Murderers, tyrants and madmen (and me)

Peter Sinclair’s latest video in his This Is Not Cool series for the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media picks up on Heartland head honcho Joe Bast’s allegation that:

“…the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Bast remains unapologetic, despite the steady loss of financial support his tactical blunder has brought. On the Heartland blog, in a “Dear John” letter to one of his tame “experts”, he accuses Michael Mann and Bill McKibben of being “madmen”. I’ve shared a stage with McKibben. If he’s mad, then so am I. Count me proud to be as mad as Mike or Bill. In fact, I’m as mad as hell that hypocrites and liars like Bast1 and his supporters are doing their best to destroy the future of this planet.

  1. Just one example: although Heartland used the Unabomber as an example of a global warming believer, as a matter of fact Kaczynski’s very strange manifesto makes no mention of global warming (scroll down) or climate change. []

174 thoughts on “Murderers, tyrants and madmen (and me)”

  1. The pejoratives “Judas” and “Quisling” reflect our contempt for traitors in our past.

    What will future generations make of those who knowingly betrayed not just their descendants, but their entire civilisation, not to mention a large chunk of the biosphere?

  2. Hang on here. One moment people are rightly decrying the ridiculous and offensive assertions made on the Billboard campaign and the next someone like you is throwing around terms like “Judas” and “Quisling”. No wonder this debate has bogged down into a gigantic slanging match from both sides.

        1. Sorry, this level of hypocrisy and adolescent smug sneering really offends me. Is there an apology for this clown’s recent behaviour? Is there any sign of contrition? Why is he still here?

          1. In case you didn’t notice, I did actually apologise on the other thread.

            Now explain to me why using the term “Quisling” (who was of course a Nazi sympathiser in Norway during WW2) or using the term “Jew Baiter”, are acceptable terms, when you have been banging on about a 24 hour ad that compared you to madmen?

            You may notice that fairly early on in the piece I stated that I thought the HI campaign was ill-advised and pointless s**t stirring.

            1. Speaking of Jew-baiting, Andy, you posted elsewhere this morning that:

              The comments reflect the level of contempt that the general public has with climate scientists. I can’t change that. They made their own bed now they have to lie in it.

            2. Sure you did.

              Yes I am so terribly sorry

              Ok point taken. I did read Hansens piece as it happens.

              I know perfectly well who Quisling was. And I never compared anyone to him.

              You may notice that fairly early on in the piece I stated that I thought the HI campaign was ill-advised and pointless s**t stirring.

              What, like your subsequent referring to us all as the Khmer Vert[e]? And you now actually akcnowledge the Hansen’s $1m thing is complete BS, do you, Mr. Recogniser-of-Propaganda? And you won’t be running it again, then?

              And you acknowledge Bast’s claims about Greenpeace’s ‘sacking demands’ are equally absurd, and won’t be running with them again, either?

            3. Bill, I don’t acknowledge anything about Bast’s claims about sacking scientists are absurd. I have Cindy’s word against his. . I do know that activist organisations spend a lot of time bullying companies into being politically correct.

              Secondly, I don’t accept that the claims against Hansen are BS. There is or was a lawsuit from Chris Horner against Hansen, so I’d have to defer to the results of that in the interim.

            4. Firstly, Gareth, may I point out that this buffoon is, again, taking up a disproportionate amount of the oxygen here, that his apology for the Khmer Vert crack was nothing of the sort, and that he’s not withdrawn his accusations against Hansen at all.

              Secondly, Do you ever read anything, andy?

              The claims are absurd because if you actually read the bloody Greenpeace letters that I’ve already provide you a link to you’ll discover that the claim that –

              has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us, demanding that they be fired for having the temerity to question the official dogma of global warming

              is, um, crap.

              Now Heartland claims 140 climate ‘experts’ who, presumably, ‘work for us’ , and HI would certainly lay the fiercest of claims to their credentials as scientists. And Greenpeace wrote 10 letters.

              But you’ll argue that in examining the question of ‘demands’ for ‘firing’ of ‘scientists who work for us’ – Bast’s words, not mine – we should be confining ourselves to discussing those actually on an HI payroll?

              Interesting. Now, that’s certainly what Greenpeace seems to think –

              Last month, Greenpeace sent letters (linked below) of inquiry to the U.S. Departments of Energy and the Interior where individuals are receiving monthly checks from Heartland for services rendered. The Heartland Budget document details $300,000/year in payments to climate denier scientists such as Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Bob Carter and Willie Soon to confront the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and write contrarian critiques of published peer-reviewed climate science.

              Well, let’s talk some more about the ‘scientists who work for us’, then:

              [U]nlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D’Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

              All entirely unproblematic in your world, then. Any other readers agree?

              But back to Greenpeace’s letters.

              Read the one to Harvard re Soon. I already gave you the link. I wonder why you didn’t bother?

              Well, you certainly won’t now, will you? So I’ll put it here and those who aren’t afraid of learning something can –

              In the summer of 2010, the Harvard Corporation adopted a University-wide conflict of interest policy to govern faculty. Harvard University Provost, Dr. Steven Hyman told the Harvard Gazette that “the policy will call for disclosure of relevant potential conflicts of interest to the dean of a School.”

              We are interested in better understanding if Willie Soon complied with Harvard’s new rules and disclosed to his Dean the money he has been receiving from the Heartland Institute for his climate change activism. To help us better understand this matter, please respond to the following questions and requests for documents.

              1. Did Willie Soon disclose to his Dean, the existence of payments from the Heartland Institute for climate change activism? If yes, please supply any pertinent documents and/or records. If not, why not?

              We thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

              Please point out the ‘demand’ in the above that Soon ‘be fired’ because he ‘questioned the official dogma of global warming’.

              Seriously. Do it.

              Oh, you can’t. What a bloody surprise. It’s a polite letter about a potential conflict of interest, isn’t it?

              Now, you won’t be hypocrite enough to claim that that’s illegitimate, I’m sure, so, once again, I invite you to read all the relevant correspondence and identify the demands for firing for denying AGW.

              You won’t of course. Because even you know you can’t, of course.

              So, instead of hiding behind pretending you haven’t noticed all this has been refuted, I’ll acknowledge for you that you routinely elect not to check information provided to you because you know full-well your position would only be demolished.

              Coward.

            5. Oh bill, so now I am a coward. Boo hoo
              You will, along with Thomas, be providing me with concise notes explaining how high climate sensitivity to Co2 is explained, using simple terms suitable for a child and a rent boy.

              Thanks in advance for your kind consideration

    1. When someone on our side puts it up on a billboard, as part of the major promotional campaign ahead of, say, the Rio +20 conference, Gosman, then you have equivalence.

      Until then, this false-balance ‘both sides are as bad’ stuff is simply wrong.

      And it unjustly privileges the bullies by granting them the victim status they so clearly crave (remarkably, in all probability, this is actually how they see themselves. But this is only an indication of their own paranoia, not of any reality. Paranoia meets obsession meets projection has always been a very, very scary place. AGW Denial is a conspiracy theory; it must denigrate its opponents.)

      1. This was ONE poster that was up for 24 hours, cost $200
        The Global Warming movement has been creating offensive propaganda for years, much of it targeting children. (Several Greenpeace videos spring to mind, not to mention the 10-10 campaign)

        Of course, these were not used as promotional material for a conference, but it’s all part of the “cause”

        1. AndyS: There is a “small” difference here: AGW science is sound, evidential and its findings very concerning for the future of the planet. I am a science teacher and I teach AGW science as it is.

          AGW denial (your position essentially) however is the result of an orchestrated obfuscation campaign intending to derail any meaningful action to mitigate the consequences and the reasons for AGW based on a neo-liberal cold war warrior mentality and funded and driven by the same logger heads who became infamous in the tobacco, asbestos, ozone and acid rain wars. Paid shills of anti-regulation, anti-conservative (ecologically speaking) haters of all aspects of socially responsive action, socially responsive thinking and defense of private profit against the interests of humanity. People who deliberately “mistake” socially responsive behavior with Stalinism and sue scientists for the result of their work (Hansen).

          And you bet that I also teach about these extraordinary ugly sides the distortion by the denier camp, the abuse and obfuscation of science by those involved as well. I contrast it with the actions against science in the pre-enlightenment era where scientists were burned at the stake for the threat that their discoveries posed to those who fancied themselves in the position of absolute power….

          1. The trouble is Thomas if you frame it as a neo-liberal versus eco-liberal political argument it quickly becomes one and then we keep getting stu ck in the ugly side of politics. I myself identify with much of neo-liberal economic theory however I also acknowledge the realities and challenges that AGW poses. You’ll lose people like me if you keep framing it in the way you attempt to do. By the way you have still to respond to the challenge I posed you over the past few days.

            1. “By the way you have still to respond to the challenge I posed you over the past few days.”
              Sorry I might have missed that in the thick of the posts. Which one?

            2. I’ll repeat the challenge here for you.

              Please articulate some details of an alternative economic system which you feel would better cope with the challenges of dealing with the negative impacts of human civilisation. Examples would be helpful. What I don’t want is generic eco-waffle along the lines of we need to identify and manage our environmental variables for the benefit of all including future generations. I want specifics.

