Last night Australia’s “premier television current affairs program” Four Corners showed a documentary purportedly about the “campaign to deny the science of global warming”.
A regular reader and commentator at this blog, Luke Walker, emailed me the following comment on the program:
Hi Jennifer,
ABC Four Corners last night aired CBC’s news magazine show The Fifth Estate which panned Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr Tim Ball, Exxon, APCO and others in the ” Denial Machine” a 40-minute documentary that gave context to anti-AGW politics in the USA and Canada.
Of particular interest was the careful use of language by media analysts and opinion pollsters. For example, a once Republican media strategist Frank Luntz dispassionately laid out how to use framing and language to create uncertainty from certainty and create public opinion on issues such as climate change.
Chomsky would have had a field day. We don’t say “global warming”, we say “climate change”. Global warming is too scary for the poll groups.
We were shown how words like “energy intensity” get seamlessly inserted into the rhetoric while having a different meaning and different outcomes to reductions in greenhouse emissions but the same public perceptions.
For Aussie audiences there was plenty of US style journalism and ‘Denial Machine’ had plenty of not-so-nice evidence, told-you-so’s and tut-tut’s for the AGW converted.
Indeed the AGW cheer squad would have loved it.
But in the end the issue of global warming/climate change has become a right versus left issue. Good versus evil, or evil versus good. The end of the world versus the end of the economy. Conservatives versus liberals. Dirty denialists versus scary alarmists.
Bizarrely the show’s last word was from the once Republican media strategist Frank Luntz who has incredibly become a convert to AGW. He now believes that the science is conclusive and that we must do something about it.
“Conservatives need to make much greater effort to talk about what’s happening in the environment, and Liberals should acknowledge the serious economic consequences of Kyoto,” Luntz said. He continued, “If you really care about global warming, take it out of the political sphere, don’t beat each other over the head, be honest, don’t yell, and focus on solutions that make a difference. Not everything in life is about politics”.
Global warming is too important an issue to be run by public relations, language manipulators and partisan politics.
Take note say the converted – and so – a very long road to travel, including for the inhabitants of this blog.
Cheers, Luke.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Luke forgot to mention how the whole lot stands on the shoulders of the old tobacco lobby.
All in all it was quite frightening for good science and general process.
A few pertinent comments from (www.fmnn.com)
Reds Reincarnated
“Most of Lovelock’s earlier gloomy predictions have not panned out, but this has done nothing to cool the reverence he receives from media. They, like Lovelock and his ilk, aim not to “save” man, but to subjugate him to Mother Earth. Indeed, major media have had a good reason for pushing apocalyptic climate-change theories for over a century. “A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems,” explains economist George Reisman. Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.”
“In his seminal work, Capitalism, George Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that “the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as ‘exploitation,’ ‘monopoly,’ and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity”; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage.”
This is what the whole game is about and is the principal reason I remain a sceptic. The science behind global warming is specious and unfalsifiable.
We are entering into another Dark Age Jennifer.
I thought it fascinating that the documentary makers and Luke were so interested in what the spinster Frank Luntz had to say.
He obviously isn’t as gifted with ‘spin’ as Al Gore and so he has now changed his tune … yes he recognises that from a public perception perspective ‘the debate’ is over. He lost. This doesn’t mean though, that we necessarily really have a climate crisis. Just that the public believe so.
And I was fascinated how the documentary makers went on and on about who funded the skeptics, but their key witness (the guy paid to monitor the skeptics) was introduced as funded by “someone from an environment group” … no details, no disclosure.
Yes Luke S Walker, I agree it’s become very political and we should all just stick to the science.
However, last night’s Four Corners was nothing if not political.
I shouldn’t have bothered watching given the programmes form on the presentation of environmental issues – I expected nothing but a faithful adherence to the party line and I wasn’t disappointed.
