Thank you world

Cheatin Heartland Muriel Newman, former ACT MP and doyenne of the libertarian right in NZ, has finally returned from New York where her NZ CPR was one of the “sponsors” of the Heartland crank fest. In the middle of her detailed report on the event, she quotes approvingly from the conference opening speech [PDF] by Czech president Vaclav Kraus:

To date, the only European Union leader prepared to take a principled stand on the global warming controversy has been the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. […] In his keynote address to the conference […] President Klaus, who is also the current President of the European Union, explained how the United Nations IPCC is a massive bureaucracy that is generously funded by those green businesses that have a great deal to gain from maintaining high levels of public fear over global warming alarmism. He also expressed his disappointment that no other leader was prepared to stand up against the propaganda: “A few weeks ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I spent three hours at a closed session of about sixty people – heads of states and governments with several IPCC officials and ‘experts’ like Al Gore, Tony Blair and Kofi Annan. […] It was a discouraging experience. You looked around in vain to find at least one person who would share your views. There was no one. All the participants of the meeting took man-made global warming for granted, were convinced of its dangerous consequences and more or less competed in one special discipline – whether to suggest a 20, 30, 50 or 80% CO2 emissions cut as an agreed-upon, world-wide project. It was difficult to say anything meaningful and constructive.” (my emphasis).

That rather nicely illustrates my contention that the real world is getting on with dealing with the issue, while the cranks — even Presidential cranks — find themselves marginalised.

Thanks for drawing that to my attention Muriel. And thank you, world.

[World Party]

26 thoughts on “Thank you world”

  1. That is a little poignant, indeed.

    Anyone know if it is usual for a think-tank (NZCPR) to sponsor another (much bigger) think-tank’s (Heartland) event? Seems a little odd, thought they had to spend that money on their own research and whatnot.

  2. Small minded? Muriel, Bryan Leyland and the other NZ cranks want to influence public policy here, and have an established relationship with a US think tank that is co-ordinating global opposition to action on climate change. Asking if they’re being directly funded (through airfares, accommodation costs, speaker fees etc) is entirely legitimate.

    Perhaps you should get off your high horse for a moment, and tell that US think tank to mind its own business.

  3. They want to influence policy ?
    They have an established relationship with a US think tank ?
    No Gareth…surely not.
    Why on earth would they want to do that ? Do they think they live in a democracy or something ? or have they got some nutty ideas about free speech ?
    Heavens to Betsy !

  4. Ah, so it’s “free speech” when it comes to American thinktanks, but none of my business when I want to know who’s paying the bills.

    Feeble, Ayrdale.

  5. An American thinktank…well the embodiment of everything that’s evil…

    Gareth, don’t you think those last comments of yours are akin to latter day McCarthyism ?

    Is there any room in your world view for tolerance of ideas other than your own ?

  6. And yet, and yet… You are happy to promote the views of that proven hypocrite and liar Monckon on your blog, quoting with approval this:

    The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth remains unalterable.The Forces of Darkness, with their “global warming” chimera, came perilously close to ending the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. They almost ushered in a new Dark Age.

    And you turn up here accusing me of being intolerant of other views! Way to go, Ayrdale, you are as much a hypocrite as the potty peer.

  7. Well, note that Monckton has challenged that great champion of yours, Al Gore to a debate…

    ” The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous”, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing…”

    …the gauntlet was thrown down 14th March 2007. Do you think Al is in training ? or in hiding ?

  8. Gareth, you might like this…
    “Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a ’70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That’s because — news flash! — climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific position…”

    I disagree entirely of course, because it is global warming afficianados that have ideology behind them, that’s why you and they are long-time greens, not sceptics…but nevertheless love the analogy, wish I’d thought of it… rather like the Terminator, (but of course with a happy ending.)

  9. Debating Monckton would be like wrestling with a pig (cf Twain).

    If you had read Hot Topic (the book), you would know that I refer to “zombie facts”and their use by cranks, in the appendix dealing with crank arguments.

    You seem content to splatter them all over your blog…

  10. because it is global warming afficianados that have ideology behind them,
    No Ayrdale, they have science behind them.
    Personally, I see skeptics as more like those yapping little mutts snapping round your heels. All tits and teeth, a hell of a lot of noise but not much dog, and all with the attention span of a goldfish.