            3. Gosman: Excuse me but I hope you don’t expect me or anybody else to develop in the scope of this blog for you an economic theory for life in a resource constrained environment (basically Earth’s civilization without the benefit of “Star-Trek”). In fact there is a large body of rapidly growing work on theories of a no-growth economy, the roots of which are going back to even Smith and Keynes.

              For your quest into finding out about the coming era of new economics – ecological economics – and the necessity to embrace the shift you might start with the Wall Street Journal here:

              “A 20-rule manifesto for New No-Growth Economics”
              http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-08-30/commentary/30687812_1_new-rules-economists-global-collapse

              Excerpt:

              This central hypothesis of today’s economists — from Ben Bernanke’s Fed staff, economists in the World Bank, IMF, CBO and White House economic advisers, to economists at Wall Street banks, think tank and academic economists — is the unquestioned acceptance of the dogma of “Eternal Growth.”

              and

              Unfortunately, that’s impossible. Absurd. Irrational. Unscientific. Just plain wrong. So are all the economic conclusions that follow from that hypothesis. Worse, most economists still refuse to see that their own system is not only fatally flawed, it proves the need for a New No-Growth Economics.

              So that’s just one of the articles, not from a “tree hugger”, no its on the Wall Street Journals Market Watch.

              From there I am sure you will find the quest of inquiry into the large body of work currently underway into devising the mechanisms, conditions and requirements for the new economic era quite educational.

              Perhaps continue with the introduction into the thematic here:

              http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor-deficit-growth

            4. That nonsensical opinion piece is exactly my problem with this so called alternative that we supposedly are going to be forced to follow. Full of utopian generic terms but short on any substance. If this is the best you can do it is no wonder that not even the NZ Green Party is advocating a no-Growth economic policy. BTW why do you think no political party is pushing the policies you think are vital for our survival Thomas?

            5. That second piece was far more informative than the first piece. This bit is the critical part which you are seemingly ignoring

              “Beyond these big-picture parameters, none of the experts has really crunched the numbers to envision what daily life might be like in a no-growth world—though they agree that it’s something people had better start thinking about.”

              I suggest that until you do so this is just pie in the sky theory that will gain little purchase in the world beyond fringe thinkers.

            6. Gosman: can you detail what is “Non Sensical” in the WS journal article? Can you be very specific please? When you throw blanket accusations around you must be prepared to put up and prove your point!

            7. Fine but I would also like to see you actually put some meat on your ideas rather than attacking conventional economic theory without defending an alternative.

              Why that 20 rule manifesto is non-sensical.

              Firstly it’s basic premise is unsound. No evidence is provided for the asertion that Earth’s resources can support only 5 Billion people.

              It fails to understand the nature of the Supply/Demand equation that it seeks to attack. Demand and Supply are never out of kilter for very long in a market based economy. If something becomes rarer it tends to become more expensive thus stimulating interest, (and therefore demand) for alternatives. When Whale oil became expensive people started looking at alternatives and found them in Hydo-carbons for example.

              Populations don’t explode to 10 Billion if there is not enough resources to support them. By the laws of supply and demand they will only grow as far as the carrying capacity allows them to. Also, as evidenced by falling populations in many Western nations, the wealthier people get the less their population growth tends to be. It is currently only the poorer nations that are driving the population growth. These are the countries which will be impacted hardest by any resource shortages.

              As such population control becomes unnecessary. Even if it was necessary the mechanism for actually controlling population are not viable. China can manage to enforce a one-child policy bcause it is a totalitarian society. It is unclear whether this is what is being advocated for as a solution to the World’s population ‘problem’. Another example of why it is non-sensical because it is not clear on what it is trying to argue.

              It makes a lot of assumptions about what will happen and these assumption leads to more assumptions. If any one of these assumptions are wrong then the whole thing falls apart.

              It is therefore less of a 20 rule manifesto more a rambling list of what might happen. How are they rules as such?

            8. From about rule 6 onwards they become less rules (although they were never really rules) but more about what the writer hopes will happen based on every leftists wet dream fantasy about ridding the world of the ‘evils’ of Capitalism. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of economics. They may as well stated ‘Pink Unicorn’s will frollick wild in the many glorious public spaces provided by the new Utopia’. – Nonsensical.

            9. ” Populations don’t explode to 10 Billion if there is not enough resources to support them. By the laws of supply and demand they will only grow as far as the carrying capacity allows them to. ”

              I very much doubt this. Anyone who’s seen animals on islands increase their populations, out-compete the rest of the animals, then destroy their food sources from over-population knows this isn’t true. The ” laws” of supply and demand end up killing off the population because demand overwhelms supply.

              How does this happen? simple. Populations of animals include the young – who are often produced earlier than ‘normal’ in stressed populations. Easy to get a huge number of consumers who’ve not yet consumed as much as they should as adults but who are supported – for a while – by the diminishing resources around them.

              At some time, the young must start consuming more, and there are more and more of them, so the resources ‘suddenly’ collapse. Though anyone who’s taking notice will have observed that the plants, insects, prey or other major food resources were declining in quantity and or quantity long before the ‘ sudden’ disappearance.

              There’s nothing special about humans to prevent the same kind of thing happening to us on our one and only ‘ island’. We are special in our intelligence and capacity to make judgements that other animals cannot. We’re not so special in repeatedly failing to change our behaviours in accordance with the evidence we can assemble and the judgements we can make – if only we had the will to act on them.

            10. We are not talking about animals in the wild but human’s living in the modern world. The vast majority of the population growth in the world is occuring in the developing world. This is the same section of humanity who is not well placed at handling any increase in the price of the necessities such as food and shelter. So unless someone discovers ways to increase food production massively the likelihood is that the developing world will hit a population upper limit. They will simply not be able to feed all the additional mouths. The alternatives to people will be then to stop having as many kids or to starve. Of course the developed world then could step in and feed these additional people. Do you think this is a good or bad idea?

          2. There’s a couple of issues here.

            (1) I don’t accept that the science is “sound”
            (2) Most if not all the policy prescriptions don’t make any sense.

            A lot of people who fall into the sceptic camp have issues with (2) rather than (1) (e.g GOsman seems to fall in this camp) . Littering the countryside with windmills that don’t work, cost a fortune, whilst China builds a new coal-fired power station every week is pure insanity. (in my view)

            Unfortunately, there is no debate. All criticism is referred to as “denial”

            Our only hope is that all this nonsense will get flushed out in the forthcoming financial and political meltdown that is playing out in Europe as we speak.

            1. AndyS:

              Our only hope is that all this nonsense will get flushed out in the forthcoming financial and political meltdown that is playing out in Europe as we speak.

              You may get your wish and the resolve and ability of our civilization to save ourselves from the abyss created by our disregard for the planet that supported us might melt much faster than the Siberian Permafrost. But you surely will regret what you wished for should that come to pass!

            2. So, Andy, what would it take for you to accept that the science of AGW is sound?

              What would be your road to Damascus?

            3. Damascus – at present – would be an unkind destination, even for Andy. 😉

              But how about Andy takes a holiday here:
              http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/sep/16/pollution-coal-ash-china

              While the significance of the optical properties of the CO2 molecule may evade AndyS despite all the learning opportunities he has been referred to here and otherwise, perhaps the more palpable side of coal use as seen there in China may be a start for his mental journey to join the march towards a better future….

            4. Rob Taylor May 18, 2012 at 10:25 pm
              What would be your road to Damascus?

              Sounds very Biblical to me.
              How apposite

          3. AndyS: There is a “small” difference here: AGW science is sound, evidential and its findings very concerning for the future of the planet. I am a science teacher and I teach AGW science as it is.

            So you teach about the evidence for high climate sensitivity due to water vapour feedbacks? You teach about that famous Hotspot? You teach about Hockey Stick graphs that use dodgy statistics, “data” from a single tree in Yamal, overreliance on Bristlecone pine data?
            etc etc.

            Oh no I though not.

            By the way, how old are these children that you are “educating”?

            1. AndyS,once again you show for all to see how completely ignorant you are – and given your notoriety in here and elsewhere it can only be deliberate, misleading and mischievous by now – about the actual science out there.

              Here is some homework for you:
              1) Find out how many other teams of scientists have independently and using separate original data verified the principal nature and message of the Hockey Stick.
              2) Find out how many independent investigations were made into the original Hockey Stick data and what the outcome of these was.
              3) You indeed point to the importance of water vapor feedback. It acts as an amplifier to climate forcing parameters such as the changing radiation balance due to AGW gasses. Now perhaps investigate the difference between feedback and forcing.

              I am teaching at high school level. People like yourself and their ignorance and unwillingness to actually read and understand the science feature in my classroom too. We do discuss the importance of scientific literacy in a democratic world and the danger that comes from people who abuse science vocabulary and science matters not for the sake of finding the truth but for fighting debates based on their preconceived deeply rooted convictions. I cite the pre-enlightenment phase and the current and past anti-science wars orchestrated by powerful interest groups….

              The basic AGW science is sound, the evidence of a rapidly warming world are everywhere and the consequences this will have are well understood.

              In the end Andy, I don’t care whatsoever what you personally think. It is in fact utterly irrelevant.

            2. In the end Andy, I don’t care whatsoever what you personally think. It is in fact utterly irrelevant.

              And I don’t care what you think either Thomas.
              However, the fact that you are allowed by the NZ government to teach AGW, which isn’t even on the curriculum as fr as I know, without presumably explaining any of the MAJOR issues with your pet theories is pretty close to political indoctrination and child abuse.