It’s probably no longer possible to actually present a sober and realistic analysis of the science of global warming sans the politics, which isn’t afraid to engage honestly with credible skeptics such as Lindzen ,to confront the anomalies such as Antarctic cooling and present credible alternatives like Svensmark’s.
The propoganda offensive has succeeded – something like 80% of the population has been won over, the media are reliably on song , the pollies are falling over themselves to be green , the educators are indoctrinating the next generation – the AGW side has won!
So why the hysteria , abuse and venom toward the faint voices of dissent?
Why does it have to be a 100% uniform acceptance without exception?
Exxon no doubt does commission research that it hopes will bolster it’s position.
So do Greenpeace , political parties and other interest groups.
What’s the basis for the fear of this Luke?
Yes Jennifer,
I noted the rather over emphatic linking to the tobacco lobby. Yet there was no mention of the late “Hockey Stick”, and the perils of modelling.
There was clear selective editing of the interviews, and the Mike Moore “noddies” were a bit obvious too.
The man from Greenpeace was very convincing. Yesterday I got a junk mail from Greenpeace, purporting to be a supermarket price check. It claimed that the price of bananas will soon be $99 a kilo, due to GLOBAL WARMING, and I may care to send them $20 or $50 to help them save the planet. It went straight in the bin with the rest of the planet polluting junk. Do they think we are entirely stupid?
Having said all that Luke, are you now recanting on your past political and personal attacks?
I wonder as to the ratings of last nights 4 Corners. the quality of their work has deteriorated over the years.
Yes Jennifer, I also wondered about the ref to “someone from an environment group”..obviously above scrutiny.
The angle is that corporate money is dirty money, but much/most of Uni R&D is sponsored, directly and indirectly by corporations – and Exxon is up there and I doubt if anyone has handed the money back.
rog – the quality of four corners has deteriorated? what in comparison to?? the absolute barrell scraping, brazen product marketing or celebrity worship of 60 minutes or
a current affair??
that’s a pretty big call!
anyway, it wasnt a 4-corners produced docco, it was canadian.
anyway, comments from the likes of jim referring to science as propaganda and then being apologist for exxons (pre-determined) ‘research’ to bolster its position is amusing. once again, when love of the almighty dollar seems to drive so many, you cant just equalise and lump the motives of companies who stand to lose out from climate change policy in the same basket as the motives of environmental lobby groups with comparitively paltry earnings and volunteer labour.
but hey, thats the line of the IPA etc and who’s to stop you sticking to it.
Jim,
I suspect the answer to your question is found in Luke’s theme of the “AGW converted.” Those who have found salvation are now hunting the heretics.
The same answer can be found elsewhere–in the ad hominem attacks, such as being in the pay of tobacco corporations (who presumably have a stake in CO2). These ad hominem attacks enjoy credibility with those who utter them because the real point of “the debate” is not to resolve it, but to determine who is good and who is evil, who is saved and who is damned.
So, if you don’t believe in AGW, you’re a denier. On a par with deniers of the Holocaust. You might as well be a Nazi. (You may have noted that Hitler often figures largely in discussions of climatology.) In short, if you don’t believe, you are evil–and finding out if you are evil is actually the only point of the discussion.
“Having said all that Luke, are you now recanting on your past political and personal attacks?” well it depends who threw the first punch Rog. I figure you guys threw more than half !
But I wonder where it’s getting us. Pretty hard to have a decent conversation now days. But if you enjoy putting ferrets down each other’s trousers maybe it’s fun.
As for “AGW had won” they’re now saying that 50% of the Canadians believe the science is not settled. So this incredible result is simply from the media and the contrarians efforts not from the science literature.
And you haven’t been asked to do much as yet – change light bulbs – pretty trivial – and we’re almost at civil war footing. Imagine if govt really did something !!
I normally hit Louis’ comments with the old Pea-Beau but he does have an interesting point. He seriously belieeve the science is being made up to fit a political agenda. A lot of you think that.
Schiller you gumby, your whole post is an ad hominem attack – trying to label the vast majority of people who have read about climate change and think something should be done as religious fanatics.
