t hiring as many apprentices as they should, partly due to fears over the carbon tax, says a company that’s training the next generation of mining workers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-19/apprenticeships-on-hold-over-carbon-tax-fears/4079760?section=business
00
A great article and perhaps the beginning of the end but we need an avalanche of such comments from high profile figures to finally rid ourselves of Man Made Global Warming.
00
Semantics I know but I disagree, we don’t have to rid ourselves of “Man Made Global Warming” as in effect that means ridding ourselves of something that isn’t there to begin with.
We need to rid ourselves of the leeches promoting it. We need to rid ourselves of the idea, since that is all it has ever been is an idea. But what the idea refers to we needn’t worry about as it only exists in the minds of the promoters and their followers.
00
Thanks for that. That’s what it was about.
00
Well Jo. A climate Denier (as you well know) is shorthand for someone who denies the evidence of man made climate change.
Virtually all the top scientists accept man made climate change, at least to some extent. This includes skeptics such as John Christy and even the fossil fueindustryry itself.
“most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations.” John Christy – United States district court for the district of Vermont, Opinion and order, Case 2:05-cv-302 Filed 09/12/2007,
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,”
The Global Climate Coalition members prior to 1997 included: The American Highway Users Alliance, British Petroleum, DaimlerChrysler, Exxon / Esso, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation and Shell Oil USA). However their OWN scientists concluded:
So when this issue was decided decades ago, why do you persist spreading nonsense?
00
Fair enough, starlight. So lay the “evidence” on us.
1) – “Evidence” of any recent, observed change in climate not consistent with past observed, natural cycle variations.
2) – “Evidence” that such changes (if proved to even exist by evidence) are/were caused by increased atmospheric CO2.
3) – “Evidence” that said claimed increase in CO2 is due to human activity, and not due to natural effects (eg outgassing from warming oceans consistent with Henry’s Law).
4) – “Evidence” that, in the unlikely event of 1, 2 and 3 above being true and demonstrable, the consequences will be “catastrophic” rather than “neutral”, or even “beneficial” – after all, ultimately we’re debating Catastrophic AGW, NOT “climate change”, which is both an oxymoron and a tautology.
.
Remember, computer models and “consensus” do not constitute either observation or evidence.
.
Off you go.
00
Try something a little more extensive and up to date by John Christy:
House Science, Space and Technology Committee
Examining the Process concerning Climate Change Assessments
31 March 2011
John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville
One Page Summary
1.Climate assessments like the IPCC have to date been written through a process in which IPCC-selected authors are given significant authority over the text, including
judging their own work against work of their critics. This has led to biased information in the assessments and thus raises questions about a catastrophic view of climate change because the full range of evidence is not represented.
Three examples follow.
1.A. Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.
1.B.In the IPCC 2007 report, Dr. Ross McKitrick presented evidence that indicated warming processes other than greenhouse gas warming affected the popular surface
temperature data sets. The IPCC authors were themselves producers of these data sets, yet as “final-say” authors they sat in judgment over this controversy, eventually denying McKitrick’s evidence with what turned out be (apparently) their own fabricated claim.
1.C.The EPA Finding misrepresented key evidence on the evaluation of climate models against real data. In IPCC-like fashion, the EPA gave authority to its hand-picked author
team to respond to evidence which contradicted the Finding with assertions that were not based on reliable data or methods. The evidence shows the EPA overstated the agreement between models and observations when in fact there was disagreement.
2.Warming in surface temperatures is caused by many factors other that greenhouse gases, one reason they are poor proxies to depict greenhouse warming. Bulk atmospheric temperatures, a more direct proxy, show much less warming that models predict.
3.Because this issue has policy implications that may potentially raise the price of energy significantly (and thus essentially the price of everything else), the U.S. Congress should not rely exclusively on the U.N. assessments because the process by which they were written includes biased, false, and/or misleading information about one of the most murky of sciences – climate. In my opinion, the Congress needs at least one second opinion produced by well-credentialed climate scientists but overseen by a non-activist team which includes those with experience in the scientific method, the legal aspects of“discovery,” and who simply know what is important in answering the questions at hand.”