              It makes my flesh crawl.

            3. AndyS: “It makes my flesh crawl.”

              At least the matter is getting under your skin then. Some progress. 🙂

              Further to demonstrate your ignorance once again: AGW and AGW related resources as well as sustainability matters are part of the NZ curriculum and the NZQA standards indeed and once again you are caught out spouting about matters you have no knowledge about.
              The NZC and the NZQA and TKI websites on NZ’s education system are public. Go for a wander then.

              Here is a start with over 400 resources referenced on the TKI website on these matters alone:
              http://www.tki.org.nz/tki-content/search?SearchText=climate+change&SubTreeArray%5B%5D=2&SearchDate%5B%5D=-1&TKIGlobalSearch=1&SearchButton.x=18&SearchButton.y=15

              How about you write to the Minister of Education and command that the NZ Curriculum be cleansed of all references to Climate Change, CO2 emissions, Emissions Trading Schemes, Sustainability studies etc. I am sure even under the current right leaning crowd you will get a polite letter back that tells you to get st…ed.

              AndyS you are probably best ignored. You have a strong opinion on many matters that is sadly not well matched with your knowledge and your contributions here have become nothing but deplorable lies.

              And if anyone is abusing children it is YOU and your club of loggerheads as you are part of the campaign to make this planet a rather unpleasant place to call home for our children!

              So long…

            4. Thomas May 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm

              Further to demonstrate your ignorance once again: AGW and AGW related resources as well as sustainability matters are part of the NZ curriculum and the NZQA standards indeed and once again you are caught out spouting about matters you have no knowledge about.

              I’m sorry Thomas, I can’t find any reference in the learning materials you provide to the information that climate sensitivity to CO2 to high, via positive feedback mechanisms via water vapour. I can finda load of prattle from NIWA and other government organisations, but nothing of substance.

              As we all know, unless this part of your proposition is true, then the AGW problem becomes a non-problem.

              I know it’s difficult for a mere mortal like myself to comprehend such difficult concepts.being if such limited intellect, and spending so much of our time being “rent boys” for the global warming “denial industry” (rolls eyes)

              So since you have created some notes that high school students can understand, I wonder if you could share them with me?

              It is even possible that someone of such limited intellect as myself could understand education on this matter designed for school children.

              You urgent response is much awaited with baited breath.

            5. “data” from a single tree in Yamal

              Making stuff up is just pathetic, Andy, and shows the weakness of your “cause”.

              The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.

              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

            1. The Yamal issue has been going on for years Rob, I am not “making stuff up”

              Go and read 4 years or more of Climate Audit, read about Yamal and then come back to me.

            2. AndyS: You are looking so silly still trying to ride a horse that has been dead now for years. You are dishing up the hockey stick mythology in 2012? You must be so desperate for a few more spanners to throw into the gearbox of humanities progress arn’t you?

              For the educated and educatable readership of the site, here is a good summary of the denier dead horse mythology on the Hockey Stick and the various independent data series looking just like it.
              http://oxfordkevin.carbonclimate.org/?p=323

  3. This is a great piece of video, using very clever casting, and making the point very clearly indeed without being too heavy-handed about it. By choosing Thatcher, Hawking and Gates the whole nonsensical ‘it’s all a Communist conspiracy’ argument is instantly vapourized.

    Well done Peter Sinclair.

    1. Sinclair conveniently forgets to mention Thatcher’s more recent views on Global Warming that ran counter to the consensus.

      I guess that’s the great thing about propaganda though.

      1. Thatcher’s mind is now porridge. Hence Monckton’s making absurd claims about his role in her government with impunity. Any subsequent falling under the spell of conspiracy-mongers was an integral part of her decline.

        1. I believe that Thatcher had a change of heart before the onset of dementia, which you charmingly describe as “porridge”.

          It is, I am told (as I haven’t read it yet) in her book Stagecraft

  4. I’m highly supportive of much of what was in that video. Thatcher’s views expressed in 1989 should be used more often in support of taking action on AGW. However I suspect because the AGW campaign has been captured by the ideological left people would fell very, very, unconfortable doing this. It just serves to highlight how polarised this debate has become. Nothing is going to really change until we can agree there is more than one way to tackle this subject.

    1. And whose fault is it that rationality has become the province of the ‘ideological left’ do you suppose? We’re hardly responsible for the Right’s ongoing retreat from reality…

      And the claim is ridiculous anyway. Barry Bickmore and Richard Alley are registered Republicans. David-bloody-Cameron! The Royal Society! NASA, the CSIRO? I get happy each time a Republican or Conservative announces they support the science, but that’s probably because I’m so nefariously cunning…

      Nothing is going to really change until we can agree there is more than one way to tackle this subject.

      This statement is just silly. You mean a way other than cutting emissions? No? So, you mean a way that fits in with the free-enterprise system, like an ETS? We suggest those and get shot down! Then they’re so piss-poor and ridden with loopholes – after the heroic Capitalists have, as they do with all legislation, swiss-cheesed the rules into nothingness with exemptions and special-pleading – that they don’t achieve the aim anyway. Worse, they may even become the targets of the same speculators that gave us the GFC, the food crisis, and the $160+ barrel of oil!

      I suspect your problem is you can see full well the situation we’re in and aren’t in denial of it, but you also know full-well that there are no solutions that don’t involve some ‘crimp’ on your beloved Free Enterprise system, because it simply cannot do rational long-term interests.

      Well, get over it. Start lobbying to create markets in rational products and sustainable energy distribution, combined with truly effective regulations that also have a minimal impact on your beloved economy, or just continue to engage in nihilist criticism from the sidelines.

      1. And whose fault is it that rationality has become the province of the ‘ideological left’ do you suppose?

        Rational? Let us remind ourselves of Patrick Moore’s words about Greenpeace –
        (I paraphrase)

        A organisation that had become increasingly irrational, .. taken over by peaceniks and neo-Marxists …

        an organisation that is anti-science, anti-intellectual and ultimately anti-human
        ..

            1. AndyS does have a point. If a co-founder of Greenpeace believes the organisation has been captured by those with an ideological position to push then perhaps there might be a concern. I’d suggest it serves the environmental movement little good to turn it into a winner takes all (or nothing) battleground for political ideas.

  5. You know, Andy, you are rather odd…

    On the one hand, no amount of solid scientific evidence will convince you of the risks of global warming, whereas on the other, you trumpet to the skies a quote – from someone who fell out with some old mates in Greenpeace – as proof that organisation is beyond the pale.

    Are you really that one-eyed, Andy, or are you just stirring for the hell of it?

        1. I thought AndyS was paraphrasing Patrick Moore on that wasn’t he?

          Does it have more or less of that distinct smell than your view expressed at the top of the comments?

          ‘What will future generations make of those who knowingly betrayed not just their descendants, but their entire civilisation, not to mention a large chunk of the biosphere?’

          1. Unfortunately, most of the current crop of climate criminals will probably be dead by then, but one can always hope that some will end up facing justice at The Hague.

            There is a greater likelihood of financial penalties that will, of necessity, dwarf the tobacco payouts.

    1. I have read Patrick Moore’s book by the way. It has lots of great ideas about how we should pursue a science based approach to the enviroment.

      of course, some of his views don’t gel with the establishment at Greenpeace, therefore he has been smeared and rejected.

      As always, this is the only tactic. Shut down debate and smear your opponents.

  6. As always, this is the only tactic. Shut down debate and smear your opponents.

    Have you no sense of irony, Andy, at long last? Have you left no sense of irony?

  7. Well said, Thomas!

    An ex-science teacher myself, I find it deplorable that dittoheads like Andy want to purge the curriculum of what will be one of the most important issues in the lives of the next generations, who will have to live with the consequences of our selfishness and greed.

    We don’t even have ignorance as an excuse…

    1. Rob Taylor, as you have consistently referred to me as a “Rent Boy”, not to mention other consistently patronising and abusive comments on the recent thread at CCG, not to mention your continued joy at the death of Owen McShane, I have to say that “contempt” is a mild word to describe how I feel about you.

      In the recent thread of 250+ comments that you participated on at CCG, you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for your pet theories. Every time to were challenged, you changed the subject.

      1. Andy, I’ll be back at CCG when time permits, but this must be some new meaning of the words “evidence” and “challenge”; putting your fingers in your ears and reciting magical tribal chants – such as “recovering from the LIA” – is neither.

  8. Andy: You are beyond it. The massive volume of research, measurements, observations, calculations, modelling and reporting in ways that any sane person can easily comprehend has not left any impact on you. Here you have the guts to ask for “evidence” as if you had not lived the last decades somehow. You know, you are SO much like the young Earthers.Your prattle and nonsense is right out of their textbooks. Just replace evolution with AGW and you have it all.
    Good riddens man.

    1. What I am looking for is the material that you present to you school children to explain high climate sensitivity.

      Oh let’s guess. You don’t bother. The science is overwhelming. So overwhelming that we don’t need to explain it

      1. Andy: Being who you are you know very well indeed that the climate sensitivity estimates are in the bandwidth of 2 to 4.5 Deg of warming for a doubling of CO2 with a median of predictions of about 3 Deg. Even at the lowest assumption of 2 Deg (which has a low probability) the effects will be stark and eventually overwhelming for many highly populated parts of the world. The warming (as you know very well) is an average with many areas well exceeding that! And you know very well too Andy, what 2 Deg sustained warming will mean for sea levels globally. You also know very well what a doubling of CO2 means for ocean acidity and what that means for the oceans food and life chain. You know all this very well.