You think pro-AGW’s are trying to frame debate as good versus evil.
Well the skeptics are trying hard (and getting nowhere) at trying to portray debate as the rational/dispassionate/clever (skeptics) versus the irrational/emotional/dumbasses (pro-AGW).
You are just as good v evil, us v them as any AGW proponent.
I still maintain that people adhere to their opinions to prove to themselves that they are right. Money is not the predominant motive.
Take yourself Julian, how much are you paid to argue on this blog for the position you have adopted? Assuming that to be nothing, and you do it because it’s right, do you deny the possibility that there are people who hold an opposing position and who are also arguing for what they think is right? Is the world really so simple that the good people are all of the Left and the people of the Right are uniformly motivated only by money?
You can’t buy the opinion of someone from the Left? Try that argument in WA at the moment where cabinet ministers of the Left are falling like flies before the CCC investigations. At this rate Alan Carpenter will have to govern with a Cabinet of five and a large backbench. Or ask the greens in WA why they oppose commercial forestry in native forests, but are, and have been for many years, consistently mute when it comes to strip-mining the very same forests for bauxite. We are all potentially corruptible, by money, by rage, by arrogance.
It is the moral virtuosity of the AGW proponents that makes me most suspicious of their arguments. I can’t pretend to be across the science in any detail, but when someone claims the moral high ground in a scientific debate, I am concerned they have moved to that point of the landscape because their science is weak and hard to defend on its own merits. Or they have gone there to gain political advantage, which in science is essentially a form of corruption of the truth.
Rubbish Luke, when you were Phil Done you and Ender would go in on the attack, IPA shill and other hysterical nonsense, much as Pinxxii does now. It only proves what you are.
And where is Ender now? he was going to sell up and build a wind mill, it was a moral issue, I bet that never happened, too busy hurrying after Quiggin http://stevegloor.typepad.com/
When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.
WHATEVER the cause, if carbon dioxide levels have risen 15% since 1900 and still rising, if we are doubling the consumption of our water every twenty years, and the list of “ifs” could go on, then we need to change somethings.
BUT if the “school-yard scuffling” quality of debate largely displayed above is typical of the approach to environmental issues, then as guardians/custodians of this earth for our children we should be aghast; what are the gains from churlish exchanges?
USE your high intellect and personal drives to make a difference, not to sustain an on-going argument that in it’s endlessness becomes a morphine-like haze over bottom line truth.
Julian,
1. The programme was promoted and aired on 4 Corners. So what if it wasn’t produced in Australia?
2.Just explain how this oil company money for research = bad and environmental lobby group money for research = good, thing works?
Is it as simple as four legs good / two legs bad?
3. Who said anything about the IPA?
Or is it as simple as Schiller’s theory that IPA = Nazi = Nyah nyah nyah??
Sorry Geoff – at some point we do actually get into the substance.
Rog – IPA shill is very rarely used. You cannot say that’s ever been a mainstream argument from us. And are you saying that you’ve been gentle and kind in your treatment of us. You’ve had your kicker-boots on from day #1. Now come on.
The problem Rog is that you have not been confronted with some serious alternative arguments. You’ve simply fly-swatted most of your greenie interactions. And hey – who says we’re even that green?
As for us plotting to take over the world, introduce communism, ruining the economy etc. Do you really think that’s what we’re on about. You don’t think we might have a stake in this Australian society as well.
In terms of Ender – I’m not sure – why don’t you ask him – last time I looked he was fitting his home our with alternative solar power and had gone political in terms of seeking serious solutions. Did he say he was going to sell-up and build a windmill – I know he’d like to retire to a rural property, in a reasonable rainfall climate, and live a fairly quiet self-suffcient life. But that’s about it. He’ll probably do it and have a wind-mill too. Good luck to him – are you now worried about his rights to liberty, happiness and property rights?