As we can see you Cassiopeia you perfectly fit the uniformed, data distorting, alarmist/warmist/activist Wyndham describes. You can further improve your understanding of John Christy’s position here:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/ChristyJR_written_110331
or if it won’t download try googling:
John R. Christy The University of Alabama in Huntsville 1 House …
science.house.gov/sites/…house…/ChristyJR_written_110331_all.pdf
00
Hi Cassiopia,
You seem to be living in the past.
John Christy has moved on since 2007 and so should you.
All that has been shown by the proponents of the Global Warming myth is that we put too much credibility in the integrity of some “Climate Scientists”. On this blog in particular we have seen the evolution understanding of the con and to come to see how we were dudded and led to expend billions world wide on a green fabrication called MMGW.
In the end those of us with expertise in real modelling were able to deconstruct the rubbish that fooled others and see that the fabled “Climate Scientists” were nothing but overwhelmingly under-qualified amateurs who were not equipped to deal with complex interactive physical and chemical systems.
The science is starting to stick but the media is still full of images like sustainability, renewables and other key green catchwords.
Once the average person gets caught in a rut it is very hard to get out.
All I can see is the “sustainability” of human intransigence in changing course on MMGW.
00
Cassiopia:
I’ve been asking for that mystery paper with empirical evidence for two years. Let me guess, you, like the IPCC, Pitman, Steffen, English, Hanson, and everyone else who happens to have an internet connection still can’t find that paper?
Who is in denial here? The best you can do is a couple of old cherry picked lines?
Jo
00
I look forward to being able to give her a thumbs down… seems to be off-line since the move?
00
Cassiopia; get together with KR and produce some evidence, a paper, just one.
Maybe one of these.
00
I pointed this out a few months ago but nobody gave it a second thought.
I posit that not once in nigh on a century has the C of E objected to the monetary regime that promulgates this carbon credit scam. There is nothing ethical about it. Why don’t they object? Because, like the Catholic Church, they are in on it. The Vatican Bank is just about the progenitor.
00
Maybe O/T but
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/lead-them-not-into-temptation/#more-3287
00
Thank you Jo. Some people have a gift for exposing dishonest organised verbosity, with a few well chosen words, Rupert has that gift, thank goodness.
00
ICLEI
I love ICLEI stated aim of fulfilling sustainability which is meeting current needs without destroying future generations ability to meet their needs- there done- just about anything is fine. Just watch sci-fi to see the massive possibilites that will allow that automatically. Beats me why anyone would join an organisation where meeting its requirements are so easy.
00
There was a time when people could write a letter to a newspaper and refer to black people as niggers, and the letters were published too. If objected to, the disingenuious argument was the that the word merely referred to their skin colour. Of course, all the adults knew exactly the emotional payload of that word. Eventually, the penny dropped with the newspapers and letters using that word no longer appeared on the letters page.
I think it’s about time that same penny dropped with the skeptic blogs. We don’t have to stand for it and we never should have either. If they use the denier word, ban them.
Pointman
00
Pointman, the policy here is that the difference between insults and namecalling is whether someone can justify the terms they use. We allow through a comment or two from the petty baseless namecallers only because it’s good target practice. If they prove to be a bore or a conversation hog, then they either 1/ name and explain that paper we deny, or 2/ Apologise. So far the tally is that about 50 namecallers failed to provide a paper, and have been blocked, and one person apologized.
I completely agree with you about the term “denier” — the conversation about the science can’t even start until the term denier stops. Who would discuss science with a dog? (No offense to canine friends intended. 😉 )
00
I really hope you understand that I can justify what I called MV on the other thread;)
00
Jo, turning a liability into “target practise” is a fine re-use of such people. The 50 to 1 batting average is a compliment to you. They obviously only send the crème de la crème of trolls here.
Agreed, the grown up conversation can’t even start until they stop using terms like “denier.”
P
00
The Bishop of Exeter and his diocese are supposed to have as their highest authority the person of God, his Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the evidential text of that authority being God’s word recorded in the Bible. The support of AGW and the desire for the revenue from the windfarm(s) appears to have caused the placement of God’s authority and his supremacy of concern for man down below the worship of Gaia. This is the issue at stake here.