        So why play the stupid guy here???? Why do you ask rhetorical questions time and again for which you know all the answers already? Is somebody paying you or orchestrating you to purposefully act like a dufus on this blog in order to confuse the public with your claptrap posts?

        1. Yes I know these things because the are written in the IPCC reports. However, I am just interested in how you teach Settled Science to schoolkids.

          In my day, we did experiments and such like
          If the Science is Settled, then presumably you don’t need to do experiments, so your lessons become more like History or Religious Studies.

          1. No, Andy, schoolkids do experiments to LEARN and UNDERSTAND the methods and results of scientific enquiry.

            It’s rather different from just accepting what you are told by rent boys like Heartland and NZC”S”C, who hire themselves out to protect the profits of pollutocrats.

            1. Yes i understand what experiments are for Rob. So what kind of experiments would you think appropriate for a school in order to convey the “message” of climate change?

  9. andyS May 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    Sounds very Biblical to me.
    How apposite

    Andy, your attempts at vitriol sometimes escape me; what are you trying to say here, or is this yet more random noise, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?

    1. andy is doubtlessly suggesting that anyone who uses phrases such as ‘road to Damascus’ or ‘good Samaritan’ or ‘get thee behind me, Satan’ or talks of ‘loaves and fishes’ or ‘a law unto themselves’ or ‘a nest of vipers’ or ‘a house divided’ or ‘a cross to bear’ or ‘washing their hands of’ something or suggests you not ‘cast your pearls before swine’ or any of the gazillion other catchy little grabs from the King James version that are the standards of articulate English just as Shakespeare is, is, you know, some sort of religious nut and precisely the kind of zealot who would believe in AGW.

      You know: an educated person. Can’t trust the buggers…

      No doubt if you’d talked of a Damascene conversion he’d have thought you meant re-upholstering the furniture 😉

  10. Well, let me see, Andy, I’ve been experimenting myself, with this new-fangled “Goggle” thingamujig and reckon… oh yes, here’s some stuff that could be worth a look!

    http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm
    http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/category121.html
    http://www.epals.com/forums/t/31018.aspx

    I’m sure Thomas has a lot more. Personally, if I was still teaching high school, I’d be keen to set up an a repeat of the following demonstration from the BBC’s excellent “Climate Wars” series:

    1. That CO2 tube experiment looks jolly interesting. How does it relate to climate sensitivity via positive feedbacks due to water vapour?

      Or do you conveniently leave that bit out and hope the students don’t notice?

      1. AndyS: Once more you are playing stupid! I can’t experiment with nuclear fusion at high school, therefore it is an unproven assumption of some wayward scientists? I can’t model the entire Earth Climate in a lab jar, therefore climate science is a bunch of unproven assumptions? Ha! You must be kidding me man. You can’t be that daft, therefore…all you do here Andy is to try to fish for trouble Right? Why don’t you admit that you have absolutely zero interest in any real discussion at all. Your presence here is an orchestrated performance of “Play the Deck of Denier Cards”. If you are not paid to do this you surely behave just like it.
        http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php

        1. No I am genuinely interested to know what junk science my tax dollars are paying for, assuming you teach at a state school.

          So far you have avoided the questions

          1. AndyS: Your tax dollar is spend on teaching real science not the make-belief contrarian wishful cherry-picking you fancy yourself because it offers you support for your politically motivated preconceived idea that humans can not possibly have an impact as momentous on our planet than changing the course of our climate.

            You know very well Andy where to look for the summary of the science yourself as you admit being familiar with the literature? Or are you not? For the big lip you are risking here one would expect you to be fully familiar with a large body of the work on climate science, right? Or are you admitting that you spout off here without any idea of what you are actually talking about?

            For the rest of the visitors to the site:
            Andy is not comprehending the forcing of CO2. A good summary and entry into the literature is here:
            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

            And for teachers a summary of the science given by the IPCC is useful:
            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

            Andy also is not comprehending feed-back especially pertaining to water vapor.
            The Australian Government offers this website.
            http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/water-vapour.aspx

            And NASA another:
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35952

            Links to the original scientific papers and many more can be found by the inquisitive mind using Goolge Scholar.

            Now AndyS probably will call the publications of the IPCC, NASA or any other reputable scientist not agreeing with his point of view “Junk Science” and would prefer school teachers refer to contrarian opinions instead. Long shot….

            If AndyS has done some original scientific work himself that contradicts the science AND has received approval by a reputable science journal in having his work accepted for publication then we will gladly mention it in the classroom too.

            Over to you Andy.

            1. Thanks for the links Thomas, very interesting.

              Now do you have any actual science that you teach your students, or is it just links to government propaganda?

              I look forward to seeing your teaching notes that may help me understand this difficult subject.

              You may chose to continue with this eco-babble and “settled science” stuff.

              What I am looking for is actual science.

            2. Thomas May 23, 2012 at 6:49 pm

              AndyS said: “What I am looking for is actual science.”
              Liar!

              Is that the best you can do?
              I still no idea what you teach in your indoctrination sessions then.

            3. I have referred you to the real science above. That is what I teach in my classroom. Indoctrination would be to tell the students to ignore the real science based on political or economic preconceptions just as it would be indoctrination to tell the students to ignore the real science of evolution to satisfy religious demands on controlling minds.
              I maintain: you are lying to us and perhaps to yourself if you say things like you are looking for the real science. You know and I know that you make no such attempt at all and probably never will.

  11. Andy, it appears the random noise generator in your head is still working fine – eat well, get plenty of exercise, and keep up with the non-sequiturs.

    Now, what was it you were trying to say?

    1. I’ll give you a clue Rob. The question is encapsulated ion my previous comment. If you have problems understanding it, ask your nurse or a passing stranger to help you parse it for you

      1. “He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents, although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.

        It was not immediately clear the findings would allow Gleick to make an early return to his job at the Pacific Institute”

        I am glad that is clear then. it took them a day to take down that page at the Guardian and insert those words, meanwhile appearing as a 404 to the rest of the world.

        1. See AndyS: This IS indoctrination:

          The leaked Heartland documents included a list of donors and plans to instill doubts in school children on the existence of climate change.

            1. Thomas, allow me to intoduce you to Mr Scrase

              http://www.scrase.com/

              Andy has been a lot more civil since he was outed on Perrott’s blog, maybe I ought to post a link to some historical exchanges.

            2. Richard Christie May 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm
              What a delight it is to meet you Richard.

              Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Christie is a person who comments frequently on Ken Perrott’s anti-Christian hate blog Open Parachute.

              He and his “friend” Cedric take great pleasure in intimidating and bullying any commenters that dare to visit this backwater of the internet. They take pleasure in looking at IP addresses etc and “outing” people, publishing their grandmothers details if they could..

              Mr Christie took some pleasure, as you may remember, in writing to Tui beer about Richard Treadgold’s use of the “yeah right” poster.

              Mr Christie also has a friend called Rob Taylor. I am not sure if it the same Rob Taylor that has an obsession with Rent Boys, but he took great pleasure in publishing a certain member of NZCSC full contact details on Perrots hate blog.

              Now you may wish to contact me via the web details that Mr Christie has kindly provided. (without my consent I might add)

              Actually, I don’t mind at all, Richard, if you or any or your “friends” contact me by phone

              It would give me great pleasure to describe, verbally, exactly what I think of you Mr Christie

              I won’t spare any blushes. You will no doubt find this pleasurable, amusing and memorable.

              I would of course be delighted to receive your contact details in return.
              Perhaps we could “do coffee” sometime?

            3. No, no, no Andy, your memory is fading.
              No one looked at anyone’s IP address to figure out who you are.

              You outed yourself. Remember?

              Mucking around with all those sock puppets, very confusing, You must have posted from the wrong account or something, and then “poof”! there it was. For all to see. Your name. As the header of one of your comments.

              http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/deniers-distort-phil-jones/#comment-15260

              Then it was simple, given your form on the denier sites, to add two and two together.

              Before we go on have you any comments about the ethics using the names of real, living people as sock puppets?

            4. Richard Christie, the “Panto-Fascist”, does like to stir up some very odd mud from his version of reality
              I do like a good “Panto-Fascist”, their crisp shirt and lederhosen, a copy of Mein Kampf in their back pocket, earnestly strutting around the neighborhood making sure everyone is uniform in what they are thinking and doing on behalf of their proxy parents, The State.

              Fanboys for the State, their Pom Poms and white bobby socks, shaking their tassels like vacuous blond bimbos on football fields

              Up and down those tassels go.
              Ump -pah ump-pah.

              Shake that booty!

              The Panto-fascist known for its intelligence of room-temperature

              Their intelligence of poultry.

              Sad, pathetic weeds who were bullied at school, now are “empowered” to bully their fellow men on the internet

              So Mr Christie, DO RING ME sometime

              I am so looking forward to delighting myself with your company.