Seems Rog that you have developed a hatred of us. That’s a bit sad. We only think you’re a tosser but we’d still have a beer with you.
But Luke – the science isn’t ” settled ‘ is it?
The AGW theory is comprehensive , credible and endorsed by the majority of experts – that’s good enough for me and I suspect most laypeople.
What does “settled” actually mean?
Beyond doubt?
The IPCC doesn’t say that – high likely isn’t definite or absolute.
Do you accept that this pursuit of no dissent from the mainstream position makes many in the AGW camp appear to be afraid of something?
Boxer,
You’re right. That’s why Al Gore announced that solving the “climate crisis” was “a moral issue” when his movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ received an Oscar Award.
If I was an AGW fan, I would not only be “moral” on Gore’s terms, I would also *not* be a “gumby” in Luke’s estimation.
I also note with interest that Luke considers it “ad hominem” to point out or explain ad hominem arguments when they occur. Only someone firmly wedded to notions of personal salvation through belief in green ambitions could think such an erroneous argument is credible.
But when the ultimate point of “the debate” is ad hominem–to find out who among us are bad–it’s suddenly quite plausible.
Jim:
Q: is ‘highly likely’ enough to justify making efforts ‘just in case’ the repercussions are far worse than expected?
A: apparently not, because there is ‘some chance’ we might notice some economic downturn in doing so.
now i say ‘some chance’, but again the economics of a few doom-saying AGW deniers seems to override that of former head of world bank Stern (yes, i know where he has been pigeon holed by the deniers) who says the opposite is true… let alone job shifts from unsustainable industries to those in renewables.
but why should we worry when economic policy is driving scientific issues?
i wont bother going to the bait on most of your points in the other post, apart from the fact that this blog is headed by the IPA and we all know which side the bread is buttered for them. please dont for a second try and argue that exxons scientific funding motives are on par in any repsect with that used by green groups.
boxer: no i dont believe that people from the left would be beyond being tainted, im not that naive to see things as so ‘black and white’. once again, it should come down to assessing the motives of the specific individuals involved before you can make a call. there is a vast amount more financial vested interests behind the deniers camp, and not surprisingly this importance is being glossed over by the deniers to the point that they are just being dismissed as equal, opposing views to scientists and conservation groups.
Four Corners was straight out of Spiv Central. There was nothing new in the claims of “not one peer reviewed article” etc. There was nothing in it that has not been around the blogosphere for ages but this is time it was dressed up for the punters.
The one I liked best was the line about none of the sceptics having published research for the past 15 years. Really, so how many papers has Al Gore published lately? And how much climate research has Tim Flannery done lately?
As if two clowns in a tin boat on a river in drought constitutes climate research? Give us a break.
It was the usual bag of double standards and straw men, but Gore is actually right on one point, it is a moral issue, I refuse to trust liars and insist on checking everything they say.
To date the climate cretins have come up with no new forms of dishonesty. Every scam they try on is some variation on the basic forms of misrepresentation. The terms and jargon are new but the architecture of dishonest dealing remains the same.
And the fact that it pressed all Luke’s buttons says it all.
Jim – is the science settled. Well IMO I reckon if the bureaucrats buggered off you’d get a more severe, not less severe line from the IPCC. Of course the IPCC might be wrong – but wrong can be in both directions too. Maybe they’ve wrong on the conservative side. Not many people want to ponder that. i.e. the warming and side-effects much worse than we think.
However given we don’t have a replicate planet Earth to play with – we only have theory, observations and models. IMO there’s a huge body of evidence that links together to a very good story. Might there be some strange cosmological, solar or oceanic phenomenon out there that explains everything – well maybe at some very small level of probability. But I think for such a complex issue the overall body of evidence is compelling.
The real problem is that we can’t really afford to get down the track and find it’s a major problem in 50 years time. Getting the genie back in the bottle will be very difficult then, if not impossible.
But given all the complexities and vested interests involved it’s not surprising that humanity isn’t good dealing with this issue.