As a Christian, I cannot contemplate any political, scientific or other moral code or policy that subjugates God’s desire for man below earth or animals. That does not mean however I reject all political, scientific or other moral codes, unless they conflict with the Christian Gospel message. It also does not mean that I reject science, as Prof. Dawkins black & white view would claim to have me do, but one significant strand of God’s revelation of himself to us is though science (others are art, literature, nature, etc., in fact all of human expression and discovery). The common thread between Chriatianity and science must however be the revelation of truth.
This is where the Bishop of Exeter and his Diocese have made a serious error, that in supporting AGW, they have denied truth, scientific truth. Christianity and science offer different truths of course, and the path to each truth is different, but the proclamation of one and the oppression of the other cannot sit together in a person truly ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’. They cannot coexist with any integrity.
The sad state of affairs is, that whilst there are many scientists who conduct genuine research that may indicate support for AGW, the horrid atmosphere surrounding climate research and knowledge has forced polarisations of view. So, instead of seeing how a piece of research fits into the big picture, and what questions it raises that themselves need to be answered, each research result becomes ‘proof’ by one side or the other of their view or debunking of the other’s view.
The church, e.g. CofE (of which I am a member), but also Methodist and others, should not be taking one side or the other, but looking at the effects of the policies enacted due to AGW or sceptic belief on the welfare of people. Currently, the AGW camp is making all or the vast majority of the political policy, and despite the rhetoric, the effects on people seem to be of no importance. The policy cares not what whether villages are disposed of their land to grow biofuels; the policy cares not that people have to live with turbines close to them despite increasing evidence of both ineffectiveness and health effects; the policy cares not that they cause huge increases in taxes and commodity costs, pushing people into poverty. The policy says, regardless of evidence, that CO2 is dangerous and must be curbed at all costs. This policy has consequences. Where the policy injures, the church must act; where the policy impoverishes, the church must act; where the policy oppresses truth, the church must act. The church therefore cannot be the messenger of that policy.
I am looking to organise a serious Christian debate on the truth or otherwise of AGW and the moral issues it poses for both Christians and policymakers, in London, focused on the UK CofE church context, but not exclusive to it. All constructive thoughts gratefully received. Note: I’m not ignoring other faiths, but not being of them, I cannot act in their context.
00
Hello Ilma.
If there’s been one truly morally offensive thing about the whole global warming mania, it’s been the complete silence, if not tacit approval, of religious bodies about the harmful effects it’s had on the poor of the world. What should have been the humanitarian anchor has just been dragging along the seabed, carried away on the same overwhelming tide of religious green cultism.
A real debate, about the real effects of GW, on the most vulnerable 80% of humanity, is well overdue.
Pointman
00
Jo’s thumbs are broken!
00
Yours should be.
00
Is that a punishment from Greek Mythology?
00
Not necessary; John is all thumbs.
00
Ha ha! good one.
00
How’s about this one:
They are intentionally subverting scientists, politicians and journalists by enticing them to become greedy mercenaries, and by their actions, treasonous to the principles of their time-honoured professions – turning themselves into propaganda peddlers to those who look to them for truth.
I wonder if the mercenaries sleep well in their new houses by the seaside.
00
Any serious disagreement of man made climate change amongst climate scientists was stillborn and a fabrication to maintain the political propaganda battle. The only difference in opinion is how much and how fast. For example, a small minority such as Christie still consider that climate sensitivity is less than most scientists and that greater cloud cover will cancel out much of the warming. He still holds exactly the same view as he did 5 years ago.
Examining the scientific consensus on climate change
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Once the big corporates couldn’t officially deny the truth without appearing both stupid and unethicalostensiblynsively subcontracted their dirty work to a host of propagandist organisations and web sites to seed confusion.
In 2002 the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, conceded that the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urged its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases. In a memo to President George Bush, Frank Luntz wrote: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
Words such as “common sense” should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.
Burkeman, Oliver (2003-03-04).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
00
When Cassiopeia says “The only difference in opinion is how much and how fast” he is either being disingenuous or is illustrating his ignorance of science and complete lack of any science credentials.
I have previously given examples and a simple outline of what humans contribute to the world’s heat balance through CO2 and the results are disturbing for warmers.
The human component is so very small and insignificant that it is not possible to detect it’s signature in the temperature measurements of our planets biosphere. In fact the only way of quantifying it is through calculations.
Yes I know!
I know that the world is burning huge amounts of coal and oil. I know!