            5. This is Christie in action

              Keep it up Cedric, perhaps you could help out Andy over at Hot Topic. Andy is very active there. He could do with a hand even though no one there has yet figured out how to shut him down.

              http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/give-them-enough-rope/#comment-27793

              You really get off on this stuff don’t you Richard Christie?
              I gives you a great big woody, admit it.

              You just love being the Policeman, strutting around and “outing” people. Writing letters to employers, customers, if their views don’t conform to your politically correct views.

              Where do you learn this stuff?

              Did you go to Al Gore’s puppy school?
              Did you go to a training camp in Pakistan?
              Did you do an internship at Greenpeace?

              Do tell us Richard.

              I am dying to know

            6. Yes Andy, you’ve provided hours of entertainment.
              I’m all for you sticking around, as Cedric terms it, you are comedy gold.

              Did you read the thread you quote? Cedric is doing great over at WUWT, taking the piss and and they’re all too stupid to even notice.

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/22/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-50/#comments

              “Cedric Katesby says:
              May 23, 2012 at 1:09 am

              This is another sad aspect of the warmist takeover. I can remember not too many years ago, kicking back and looking forward to reading publications like Scientific American; now, I don’t know.

              It’ shameful how fully and completely the warmist takeover has been. All of the most famous science journals have been corrupted by the Warmist religion, even the very top ones such as “Science” and “Nature”. It is hard evidence of how worthless peer review truly is nowadays.

              Venerable institutions such as NASA, the USGS, the AAAS, the American Chemical Society are all tainted by the Al Gorists and their assorted minions. Indeed it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a scientific community that actively rejects the the nonsense of global warming. It’s like 1998 never happened to these people. Anything to keep the grant money flowing.

              Even the popular science magazines are now worthless. Sadly, it’s not just Scientific American.
              No wonder that some sheeple are duped into thinking that there is a scientific consensus. (As if scientific consensus meant anything except scientists gathering around the government slop bucket feeding on our tax dollars.)
              Darwinism and AlGorism are simply religions masquerading as “science”.
              Yet if you have the courage to question and demand real science, you are expelled.

              Yet there is hope. Blogs are independent of the stuffy atmosphere of academic dogma. It is there that real science can be discussed. Open review by dedicated individuals on the internet is the future. WUWT leads the way, of course and there’s lots of good material from Prisonplanet, AIG and Minnesotansforglobalwarming.
              Conservatives understand the real issue. Speakers such as Rush and Monckton have done Herculean work to push back against the so-called “scientists”.

              And, now conservatives are on our side; at least in America where a recent Pew poll showed only 19% of Republicans believe in man-made GW.

              That number will only go down further with each new survey. It will reach critical mass at about 15%, become too big to politely ignore by the lamestream media and then create a massive re-think that will cross political lines and spread to other countries. NASA and the rest will be forced to come to the table if they don’t want their precious money cut off. They have to learn to keep politics out of science.”

            7. Goodness Mr. Scrase! What a hoot! Well, all is getting obvious now. So long and hope you sell up before the sea levels will rise any further as the sea wall build from your straw men arguments is probably not going to cut it for long in your position….
              Oh and lets hope business picks up a tad for you, as judging by the plethora of persona, sock puppets and ultra denier stance blog activism of yours around the net it sure looks as if you have a lot of un-billable time on your hand….

            8. Thank you Richard! Perhaps we will see a new sock puppet arise…. The guy must be desperately needing distractions during the day…. wonder if he bills his customers for the hours he spends “defending” the world against the warmists, socialists, communists, greenies, windmills, solar panels, ecologists, environmentalists, realists, scientists, intellectuals,…….

            9. What have you actually achieved here Thomas other than a rather circular debate with andyS? You make very good points attacking other people’s ideas yet you constantly fail to put forward a coherent alternative. That is not necessarily a problem except you actually think your ideas are vital for the survival of the human race. The trouble with you is no mainstream political party in the Western world accepts your idea and you aren’t putting forward a very persuasive case tp change their mind. Oh well, at least you have your little ‘victories’ on the internet.

            10. Gosman, there is a whole world out there, outside this blog… where you can engage with the ideas and hopes of many good people who very constructively work towards making our living arrangements sustainable. I tired pointing you to a number of gateways to this and voices that agree with me on the necessity of fundamental change of our economic paradigms.
              Its up to you what you make of it not up to me!

          1. Thomas May 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm

            Actually business is flat out at the moment. My house near the sea will be bulldozed in due course.

            Thanks for asking

            1. Yes Thomas. Indeed you may enjoy the company of your new found panto friend Richard Christie and find out who my customers are, then contact them to discuss my views on atmospheric physics that do not conform to the politically correct view.

              You may then write to them and explain to them that I spend a fraction of my time replying to your supercilious sneering remarks

              You of course Thomas, are welcome to contact me personally. I am interested in meeting fanatics of all persuasions, including Eco activists,

            2. Perhaps Thomas, you could provide some information on your company TE software, and your previous commercial interests that have allowed you to retire to your boutique lifestyle in the Coromadel

              You could give us some tips on how to be a suucessful German entrepreneur, using the capitalist system to make a significant amount of money. You can then describe to us how you turned into and Eco activist that would prevent anyone else enjoying the privileged lifestyle you have enjoyed, whilst moving to nz to lecture the rest of us about how we need to be poor.

              You may also describe how you enjoy chopping up the land with industrial wind turbines, not in your own backyard of course.

              You may describe how you can afford to pay 20000 dollars on a solar installation for cash.

              Oh, and the electric car too.

              Am I creeping you out?
              Oh dear what a ehame

              Your new found friend Christie will provide some relief

            3. Here’s Andy painting a self portrait

              Andy Scrase | March 13, 2010 at 3:50 pm |

              No I can’t explain what Trenberth’s perceived travesty was actually over.

              That is because I am an illiterate troll who is incapable of rational thought.

              Perhaps someone of greater intellect can help me understand this.

              The emails are all at http://www.eastangliaemails.com

              Best Regards
              Worthless Troll,

              “faeces floating in the toilet bowl of public opinion”

              http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/chris-mooney-interviews-michael-mann-on-climategate/#comment-15244

            4. And yet, with business flat-out and a house about to be bulldozed, andyS still manages to post prolifically here, frequently making some bonkers response within 5min of someone else’s comment.
              It does suggest a rather obsessive and time consuming fixation with making comments.
              Add in the apparent similar activity elsewhere …

            5. Hey Andy, do I sense a tinge of envy?

              Yes I did build an electric car myself in my shed from an old 1990 Toyota Starlet, I mentioned it on the blog a few times. Its been running for four years now, serving as my daily local commute. Its street legal and runs at about $4/100Km in electricity.

              And yes, I had the good fortune of an interesting and fulfilling past time. I gave the Bits and Bytes a miss a while ago – done enough of that for one lifetime – and returned to my science roots. As I said, I am working currently as a Science teacher and find this a fulfilling task.

              My engagement with issues of sustainability started in 1976 after reading and comprehending “Limits to Growth”. Its been a theme for me ever since.

              Unfortunately society has been rather busy since then doing a lot of stupid things, squandering the time of easy and cheap energy and abundant resources and a working ecosystem for meaningless growth, luxury and a heap of rubbish…
              Our mistakes are coming home to roost… Its time for humanity to take the turn to a sustainable living arrangement or bust.

              And it just proves your inability to reason that you equate activism towards a sustainable future with “taking peoples lifestyle away”. Much to the contrary Andy, carrying on like we are – as you seem to be suggesting – WILL rob our descendants of their chance to have a peaceful and enjoyable life.

  12. OK, Andy, I’ll try to help you out here… the absorption and emission of IR by atmospheric CO2 “traps” energy that would otherwise escape to space, causing tropospheric temperatures to rise and permitting more water to evaporate and/or remain aloft.

    As we know from our own microwave ovens, Andy, the increased H2O “traps”yet more heat, causing H2O levels to rise further in a positive feedback cycle, thus increasing the temperature rise facilitated by a given concentration of CO2, aka the “climate sensitivity”.

    The increasing downwelling IR has the effect of heating the oceans, which therefore emit yet more CO2 in another positive feedback, but it is the potential feedback from methane in melting permafrosts that is the real concern.

    Is that clear enough?

  13. Rob, the oceans are net sink for CO2. That’s why they are acidifying at a rate unparalleled in 300 million years.

    Not that Andy S is likely to understand anyway, but we don’t want to put readers crook.

    1. Thanks for the correction, Dapple; students should certainly be taught about ocean acidification, the “dark twin” of global warming.

      I was alluding to potential runaway feedbacks, so should have said:

      The increasing downwelling IR has the effect of heating the oceans, which will eventually emit more CO2 in another positive feedback, but it is the potential feedback from methane in melting permafrost that is the real concern.

      What do you consider to be our best current estimate of the climate sensitivity?

    1. Hasn’t this one been put to bed by “Australian Climate Madness”? and various others?

      There were no “death threats”. Yet another made up story

      1. You truly are one of the most egregious dolts on the net, andy. Go and look at the bloody video before vomiting up your chum, you fool.

        For everyone else; behold the Denier in all his inglory.

        1. WTF? The video merely states what I said above, that the emails were not death threats, and that the information was obtained via FOI from Simon Turnill, who blogs at Australian Climate Madness.

