Conspiracy theory? That'll be the deniers 10 December 09

Well, the conspirators might be hoping to reduce CO2 emissions only to a point. Only to a lucrative point: the point where all coal use has been replaced by natural gas, yielding the same energy with half the CO2, and, perhaps just as a happy accident, many times more tax and royalty revenue. Rod Adams’ list of NG cheerleaders is interesting.

If high energy use were not going to become universal, and natural gas were not involved in frequent fatal accidents, and its wells did not tend to go empty quickly, this might even be a legitimate plan.

As little respect as I have for the conspiracy theorists, it would be nice if more people’s anti-AGW plans laid heavy emphasis on nuclear energy and called for a reduction, not an increase, in civil servants’ fossil carbon income. Hansen’s carbon dividend plan, where that money never becomes income for the mandarinate, is good, but I wish he wouldn’t call it “tax and dividend”.

Start with the dividend, and then stop; it will do a world of good.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Nice try Mark. Most of us hate just the thought of Nick Griffin and his vile objectives. But are they any more vile than those of the politicians who are supporting the UN’s human-made global climate change scam?

The “Climategate” scandal highlights the efforts of scientists who support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis to stifle open debate. Back in February on the UK’s “Forum for the Future” blog I commented on the courage of the Northern Ireland Environment Minister Sammy Smith QUOTE: .. Dear readers, I was astounded to hear .. senior UK minister having the guts to admit that human-made global warming is a myth. Northern Ireland’s .. Sammy Wilson blocked .. advertisement campaign on climate change .. he quite rightly .. acknowledged that the adverts were part of an “insidious propaganda campaign”, saying he had no intention of supporting “New Labour propaganda”. ... Well done Sammy Wilson UNQUOTE (Note 1). This comment was subsequently removed from the FftF blog, giving an example of the refusal of environmentalist organisations to openly debate. Greenpeace has admitted its policy of refusing to debate climate change.

Politicians also refuse open debate but are eager to bombard us with their propaganda. This has been increasing during the lead up to the UN’s COP15 extravaganza. On 9th October the UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change launched arguably this government’s most disgusting propaganda campaign since the build-up to the Iraq War, its “Act On CO2” campaign. The most disgusting advert in that campaign is its “Bedtime Stories TV ad” (Note 2) in which emotional blackmail is applied ad nausium in order to frighten people into believing that our use of fossil fuels will have a catastrophic effect on global climates. There’s loving daddy reading to loveable daughter about how she would suffer unless we all accept the propaganda. Hitler would have commended it with his QUOTE: Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it UNQUOTE (Note 3).

On 4th December UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband and USA congressman Ed Markey (Chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming did a three-way act (Note 4). Brown pontificated “”.. we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. .. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act …”. Miliband damned the sceptics as “dangerous and deceitful .. The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people. The sceptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner. There is no easy way out of tackling climate change despite what they would have us believe. The evidence is clear and the time we have to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions.. Markey warned against allowing America’s political agenda to be hijacked by the email affair. “We can no longer allow our climate and energy policy to be hijacked .. Even if an investigation into the university emails were to show evidence of wrongdoing, scientists and politicians say there is an overwhelming body of evidence that humans are causing climate change .. ”. SPIN SPIN SPIN What has to be remembered is that NOT ONE OF THEM HAS SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS. They are all career politicians with no expertise in any of the many scientific disciplines involved in climate processes and drivers.

So, keeping the propaganda and emotional blackmail assault going, COP15 kicked off with another video (Note 5) – yes, poor child having that terrible nightmare about global catastrophe, all caused by us because we will use that awful carbon stuff.

Shame on them and all others who are pushing this propaganda with only three major objectives having nothing to do with controlling global climates. The major objectives for the UN and its supporters are: - redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies, - establishment of a framework for global government, - enhancement of personal status, power and finances for the privileged few.

The UN can try as hard as it likes, all of the propaganda in the world will not hide the truth exposed in those leaked UEA CRU files.