“The one I liked best was the line about none of the sceptics having published research for the past 15 years. Really, so how many papers has Al Gore published lately? And how much climate research has Tim Flannery done lately?
”
YEAH! Probably Al and Tim have probably not published any scientific papers on climate! Frauds! And how many papers on climate have contributors to the IPCC published in the last 15 years!?
/tumbleweed
Would be good if Ian was equally abusive in his rhetoric towards much of the sceptic argument too.
But here’s where you’re utterly full of it Ian – you’ll let all manner of rubbish come out from sceptics with not a whimper of concern.
But you reserve liar, cretins and spivs for the government side only.
So therefore on must conclude it’s OK for brown or right wing NGOs to sprout any amount of crap on this issue and you’ll let it go through to the keeper. Blind eye turned at all manner of outrageous stuff. So this is not a science argument is it Ian – it’s purely Ian versus the government, its departments and the any government science in the western world. Save Japanese whaling “research” or selected landscape vegetation-hydrology research he may use to prove a cherry-picked point.
It would bloody hilarious to see the Pacific turn into a semi-permanent El Nino from AGW (well actually it would be tragic but ironic) and ask him then if he was still happy putting the boot into a lot of climate scientists trying pretty hard to get the best information out there. Would he then be happy in his neglect of commentary on all the crap contrarian arguments (and they can’t all be right Ian !) that have floated past his nose. That he chose to ignore simply because it was politically expedient.
Yes AGW is a moral issue. The morals are just very hard to find.
Just a friendly reminder, please try and limit comments to 2-3 per 24 hour period (unless you have new information) and try and be polite.
Thanks. 🙂
Steve
Tim Flannery’s book is full of references to scientific papers that back up his argument.
Jim
there are no faint voices of dissent, the deniers are the coal companies, oil companies, and a few renegade scientists. The exports of coal are storming ahead, and the bottom line will be looking better and better with every year that passes. Well, unless global warming screws up the economy of China, which is now seeing many areas exposed to extreme drought along the lines of Australia.
*China, which is now seeing many areas exposed to extreme drought along the lines of Australia.*
To put that into context, China has always been affected by natural disasters whether they be drought, flood, fire or earthquake. It has been suggested that the frequency and scale of these disasters has acted to restrict economic growth.
SJT – they’re extraordinarily faint in comparison with the overwhelmingly majority of the media, the political establishment on both sides, the community, the churches ( even the creationists!!), much of industry and the glitterati!
If the dissidents do nothing other than continue the focus on why the AGW science is strong , then we should thank them for it!
I think it’s a little unfair to label all or even a large majority of global warming deniers as paid shills, even the ones who command a lot of media attention. Often its an almost religious devotion to conservative ideology that leads many of them to ignore the vast weight of good science.
Nexus, being conservative is not an ideology, it is being careful.
When are you guys going to understand plain english?
In the context I was using it, it certainly doesn’t mean carefull.
rog-
maybe ‘conservative’ doesnt apply being careful about not damaging the planet… or being liberal about how much gunk can be pumped into the air, land, waterways and sea?
careful indeed!
*careful about not damaging the planet*
dont be such a giddy aunt Julian, it’s not a piece of Waterford crystal.
Jim
who’s hauling the coal out of the ground as fast as they can and shipping it overseas at ever increasing rates. There’s opinions, and there’s actual production of CO2.
SJT,
Coal is all-natural biomass. And it’s purely organic! It doesn’t even rely on biotechnology, like ethanol does, or advanced processing, like biodiesel.
Perhaps the problem is that coal releases “immoral” CO2. After all, Luke assures us that AGW is a moral issue.
luke….all previous changes in earths climate, and there have obviously been thousands them, have been caused by the “obscure” mechanisms of solar, oceanic, geological, and cosmological etc.