          1. Do you ever actually read or watch anything, andy?

            11 emails. To six scientists. In one university. In one six month period. How on earth do they debunk the Canberra Times’s story?

            Besides, if The Australian had talked to the Climate Change Institute’s Will Steffen, he might have told it what he told us – that abusive emails were not the main reason for the move…

            “We were moved after two threatening incidents… both events (in late 2009 and early 2010) involved visitors coming unannounced into our offices and taking or threatening aggressive actions against me … and another academic associated with the CCI.

            — Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director, ANU Climate Change Institute, 17th May, 2012”

            But the most absurd aspect of The Australian’s reporting is its claim that these eleven emails, on their own, ‘debunk’…

            “Claims that some of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign

            — The Australian, 3rd May, 2012”

            A warning: there’s bad language coming. The Australian could have checked the hard copy of the Canberra Times’s original article in June last year.

            “You will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f*** neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!

            Die you lying bastard!

            F*** off you lying communist c—!!

            Eat S*** and Die!!!

            — The Canberra Times, 4th June, 2011”

            Or even better, The Oz could have actually gone to climate scientists around the country and asked for examples of threatening and abusive emails.

            That’s what we did. We got these from just two scientists, one in Melbourne, one in Brisbane, received in that same six month period. They’re on our website [Warning: vile], and they are not pretty reading and yes they were reported to police.

            Here’s one of your movement’s ‘heroes’ being repeatedly warned that what he’s doing is grotesque, and that the Climate Madness cherry-pick in no way refutes the claim that Australian climate scientists were receiving threatening emails and death threats.

            Do you really not understand what you look like in all this, andy?

            1. Yes I understand how I look to you Bill.
              However, that aside, the main issue from my perspective is that the VC of ANU, Ian Young, was claiming that there were email death threats to his staff, or maybe not, he can’t remember, how convenient.

              This “story” got beaten up by the media. Of course, certain papers were a little economical with the truth, as is normal.

              However, when Turnill got the emails under FOI, there were no death threats as claimed by the VC of ANU

              Needless to say, there were other abusive emails that I do not condone. However, that is not the point I am trying to make. The point is that ANU let the media beat up a story that was not based on facts.

              ACM’s final take is here if you are interested
              http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-story-a-few-final-thoughts-for-now/

            2. You really really really have not read or watched the MediaWatch piece, have you?

              I mean, how can you post this –

              there were no death threats as claimed by the VC of ANU

              immediately after (supposedly) reading this –

              The Australian has never made clear that the emails released under FOI covered a period a year after the ANU’s scientists had been moved to a safer location. In fact Christian Kerr’s report thoroughly confused the issue

              “Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university’s researchers.

              — The Australian, 3rd May, 2012”

              At what time, Christian? Professor Chubb was Vice-Chancellor at the time the scientists were moved. But he couldn’t have read the emails before that, because they weren’t sent until the following year.

              and, for that matter, this –

              “We were moved after two threatening incidents… both events (in late 2009 and early 2010) involved visitors coming unannounced into our offices and taking or threatening aggressive actions against me … and another academic associated with the CCI.

              — Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director, ANU Climate Change Institute, 17th May, 2012

              – which is all of a half-second scroll up the page!

              So, all this your bloggers ‘diligence’ (and hardly ‘due’, at that!) – and even the disquieting partisanship of the Murdochracy – has only resulted in yet another own-goal.

              Read the bloody quotes above or have the courage to click on this link and then tell me again –

              ‘There were no “death threats”. Yet another made up story

              ‘The main issue from your perspective’ is simply a sordid attempt to hide behind both cherry-picking and nitpicking in order to attempt to dismiss or trivialise the truly abominable. An issue that effects climate scientists from all over the country, as the original Canberra Times story made clear. Read it. Then tell us what it actually says, as opposed to what your mates ‘conveniently’ say it says.

              How would you feel if you were on the receiving end of those emails or people were bursting into your workplace to confront you? (And don’t just blub about being called ‘rent boy’, it’s not even close, and not close to abuse you’ve levelled at us – see below – for that matter.)

              As MediaWatch sums up the entire sordid little case –

              11 emails. To six scientists. In one university. In one six month period. How on earth do they debunk the Canberra Times’s story?

              Yes, scientists get horrible abuse targetted at them and even death threats, andy, significantly because of the toxic atmosphere you (‘Khmer Vert’ ‘Brown Shirts’) and your fellow conspiracy theorists have fostered.

              Viz:

              In the case of the 30 or so climate scientists mentioned previously, many received hate emails that were well beyond the pale. And yes, there were specific threats of violence, sexual assault and worse. In the most stomach-churning case, a woman’s children – a toddler and a pre-schooler – were named and threatened. Why wouldn’t she be rattled? She received those emails because she agreed to be photographed by a local newspaper to promote a community tree-planting event, and was briefly quoted as urging people to come along and plant trees to mitigate climate change.

              This is the story your little friend has been attempting to undermine. He hasn’t, but he’s sure given us a great insight into the tactics some people are prepared to stoop to.

              You’d think Bast’s billboard might have taught some of you a lesson, but, as I’ve said, fanatics can neither perceive themselves from the outside nor heed good advice.

              And one of the most shocking things in all this is the extent to which it has become apparent that The Australian has given up all pretence of reporting in the public interest and now functions as a sort of printed species of far-Right blog…

            3. bill May 22, 2012 at 10:11 pm

              My “hero” (actually a blog I sometimes read), asked for emails from ANU in respect of the “death threat” story, received them and published them all, finding no evidence of death threats.

              I fail to see how this is cherry picking.

              Only the warmist mind could find some unrelated abusive emails and somehow claim that they were right.

              By the way, Bill, you keep referring to “my lot”. Just because some morons write abusive letters to government employees doesn’t somehow make that my fault.

            1. I wish that idiot troll would go back to his software development – he’s been try to dominate this site for months with his mind-numbingly endless recycling of arrant nonsense. Time he was given the push.

            2. RW May 24, 2012 at 12:20 pm

              I wish that idiot troll would go back to his software development – he’s been try to dominate this site for months with his mind-numbingly endless recycling of arrant nonsense. Time he was given the push.

              Remind me what you have ever contributed to this blog RW?
              Ever?

              All you do is pop up every now and then and sneer like some arrogant little schoolboy about ignorant trolls.

              Have you actually contributed anything to humanity whatsoever? If anyone should be given the push it is you.

  14. Last ICCC: it’s in the Tweets – but Im putting it here anyway.

    “I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another ICCC,” said Bast, addressing the remaining attendees this afternoon.

    🙂

  15. I’d hate anybody to be so distracted by andy’s indecorous meltdown to miss out on realising what a clusterfudebacle the ICCC-7 conference has really been.

    A few excerpts help give the flavour:

    Between them, the nearly 60 organisations listed by Heartland as conference sponsors have received nearly $22m from Exxon Mobil and the Koch oil billionaire family since 1998, according to an analysis by the campaign website Desmogblog.

    Listed as a “gold level” sponsor of this week’s conference was the Illinois Coal Association, although Heartland told reporters the contribution was only in the hundreds of dollars.

    Other allies were scarce. Only three groups set up tables at the conference. The largest was staffed by Americans for Prosperity, the ultra-conservative organisation founded by the Koch oil billionaires.

    But this year’s event had a sense of desperation. Speakers spoke about being “victimised” by “warmists” and “alarmists” – scientists and politicians who accept that carbon dioxide emissions from industry are a main driver of climate change.

    And after nearly 30 years in operation, it is unclear what Heartland stands for when it comes to climate change – beyond resistance to putting any kind of restraint on business.

    Klaus, who made his name as an economist before his election as president, sees environmental concerns as a red menace. “It is identical to communism – identical not similar,” he warned.

    John Dunn, a Heartland policy adviser, sees his role as fighting “enviro-fascist madness”. In his speech, he sought to ridicule recorded evidence of growing drought and heatwaves due to climate change. “Warm is good for people, and it’s particularly good for people as they get older,” said Dunn. “The people that warm spells kill are already moribund.” He went on to say that only extreme cold caused extra deaths.

    The next speaker called for the return of the insecticide DDT, long banned in the US. “It’s cheap, it’s effective and it’s perfectly safe for humans and for all wildlife.”

    In short, a whole bunch of silly aging white men ran away from reality and joined the circus, but you can’t hope to run an entertainment comprised pretty-well solely of clowns forever, and finally their motley big-top has collapsed around their ears…

    It could not have happened to a more deserving bunch.

  16. Add Bayer, Verizon and GlaxoSmithKline to the list of Heartland de-funders.

    Greenpeace and ‘madman’ McKibben’s 350.org appear to be winning 🙂

    Peter Gleick must also be feeling very pleased indeed, despite his other travails.

    But, really, to be fair, we must acknowledge that most of the work undermining HI has been done by Bast and his team, whose remarkable tone-deafness and apparent absence of a theory of mind allowing them to contemplate the critical strategic question – how must we look from the outside? – has lead to one jaw-dropping blunder following another post the Gleick hack.

    Oh, that, and adopting the related and always-effective strategy of never apologising, not matter how egregious – and even how clearly auto-destructive! – your error.