For the truth about “climategate” and the objectives of the UN’s COP15 propaganda please visit the audio/video presentations/interviews with Lord Monckton and pass them on to everyone that you know. They tell the truth about “Climategate” and the objectives UN’s climate change propaganda (Note 6). Also, Einar Vikingur (BSc. Chemistry, MSc. Engineering) gives a very good “layman’s” summary of the “significant human-made global climate change” scam in his advert (Note 7) which I understand was reluctantly published by the Australian Herald. THESE GIVE AN EXCELLENT EXPOSURE OF THE UN’S GLOBAL GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY PASS TNEN ON TO EVERONE THAT YOU KNOW.

NOTES: 1) see http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/02/green_new_deals.html 2) see http://www.decc.gov.uk/ 3) see http://thinkexist.com/quotes/like/make_the_lie_big-make_it_simple-keep_saying_it/175795/ 4) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen 5) see http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2146 6) see http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckton-secretive-copenhagen-treaty-creates-larcenous-global-government-tax.html and http://www.cfact.org/a/1652/Monckton-names-names-on-ClimageGate-Debunks-climate-fears 7) see http://d4072.mysite.westnethosting.com.au/climate/Climate&Carbon.pdf

Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic

I become so angry when I read all the stupid comments of the sceptics. I started writing positive comments on internet, to let an other voice be heard. But it upsets me too much when they are repeating in an aggressive way things which are just not true. I do want to be respectful and keep listening. What helps me is the knowledge that truth out of (their) timing is no truth at all, for the people hearing it. So maybe oneday their eyes will open. But how do you deal with it without becoming cynical?

Perhaps, reading extended misrepresentations and rants like the ones emitted by Mr. Pete Ridley, we should just let these people have their way, let the earth heat up, and let nature run its course. Gaia won’t be killed, not for a billion years or so, and not by us. Unchecked, global warming will likely kill us off, along with a third of our fellow species that we will, sadly, take with us, but if we do not choose to have the will to see, or cannot face and solve a problem of our own making that threatens everything, do we honestly have any right to remain?

Clearly, there is much greater nuance to the leaked email “climategate” story than that which has been trumpeted with gusto by the “do-nothing” message machine, yet still, it would have been much better if Climate Change/Global Warming scientists hadn’t resorted to some of the same old tricky dishonesty brought to bear against their work throughout the past decade and a half. These were acts of momentary weakness for which we may all pay.

Still, all, or nearly all, of the climate change data is there in hard science. So called “ago(scep)tics” notwithstanding, the phenomenon is there, measurable, and only explainable in terms of industrial human activity. “Scepticism (or ago(scep)ticism, whatever that is) at this stage remains interesting only as an example of socio-psychological pathology.

“The Stars make no noise. You can’t hinder the wind from blowing. Time is a great teacher…” (From “The People, Yes” by Carl Sandburg)

connie van nieuwkerk & ITBT, you haven’t botherd to go to those links that I provided, have you. It’s against your religion to read or listen to those “devil denier” voices. Get real. Climates change. Always have and always will. The evidence is there if you were prepard to l;ook for it.

Best regatds, Pete Ridley, Significant human-made global clinmate change agnoss(cep)tic.

PS: I call myself agnos(cep)tic because I started out a very concerned grand-parent after reading Mark’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. ”. After doing my own research and identifying numerous distortions in Mark’s book (which I published on his earlier blogs) I moved from agnostic towards sceptic but can still be pusuaded otherwise IF I SEE THE EVIDENCE.

Old Native Indian saying: When all else fails and you find yourself losing the argument wheel out stories about the BNP.

Despite what Pete Ridley says about Nick Griffin, it seems he shares some of the BNP leader’s delusional beliefs (climate science as a conspiracy to establish a New World Order, etc.).

From Griffin’s perspective, this sort of stuff serves as a proxy for what he can’t say openly: ‘they’ (no prizes for guessing who they might be) are trying to take over the world.

The CRU emails are playing the same kind of role in this supposed conspiracy as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion played in the conspiracy theories favoured by the BNP’s illustrious forbears. The CRU affair is a much cleverer piece of propaganda, however, as the emails are – unlike the Protocols – genuine (albeit carefully framed and selected) and their power to fuel delusion depends on the inability of people like Pete Ridley to understand the basics of climate science, let alone the contexts in which these cherry-picked emails were written.