The ipcc, and you, are now asking me to believe that a few warm years in the late 20th century are actually the first time in history that another agency is responsible for a tic in the climate….helloooooo!! The prime minister was not even allowed to say that the EXTENT of the anthropogenic element in the recent warming was debateable. Amazing! I would say that, as a betting man, i know where the odds lie in this debate.
Schiller – Frank Luntz – I don’t think he’s just dumped the anti-AGW side as the tide has turned – I really think he’s thought about it some more (as much as mercenaries can).
Anyway – his message (if you’d believe it) is simply we could do well to spend some time wandering around the other side’s paradigm. “Too important an issue for partisan politics”.
And please don’t try the organic line – do you think I’m a greenie or something?
Phil Sawyer – “hellloooo” to you to, and good point actually. Yep climate has changed in the past for good reason – but in the last 30 years do we have one other reason other than CO2 – nope ! And the argument is based on much more than simple correlation. How is the current warming “debateable” – what have you got? And if you’re up for a bet there are plenty that will take you money.
Incidentally looks like a few wheels may have come off the cosmology hypothesis – http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/ “It’s curtains for cosmic rays”.
Well the way I hear it from people with excellent contacts in govt circles is that they feel that as a consequence of all the ‘science’ they have no choice but to now acknowldge the issue and be seen to at least be doing something . This does not mean they believe it. I know many do not.
“dont be such a giddy aunt Julian, it’s not a piece of Waterford crystal.”
ha, indeed it isnt!
maybe my sarcasm detector hasnt switched on this morning, because rog, i cant tell whether you are serious or not!
Well maybe the planet’s rocks aren’t crystal but humans are pretty weak in many respects. We’re obviously so well adapted to our current climate variability – we leap droughts, floods and hurricanes in a single bound.
Toby – do they not believe for science type reasons or simply because it offends their world view/politics.
Luke, of course the current warming is debatable. Just how accurate is “global temperature” measurement, now or in the past?
The ever vigilant Steve McIntyre has been looking at this, as has Warwick Hughes.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/90lettnat.htm
“AGW is a moral issue” – No it’s not! It’s a political issue. It’s all about power politics and is just a skirmish in the 100 year old war between proponents of centralist and free market systems.
The fact that the planet has warmed over the last 250 years has been seized by a loose association of groups (greens, reds, luddites and assorted technophobic reactionaries) whose agenda is to break the free-market “western” polity that is based on a PROSCRIPTIVE legal system (which has enabled the technological progress / social benefits over the last couple of centuries), and introduce centralised government (which has never worked anywhere) supported by PRESCRIPTIVE “politically correct”, “moral” laws.
Why is it that there’s this push to centralise?
The centralised polity is based on conformity to whatever is the driving ideology, and gives pre-eminence to those who blindly support the “consensus”. Leaders are unassailable as a challenge to them is a challenge to the ideology, and the huge armies of bureaucrats and apparatchiks required only have delegated / discretionary powers that allow preservation of the status quo. This promotes nothing new and entrenches mediocrity.
The free-market polity on the other hand is based on merit, and any leader (be it political / market) will become a benchmark and immediately be challenged and if found wanting, be replaced by someone / something better. Mediocre players are quickly exposed and fall by the wayside. This promotes an evolutionary process of constant change (mostly for the better).
The centralised polity provides strong leadership at a cost of slow / non-existent progress, while in the free-market system there’s usually a leadership vacuum plus a “human” cost in terms of those who fall by the wayside.
There is a natural force in human society – the herd instinct is very strong and gravitates towards strong leaders… The leadership vacuum in the unregulated free market systems provides opportunity for some currently unempowered entity to gain power and entrench themselves by exploiting the disaffectation of those left by the wayside.
The polarisation of the AGW debate into evil / good etc is nothing but a part of the propaganda war aimed at changing the social order. And this is at a dangerous cost to the science that it exploits.
cheers
Arnost
There is a good side to AGW. A very good side.
AGW has awakened people to the creeping neo-Marxism that comes via the environmentalist and “political correctness” movements. The first to grip industry, the second to grip discourse.