    Allowing what has turned out to be the last ICCC to turn into a circus whose centre-ring was dominated by aging ideologues spouting paranoiac anti-environmentalist drivel, defending DDT, laughing along with the Birthers, and coming up with post-satiric gems like ‘the people that warm spells kill are already moribund’ was just the icing on the cake.

    Sorry, wrong metaphor: make that ‘the last nail in the coffin’ 😉

  17. More on ‘your lot’:

    Tucci78: On the the contrary. When the “labels” fit, when they point out just how loathsome, just how evil, just how rotten [emph. in original] these AGW fraudsters are and have always been, there should be no holding back, no restraint, no respite.

    Hammer the message home, keep hammering, and never let up.

    When the popular perception of these “Never let a crisis go to waste” leftist pseudoscientists is such that they find themselves at risk of physical assault whenever and wherever they show themselves in public, we can slack off. [my emphasis]

    BillC: I’m not 100% sure, but I think threats of physical harm to climate scientists are a violation of blog policy…

    Tucci78: BillC maunders:

    I’m not 100% sure, but I think threats of physical harm to climate scientists are a violation of blog policy…

    Your censoring sniveling notwithstanding, the efficacy of ever more vigorous critique of the flagrant moral (as well as intellectual) bankruptcy of las warmistas might be best assessed by virtue of how the general populace receives them, when these “cork-screwing, back-stabbing, and dirty dealing” flim-flam men cease being accorded solemn nods of donkey respect for their “peer-reviewed” concerted duplicities and start running like hell from angry mobs bent upon treatments involving hot tar and poultry offal. [emphasis mine]

    Think of our purpose not as encouraging the immediate infliction of “physical harm” upon these charlatans masquerading as “climate scientists” but rather making so pikestaff plain their fraudulence and malicious intentions that the average citizen perceives them as the perpetrators of actions which are such clear and present dangers to civil order, the common weal, and individual human rights as to warrant the same vigilant regard in which the average citizen holds the convicted serial rapist or tax assessor.

    And how does Judith Curry contend with the bile spouted by this lunatic?

    curryja: Well Tucci78 is regarded as high entertainment by many of the regulars here. Not so much accepting his sentiments, as being entertained by his presentation of them.

    Here’s someone else who has clearly learned nothing from the HI Billboard fiasco – all this is going on, ironically, in a comment thread discussing it. Curry has now opened herself to the same censure as Heartland, to my mind.

  18. As the US is a result of four centuries of racism, genocide, slavery, fratricidal and imperial warfare, it is hardly surprising that a violently anti-intellectual strain infects the population at large.

    There was once a political party of proud bigots called the “Know Nothings” in 19th century New York, not to mention the home-grown American religion, Mormonism, which waged holy war against any and all non-believers.

    Indeed, America has had its share of murderers, tyrants and madmen, some of whom have attained high office.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Jackson

    A good read for this feral strain in the American body politic is “What is America?” by Ronald Wright.

  19. Wow! I mean, really wow!

    Catch David Wojick – you know; the HI ‘climate science curriculum’ guy – weighing in further down on that same thread at Judith Curry’s:

    If you read the green Guardian stories carefully you will see that Heartland actually picked up some new, heavy duty sponsors. Heartland may have just emerged as the counter to Greenpeace, which has a combined global budget of over $100 million a year. I am sure Joe Bast would be happy with that.

    That the lukewarmers are aghast is irrelevant, as they are not Heartland’s constituency. Heartland has always been angry and anger is the political motif of the day. This is ideological warfare.

    The only new ‘heavy duty’ sponsor that’s been reported recently is the Illinois Coal Association – and hence yet another shot aimed squarely at whatever vestiges of foot or limb may remain at HI.

    ‘Ideological warfare’ indeed!

    ( That’s the same Greenpeace that just reported Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline and Verizon have withdrawn funding from HI.)

    So, at this stage it would appear to be Greenpeace, what?: 15 Heartland 1 (own goal!)

    It’s instructive to examine further rambling from one who would teach schoolchildren:

    Not to worry, Blue. My scied stuff will be wonderously apolitical. My message will be to ignore the debate and let science do its work. Children should not participate in a debate which scientists themselves cannot resolve, right?

    ….

    However, Heartland is at least a Brigadier General. The lowest rank of general for those of you who do not follow warfare.

    Heartland is clearly the leader at this point. Who else is even close among skeptical US think tanks? They have the conferences, the newsletter, theNIPCC reports, the Forbes articles, plus a bunch more. This is why they are under attack, but attack measures success.

    Well, they had the conference… 😉

    Heartland speaks for the substantial number of skeptics who think CAGW is an ideological movement, at best, or even a hoax. Heartland is their emerging voice. The purpose is to stop the greens. The strategic direction is to channel widespread anger to get political results. (This is ideological warfare.) Joe Bast is in charge. What do you not understand?

    I do not know the Heartlanders personally. But we share the moral conviction that the Greens are a menace to society, not unlike the Unibomber, who acted on the same perverted principles.

    1. I guess the last crumbles of the HI’s Potemkin Village facade of some “arguments about science” have fallen off, revealing the house of intellectual horrors it was meant to shield from the outside. Now since all is revealed, we can look deep into the rotting carcass of the dying beast through its last puffs of noxious breath as it self-digests whats left of it…. 😉

  20. Also worth reading is Joseph Bast’s ludicrous email to Curry in response to her post. Here’s a taster –

    (e) Our PR response to Fakegate has been called “brilliant” even by the folks at DesmogBlog. History will record it as another major scandal that helped bring down the man-made global warming movement. But the MSM and environmental groups doubled down on their strategic mistake, understanding that the only way to prevent Fakegate from “becoming another Climategate” is to take down Heartland and its network of scientists and donors. Their tactics compelled us to match their intensity.

    (f) I am not surprised or disappointed that you and other bloggers disapprove of our tactics. It is simply not your role in the controversy to be aggressive or controversial. But it is ours.

    (g) The billboard, which cost $200, generated more than $5 million in earned media so far, and that figure doesn’t include television, radio, and tens of millions of page visits and online commentaries. Was the MSM coverage overwhelmingly negative? Of course. How could it be otherwise? There has been no positive coverage of skeptics since Fakegate broke, none at all, and reporters have made it clear that they will not report the debate fairly, so there is no longer any point in trying to appeal to their ethics or honesty. Thanks to the billboard, 37 million Americans now know that the debate over climate change continues.

    Please don’t hesitate to contact me or Jim Lakely if you have questions or suggestions.

    Joseph Bast

    Wow. That’s, like, brilliant. $5m in earned overwhelmingly hostile media exposure.

    ‘Ideological warfare’ indeed.

    And, gee, it’s all going so fantastically swimmingly brilliantly indubitably cross-our-hearts-and-hope-to-die double-plus-good well; that’s the story, right?

    Um…

    “Please consider supporting the Heartland Institute. These conferences are expensive, and I’m not a good fundraiser so as a result I don’t raise enough money to cover them, we really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses. If you can afford to make a contribution, please do. If you know someone, if you’ve got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductable contribution to the Heartland Institute…

    I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another ICCC.”

    Source: Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1cC5H)

    1. 1) Remember that for now anyway, all this is nonprofit and donations tax-exempt.

      2) If you watched the video of Bast’s speech, for the first time, Heartland voluntarily made public support from the coal industry via ICA, whose biggies are Peabody, Arch, and Murray (we knew about Murray from 2012 fundraising doc.)

      3) Bast was appreciative of Gold Sponsor deserving check for $500…
      Brilliant move on the part of both ICA and HI.

      1. I think we may have to make ‘brilliant’ the key word in relation to HI. 😉

        I’m sure they’re right when they maintain their new financial base is ‘Greenpeace proof’, but I suspect its credibility may not withstand scrutiny quite so robustly…

        And I still think Wojick, going beyond merely whistling in the dark and attempting to pull off a full symphony, has given us an absolute cracker –

        Heartland may have just emerged as the counter to Greenpeace, which has a combined global budget of over $100 million a year.

        Heartland ‘may’, indeed, be about to lead us all in the successful colonization of Venus. I’d rank this as only marginally less likely.

        See the thing is, guys, that Greenpeace, despite the hysterical flood of denunciations continually poured over them by Libertarian nutters and old-school reactionaries, do many, many things that hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people the world over support.

        Routinely spewing out disinformation and vile invective in order to make the world a safer place for the coal industry, on the other hand…

        (And let’s not even mention tobacco…)

        1. See the thing is, guys, that Greenpeace, despite the hysterical flood of denunciations continually poured over them by Libertarian nutters and old-school reactionaries, do many, many things that hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people the world over support.

          I think the phrase here is “used to”
          Their co-founder Patrick Moore describes the current version of Greenpeace as

          Ant-science, anti-intellectual and ultimately anti-human

          .

          Given that Greenpeace oppose the only credible low-carbon energy sources, one would have to assume that Patrick Moore is correct.

          1. As usual, Andy, you are you are quite wrong. A moment or two on Wikipedia turns up Patrick Moore’s application to join the crew of the “Greenpeace”. If he was a founding member as you claim, why would he need to write a formal letter “Dear Sir… “, introduce himself and end with his phone number and a rather plaintive “hope to hear from you”?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#cite_note-33

            Just another fake denialist meme, sunshine!