The fact that Ridley should see Christopher Monckton as some kind of authority in this area is simply laughable. Monckton has no scientific qualifications or credentials of any sort, and his publication record consists of a series of Sudoku books.

Frankly, Mark, I’m amazed at your patience in allowing Pete Ridley to continue posting his monumentally boring, long-winded, repetitive and ill-informed screeds to this blog. Does he really think that his liberal use of capital letters will make these any more readable or credible? On the contrary, it simply confirms his membership of what newspaper editors used to refer to as ‘the green ink brigade’.

Mark Lynas wrote:

“Climate-change denial makes sense only as a conspiracy theory: how else can the opinions of thousands of scientists and academic institutions be so casually dismissed?”

Like this:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Tom Scott, you said “Monckton has no scientific qualifications”.......

Can you tell us all which one of these fellows are qualified in climatology or other closely related fields? Have they all been to University to study their “field of expertise”?

Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, R.K. Pachauri (a railway engineer), Ed Milliband, Richard Branson, Al Gore, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Bonio, Roger Harrabin, Kofi Annan, Nicholas Stern, Nicky Gavron,

Oh God, I’m tired now. If anyone wishes to add to the list then be my guest.

It is good to see so much dissent at the UN’s COP15 fiasco. The politicians from the developing economies are looking for big hand-outs and refusing to commit to any cuts in their emissions (China and India will continue pushing theirs up enormously along with the growth in their economies). The politicians from the developed economies are offering little in the way of hand-outs, offering little in the way of cuts in emissions but demanding more from the developing economies.

With no reductions in CO2 emissions we will see whether or not The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is valid in a couple of decades. We are just as likely to see continuing cooling as a return to warming.

Tom (Scott), here’s another good set of audio/visuals for you (Note 1). You may learn something if you try really hard.

RobinL, come on , you know full well that those 31000 (including 9000 PhD’s) scientists who signed the petition are not really scientists. They can’t be. They dare to challenge the validity of The Hypothesis. No true scientist would act in such a disgraceful and unprofessional manner.

They will never be accepted into “the team” or allowed to publish in any reputable scientific publication. They’ve thrown away there careers for a pat on the back from the fossil fuel energy barons.

Silly people – far better for them if they’d accepted the dogma. I suppose they could publicly repent.

For myself, I’m beyond redemption.

Tony, may I add a few to your list – all apparently admired by Mark. But none having expertise in any of the numerous sciences involved in climate processes and drivers. Prince Charles, Jonathan Porritt, Zac. Goldsmith, Charles Clover, Tim Lang,

NOTES: 1) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59HS6g58Y9k&feature=related (try all of the first 7) & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related

Best regards to you all. Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnos(cep)tic

I don’t know if you realise Mark that your movement is supporting fascists. Take a look at this behaviour. But I suppose if it saves a few babies from drowning it’s all worth it.

I wonder if this particular post of mine will be deleted like the last one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Tony:

Quite so, this bothered me too – the science is settled, because this armed guard said so.

In response to a civil question from a journalist <strong>at a press conference</strong>.

Why no hullabaloo in the ‘news’ media? Hello, Tom Scott? Mark Lynas? Anyone going to defend this?

Yes Robin I fully agree with you. Today (Saturday) a large demonstration by the complete nutso/weirdo faction of the climate change lobby is planned. It will be interesting to note how the MSN will cover this mass show of ignorance. If it turns violent how will the media portray these people? Desperate but worried about the planet so their actions are justified? Infiltrated by anti-capitalists bent on disrupting the event so can be disregarded and not really part of the “caring” environmentalists? We shall see.

What gets my goat is the fact that Gordon Brown has decided that even though We are on the brink of a full scale economic depression and in debt to the tune of hundreds of billions of Pounds, He puts his hand in our pockets and can magic up £1.5 billion.

It’s so depressing to see this happening with barely a whimper from anyone save the few climate realists who see the scam for what it is. The Conservative party are no better and indeed could be far worse for us all in terms of battling climate change. Having no real leadership and no real policies the only vision they can muster is to create a “green Britain”. Awful, totally awful.