But THE REAL SCIENCE says that the human effect is effectively ZERO.
So to go on and on about “The only difference in opinion is how much” has a small grain of truth to it and this is all that the warmers ever had , a small grain of truth.
Unfortunately that small grain of truth is so small it cannot be seen, felt or cause any problems and is now totally discredited.
00
Cassie is a he? No wonder Hera was ticked…
00
Sorry Otter, not up on my Greek fables.
00
Watch ‘Clash of the Titans,’ that gets fairly close to the original story…
00
You are incorrigible; present one paper supporting your opinion about AGW or be justifiably branded a troll.
And what does “unethicalostensiblynsively” mean?
00
Pot, meet kettle.
00
Good grief Jo, these statements are self explanatory without any ambiguity!
Lets face it the fossil fuel lobby which earned a fortune from emitting CO2 caved in because the evidence was so strong. This was a repeat performance of the strategies with tobacco, acid rain, DDT, and CFCs which also failed. How many times do they want the public to be Fooled?
It rprovesrooves how cranky Climate denialism is. Somewhere amongst the faked moon landing mentality. This is no joke or acacuriosityrosity though, this is life and death to millions and those who persist in this nonsense should be ashamed.
With regarding to cherry picked, you have a cheek after all those stolen Emails so obviously taken completely out of context. It would be interesting to see every single Email the Heartland institute, rather than a few policy documents. They would make you look really foolish indeed. I have no doubt most of these people realise the truth as much as you and I do.
00
Hi Cassie,
Maybe you should read your last post and make an objective assessment of it: I’m sure you can do that.
Is it in any way ALARMIST in it’s approach???? Do you think??
Are you aware that the “big businesses ” that you have referred to have infiltrated the Man Made Global Warming solutions (wind-turbines comes to mind) and have made billions from the scam?
Billions of dollars which could have been spent on Real Research into renewables has been diverted to wasteful and useless exercises in “Green vote catching” by Governments who couldn’t care less about the environment as long as they get your vote.
General Electric does not produce windmills to make a fat easy profit; No, they do it because it is right for the environment and it makes them feel good.
HA haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
General Electric thanks you for your concern about the environment and implores you to back politicians with the same outlook.
Reading War and Peace at the moment. Lots of canon fodder there.
Does the phrase “Green Fodder” carry any ideas as to what governments and Big business feel about the Green Movement?
00
Hey Cassiopeia wanna buy a bridge?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/21/nigerian_scams_msft_research/
00
[…] letter from Rupert Wyndham – reproduced by Jo Nova – is even better. (H/T Ian Wilson). Here it […]
00
I am always amused by people like Bungalow Bill who assert that “modern society” and freedom are somehow incompatible (probably because they have been indoctrinated to believe that modern society and freedom are incompatible).
The also clearly equate “anarchy” with “chaos” which isn’t what the word means. Anarchy comes from the Greek an Arcos, meaning “without leaders”. Quite often, I think that ANY society (including Bungalow Bill’s so-called “welcome to the 21st Century”) would be better off without rulers.
By the way Bungalow Bill, in anticipation of your impending response, just because a society does not have any RULERS would not mean that that society had no RULES.
Also, you referenced stop lights and whether one obeys them or not…
Well, Bungalow Bill, are you aware that Roundabouts that have no traffic control signals whatsoever provide far more efficient traffic flow and have far fewer traffic accidents than traditional 4-way intersections with stop lights?
It seems that there are ways to make major intersections safer and with better traffic flow that don’t involve silly little red lights and fines for not obeying them….
As usual, the way that involves more freedom (the roundabout) is safer and more efficient than the way that involves less freedom (the stoplight and the “rules”).
00
I also love how Cassiopeia and Silly Filly (among others) use obfuscation in their posts and when they get called on it they claim that their obfuscation is “clarity”.
Here’s an easy test for everyone… re-read your own post prior to posting it, and if it doesn’t make very much sense and is difficult to read, and especially if some parts are self-contradictory, then your post probably cannot be characterized as “clarity” although you are certainly free to hit that “Post Comment” button anyway if you wish 🙂
00
[…] excerpted from: Rupert Wyndham’s excellent prose to Bishop Langrish (the 26 ethical flaws of propagandists) […]
00