            1. Strange, I just read a book called “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” by Patrick Moore.

              Amazon describes it as such

              Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist is Dr. Patrick Moore’s engaging firsthand account of his many years spent as the ultimate Greenpeace insider, a co-founder and leader in the organization’s top committee. Moore explains why, 15 years after co-founding it, he left Greenpeace to establish a more sensible, science-based approach to environmentalism. From energy independence to climate change, genetic engineering to aquaculture, Moore sheds new light on some of the most controversial subjects in the news today.

              So he didn’t co-found it then? Who am I to believe? The author of the book, or you?

            2. Well, at least that kept you away from your keyboard for a while.

              Handy distraction from the humiliation of your zealot fellow-travellers, ain’t it?

  21. As always, Andy, you should assess the evidence and make up your own mind.

    On the one hand, we have Mr. Moore, who has fallen out with Greenpeace and has a book to sell; on the other, we have his application to join the voyage of the good ship “Greenpeace”, on a voyage arranged by the actual founders of the organisation.

    Perhaps the following will help:

    “…in 1970 The Don’t Make a Wave Committee was established for the protest… According to Moore’s own letter he applied to the already existing organization in March 1971.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace

      1. … because a public and transparent effort like Wikipedia scrutinized by the public and the result of ongoing refinement and editing is likely to be closer to the truth than the penned personal opinion of just one character who in the case debated here is probably beholden to a very personal narrative and perhaps even agenda.

          1. BTW: this article here would be good reading for you:

            http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/05/study-personality-split-climate-views-not-science-literacy/1#.T8MYKlL8DaY

            (Personality and peer group trumps over science literacy when it comes to AGW denial)

            Would seem that you might simply hang with the wrong crowd then…. as you seem to be a prototypical individual for somebody who despite their science education has dug himself into a deep trench with regards to the science but probably feels on-top with his opinion within his peer group (libertarians, Act?)

      2. It is another source of evidence, imperfect but as Thomas notes above subject to public scrutiny of its claims and references.
        You choose not to use it, perhaps scared of the nasty Stoat man Dellinpole warned you about. That leaves you with your chosen sources of evidence, a book and the Amazon review of that book. Oh and not forgetting, your desperate desire to find something, anything to gainsay global warming and wind turbines.
        Your previous efforts here (under the andyS name) included a photograph you got off facebook.
        AndyS, you are a twit.

        1. It is quite easy to find evidence that Wikipedia is seriously biased in favour of the environmentalists such as William Connelley. You can find out for yourself how many pages he has “touched”

          By the way “beaker” I am glad that you have had the pleasure of checking out my Facebook page courtesy of the Mr Richard Christie, who has taken on the role of Political Correctness Police-person.

          I wonder how he and his new found chum Thomas(*) are going contacting my clients to inform them of my politically incorrect views.
          I look forward to a progress update with some excitement.

          (*) successful capitalist who has now become a “champagne socialist”., pulling up the ladder after him and lecturing the rest of is on the evils of capitalism.

          1. “champagne socialist”… Sorry Andy, you got that wrong too like so much else your mind confabulates about. Champagne is not flowing here I can assure you. NZ teacher salaries won’t allow for much of that if you feed a family of four. Check your facts.

            And once more and for the record: If we carry on as we are, sucking the last drop of oil from the ground and burning the last shovel of coal we WILL pull up the ladder not just for some of us but for our descendants all over the place and perhaps a majority of the species on the planet. You got your bearings 180 degree wrong in your head mate about so many things indeed…

            And don’t worry about your clients, I have certainly better things to do in my life than any of the scenarios your sad mind conjures up.

            1. Ah yes, Dr. Checkzor / Alex Brown / John (and perhaps John D?) / Worthless Troll, the man with 3 science degrees and now a Country Singer with a nice line in hats:

              I remember noting that only the other day that it seemed like the same old refrain when we got that ‘the Daily Mash’ link again.

              Here’s a quick rundown of some other (perhaps less than?) Golden Greats –

              Adolf Hitler would have been proud of you Gareth.

              Gareth, I’d like to personally congratulate you on your part in the death of democracy.

              I am not particularly interested in whether CO2 is warming the planet to be perfectly honest.

              I am just tired of this recycled garbage that is called science.

              Oh dear Rebecca and Imogen., look evil Daddy and Mummy are making the liddle birdies smaller by using their SUVs to drive to the mall. The liddle birdies are getting so small dey will soon vanish., Poor liddle birdies. Tell Mummy and Daddy they are bad people ”

              I especially thank Prof DappledWater and Prof Nommopilot for reinforcing my stereotypes of the climate skinhead

              I don’t have time to wade through the mire of green propoganda the constitutes the IPCC report.

              Many of the scientists with whom I have commicated with on this issue faer that we are entering a “dark age” of science.

              I think it is much worse. It is a new age of Faschism. So called “liberals” who block free speech are, in my view the new order of faschism.[sic throughout]

              My mother was brought up in Nazi Germany, and I see many parallels with then and now.

              However, if you continue to marginalise the “sceptics”, then we will destroy you.

              Of that, I can offer my 100% guarantee.

              Climate change is the biggest money spinner of all time. Estimated to have cost $100 billion globally. We have very little to show for it, except a nation of brainwashed climate-bots.

              I am wasting my time here. You all seem to accept that this fascism is acceptable

              The science is not settled.
              ‘The science is shit

              My 9 year old could do better

              You know, it really does appear that some of us ‘hard-left capitalist-hating eco-propoganda[sic] censorship nazi[s]’ are a remarkably tolerant lot, don’t you think?

              Particularly Gareth and Bryan for allowing you to continue to post here, in your various guises.

    1. Andy evidently believes book blurbs on Amazon are a reliable source of information.

      Moore’s career arc from early member of a green organization to earning the big dollars as an ‘environmental consultant’ to his former opponents is scarcely unique, and scarcely interesting, for that matter. Here’s another self-proclaimed ‘founder’ who doesn’t think a lot of them now, either. And?

      You’ve showed andy a bloody hand-written letter from Moore dated the year after founding saying ‘can I join your group?’; what more can you do? All he’s doing is demonstrating yet again that when reality and his cherished beliefs clash it’s reality that has to go.

      In fact, he’s remarkably consistent: he’s repeatedly demonstrated that he’s willing to accept as beyond reproach any source of information claiming anything he’d like to believe is true.

      But it’s clear what he most wants to do right now is get his mind off the drubbing his comrades-in-arms are receiving.

      1. Regardless of whether Moore was a “co-founder” of Greenpeace or not, I found his book interesting and packed full of thought-provoking ideas.

        That alone is a good reason for you not to read it

    1. Interesting. It was down to 128 from 140 when last I checked. It’s now 127, so that fits.

      And I see David Wojick’s smiling face – and remarkable suit – there as a ‘climate expert’, making me recall his blithe reference to Benny Peiser as ‘making headway*’ over at J Curry’s last week while Peiser had apparently removed himself from Heartland’s ‘expert’ list on May 5th, a couple of days after the billboard went up.

      These guys are apparently so lost in their own fantasy world they just cannot see what’s actually happening around them. Right, andy 😉 ?

      Interestingly, one Robert Carter gives his position on the ‘Expert’ List as a Marine Geologist – and then gives a bit of further elaboration here (palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience) – so it’s kind of fascinating to read the following over at SkS.

      *My understanding is that every party in Britain has gone Green, so I just write you all off [emphasis mine]. But Benny Peiser seems to be making headway, please correct me if I am wrong.

      Don’t think I’ll bother.

      1. What you don’t seem to realise Bill, is that “most parties” in the UK have exactly the same policies, which is why people are turning off voting in their droves

        Boris Johnson got in as London Mayor on 16.8% of the overall electorate eligible to vote

        61.9% of the electorate didn’t cast a vote.

        This can’t be a healthy thing for democracy anywhere

        1. ‘Most [major] parties’ everywhere in the West have much the same policies*.

          I agree that’s a bad thing.

          And, as for turnout; what, like in 1980, when the US voting age population was 164,597,000, and Ronald Reagan won his landslide with 43,903,230 votes (being about, what, 27% of that total?); that kind of thing?

          I suspect Australia’s council election turnouts – the only Australian elections that are non-compulsory – are lower still than the UK’s.

          *Well, then you vote for someone thinking roughly that and then they’re suddenly going to demolish the NHS or throw all workers onto individual contracts… 😉

            1. Richard North has written several books, including The Great Deception, a history of the EU, that I just finished reading..

              This I highly recommend by the way. It puts a lot of the current crisis in perspective

        2. If UK voters are upset that the major parties have evidence based policies on energy and climate, they can always vote for UKIP, the party that gives its science remit to Lord Monkton!
          They get some votes and seats for the European parliament elections, where turnout is low and they are on their primary issue, but for elections that people actually care about, no MPs.
          Being Kiwis you have probably already seen this
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug5W16eEUTo
          Bloom being one of UKIP’s most prominent Euro MPs. Pure class.

  22. Yep, that’s yet more ‘brilliant’ earned media exposure, right there!

    A climate-change sceptic is melting.

    (Gee, and that’s also happening on this very blog!)

    Well, that’s what all those nasty green Marxo-lefties at The Economist would say! 😉

    1. Oh, and this is priceless:

      He [Bast] admits that the billboard was in “poor taste” but says it was designed to get attention, and was good value at $200. The real price is proving rather higher.

Leave a Reply