Mind you I was cheered by Clive James’ latest offering in his latest ten minute piece on radio 4 last night. A man with his head firmly on his shoulders and unafraid to speak his mind. Link below. You have seven days to listen before it’s removed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p6vln

The only other person who I have the utmost respect for in the BBC is Andrew Neil who is not only ten times better value than Jeremy Paxman in terms of fearlessness but someone who is also unafraid to challenge the orthodoxy in terms of the accepted BBC consensus on global warming. Here’s a link to his blog. It’s worth watching the exchange between Himself and Nick Cohen on “This Week”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/

and,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8407642.stm

Have a good weekend Robin and you Pete.

Tom Scott, yoiu seem to be under the mistaken impresson that this human-made global cliate change scam is based upon sound science. It isn’t. It’s based upon political propaganda and that is why Lord Monkton is (guess what) – yes, an experienced politician. He can smell a political scam as well as the best of them.

Others, I hope you’ll excuse me for posting here a comment that was intnded for Mark’s “Washington & Beijing” blog but it was rejected.

chris (Webber), my initial reaction to your post was “he’s chuntering and not worth responding to” but I will try to understand whgat you are saying. When you said QUOTE: as global warming becomes more rampant and the effects become less science fiction and more prevalent UNQUOTE I assumed that you support the opinion of many scare mongers (especially the politicians and environmentalist) that if we continue using fossil fuels then we will reach a tipping point (soon?) after which we will head for unavoidable catastrophic climate change. Perhaps you can understand my surprise when reading your QUOTE: no one said there is going to be a “catastrophe” UNQUOTE.

I respectfully suggest that you are wrong to say QUOTE: i assure you it’s a minority group of people who share your vision. UNQUOTE. Perhaps you’d like to rethink QUOTE: A poll for The Times shows that only 41% of people accept that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Thirty two per cent believe the link is not yet proved. Eight per cent say it is environmentalist propaganda and 15% say that the world is not warming. UNQUOTE (Note 1). Also QUOTE: Fewer than four-in-ten (36%) now say global warming is mostly caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 16% say it is occurring mostly because of natural environmental patterns. UNQUOTE (Note 2)

On the matter of “coops and communities”, from what I’ve seen on the Internet the concept is driven by the “greens”, pushing “organic”, etc. Googling “coops and communities” brings up Best Green Blogs, Planetfriendly, Fellowship of Intentional Communities. The last one says (Note 3) QUOTE: Intentional Communities are often aware of themselves as different from mainstream culture UNQUOTE. The majority of us prefer to belong to mainstream culture. If you enjoy being different, good for you. Be happy.

As for climate change and history, history tells us that climates have always changed and humans had nothing to do with it. It’s natural, you see.

NOTES: 1) see http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change-poll-britons-are.html 2) see http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming 3) see http://fic.ic.org/

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnos(cep)tic.

Read this. It’s important especially the part where He mentions the part about the head of the IPCC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798151/Jon-Snow-falls-for-Ed-Milibands-figures.html

Sorry wrong link even though that one was extremely interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

Hello Pete R, hello Tony -

Richard North is on fire with the ETS scam -

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/all-roads-lead-to-pachauri.html

Fairly astounding: the chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri, seems to be in it up to his neck.

Oh dear!

Yes I know Robin I’ve been following his blog. It really is all very depressing. The useful idiots (the shock troops) spouting their usual gullible nonsense. It’s like I mentioned in an earlier post on another topic it’s rather like living in Nazi Germany surrounded by supporters of Hitler. Only one true belief. Only one true cause. Disenters deserve to die. It really is worrying but indeed facinating how better brains than ours have managed to dupe the World into believing this stuff AND make billions in the process. I wouldn’t have believed it twenty, ten even five years ago. It would make an unbelievable but entertaining plot for an eco-thriller circa 1970 but, yes, it’s happening right in front of our eyes.

Sadly Mark Lynas represents only one of the innocent fools doing the work of these people. Yes He has gained some prestige from the sale of his books and the fact that he is now considered to be an expert in the field but has unwittingly played into the hands of those who stand to gain millions but only laugh at him when they tell their friends exactly how gullible he has been.

“We even managed to fool HRH the Prince of Wales for Gods sake Ha ha ha ha ha”. ” As for Lyans and Monbiot you’re never gonna believe this…...”

God give me strength.