  11. …the real world is getting on and dealing with the issue, says Gareth.

    Wrong I’m afraid.

    “Eight Senate Democrats are opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama’s bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party’s leaders.”

    and on the science front…

    “…The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007. ..”

    Todays news…more tomorrow too I’d imagine…

  12. “Laurence, awfully sorry to resort to insulting language”
    I should hope so too.

    “a link to the 8 Democrats opposing Obama’s bill…”
    So why do you think this is so important? Given the wheeling and dealing on K Street I’m surprised there aren’t a lot more.

  13. And while you’re at it why don’t you tell us a bit about these scientists declaring themselves skeptics. Like who are they, what are their fields of expertise, have they published anything we can get our teeth into. Are they skeptical of all the science or just bits of it, if so which bits and what makes you think there is an increasing number of them? How many did you have before this increase?
    For someone who makes as much noise as you do, you’re a bit light on facts.

  14. …Laurence, every scientist who declares himself/herself a sceptic, and I’ll look them up after this post (as you could, I supplied the link above), hammers another nail in the”science is settled” case, and of course the credibility of people like you…

    If you could point out some sceptical scientists who have been converted into alarmists I’m sure your trumpeting could be heard without my hearing aid…

  15. Shame about the hearing difficulty, Ayrdale, I sympathise, but you must admit the trumpet’s a good match for your rose-tinted spectacles with their matching pink leather blinkers.

    Morano’s “list” contains very few working, publishing climate scientists, and a lot of retired, non-climate, non-scientists. It proves nothing. Less than nothing, in fact, because it includes the “bearded bungler”, David Bellamy, who has about as much credibility in climate matters as Monckton.

  16. Morano: “…the 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.”

    In this somewhat clumsy piece of PR, Marc Morano is trying to give the impression of a steady attrition of climate scientists away from AGW to scepticism. The reality is that the scientists and others that he adds to his list have probably always been sceptical and have only recently come to the notice of Morano and co.

    The evidence for this understanding is the way in which Morano attributes the various quotes: “…told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009… wrote on January 13, 2009.”

    Clearly, Morano and co are actively seeking AGW scepticism, whether by personal contact or other means such as cutting and pasting news and other reports. Nothing wrong with seeking examples of AGW scepticism, but the examples given do not support the larger purpose, which is to give the impression of an inexorable movement away from AGW by climate scientists.

    Note that the best that Morano can do is claim that the names of some scientists have been added to a list, as if the act of creating a list is evidence for a real-world movement of opinion.

    Morano is a past master at the verbal sleight of hand. He tried a similar trick of indirection with the Theon case in January, where he implied not only that Theon was important to climate science but also that he had converted to AGW scepticism. In fact, neither impression held water and the unveiling of Theon turned into a seven-day wonder.

    Apart from throwing sand in front of the AGW juggernaut, Morano’s aim seems to be to entice some big-name climate scientists who are wavering in their support for AGW by offering minnows as an encouragement to defect. Problem is that such wavering AGW scientists probably don’t exist, or at least not in large numbers.

  17. No Ayrdale, why would I go looking for skeptics, they’re a dime a dozen, you trip over them in the street. Telling me you’ve found a heap of them somewhere is about as useful as a hip pocket in your underpants. You might just as well have told me all the ballet girls in Southland are pissed off because the cold southerly blows up their tutus, for all that tells me about climate change. You’re the skeptic sunshine, you want to convince us, show us the evidence that backs your claims.
    Now, I would suggest, rather than cluttering Gareth’s threads with off topic bull, you do a post explaining why you are so sure of your position. Then we will see if we can convince him to run it as a guest post. That way we can all see if you are really worth listening to.
    Incidentally, no one is claiming the science is settled, but there comes a time when you have enough information to make some inform decisions.

  18. On a somewhat related note, has Fred Singer always been saying stuff like this:

    “As a physicist, I am concerned that some skeptics (a very few) are ignoring the physical basis,” Dr. Singer said in an e-mail message.

    “There is one who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which goes against actual data,” Dr. Singer said, adding that other skeptics wrongly contend that “humans are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.”


    A little hard to tell from a cursory Wikipedia search if this is some sort of dramatic position change, or just business as usual in the ‘it’s the sun’ line of argument…

Leave a Reply