The Stern Report fell flat, amid jeers. The latest IPCC political guidance document fell flat, amid jeers. Al Gore’s Oscar is tarnished already. Tim Flannery is a political plaything. The notion of requiring fluoro lights and closing coal mines has people laughing up their sleeves. Greenpeace “saving a whaling ship” has eyeballs rolling.
Greenpeace Germany is cashiering personnel. Greenpeace Canada lost its tax-exempt status. Greenpeace USA went bankrupt and got bought out by a consumer organization.
The global round of riots that started with the Battle of Seattle and culminated feebly with the Frenzy in France is firmly entrenched as the picture of green political militance.
We’re reaching the end of the “Green Era” and we have the “climate crisis” and their hystericals to thank for it.
“The free-market polity on the other hand is based on merit”
haha, wait, stop you are killing me.
one thing that has never failed to amuse me is how the espousers of free-market policy fail to mention that so many of these economies flourished only after isolationist protectionism to allow local economies grow before launching headlong into global trade. worked for england during the early industrial revolution, japan and korea mid last century as two blatant examples.
to equate neo-marxism and new-world-orders to environmental concern is not only more alarmist than people calling for some environmental restraint, its also just plain dumb: you might fool a few retards and loony shills, but if they are the ones you want on ‘your side’ then you’re welcome to them. just why some of you seem to find it so hard to imagine a capitalist world that also doesnt shit in its own nest really is beyond me.
every day the denial camp shrinks, and there’s sweet fanny adams you lot can do about it.
Schiller “AGW has awakened people to the creeping neo-Marxism that comes via the environmentalist and “political correctness” movements. The first to grip industry, the second to grip discourse.”
bolsh – all you’re doing is just keep repeating the same greenie conspiracy gunk and hope enough people go “yea that’s right”. Just tedious undocumented propagandising by yourself. You’re gonna have to take some lessons from Frank Luntz and be more subtle.
Reality the science is ongoing and serious positioning by industry is occurring ignoring all of this left/right/neo-marxist crappola.
There is no current “climate crisis” – we’re trying to sensibly avoid one !
This year is the official Polar Year and it starts this week in Paris.
Scientists from 60 countries are going to make reseach on how climate in the Arctic and Antarctica affects the rest of the world.
Norwegian scientists are planning to cross the Antarctica and make research on why some areas in the Antarctica are cooling whhereas other areas are warming…..
Luke,
I pointed to a number of things which indicate that the world is becoming tired of neo-Marxism. Which of them are “undocumented?”
On the other hand, you could offer evidence that the world is [sic] “warming” to neo-Marxism. I look forward to learning the evidence you would offer in favor of that.
Oh,
And for those of you who think the “global warming” crisis isn’t generating money for people:
Uranium stocks have skyrocketed.
* Cameco Corp. (CCJ) has skyrocketed 1,030% since 2002
* Frontier Development Group (FRG.TO) has jumped 1,400% since 2004
* International Uranium (IUC.TO) has delivered 2,600% since 2003
* Strathmore Minerals (STM.V) is up 2,850% since 2003
* UEX Corp. (UEX.TO) has bolted 4,900% since 2003
And I bet these companies are all worried about the “looming climate crisis.” Making money from Marxism. Isn’t that rather neo-Marxist?
For an ozzy Uranium stock look no further than Palladin, a few years ago it was trading at a few cents per share, now its +$8
A few true believers, one a builder from Dubbo, are now seriously wealthy. A great story where determination and perseverance paid off.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/p/pdn.ax
Never ceases to amaze me how Schiller and Woody love all this political categorisation stuff. Is it something about Americans?
Do you know the best part about the price increases in Uranium stocks? None of those hideous green/left lumpen scheiser who think they have saved the planet by investing in so-called “ethical investments” made a brass razzoo from the price increases.
And this is, of course, exactly as it should be. Fools and their money are, indeed, soon parted. (or at least left to rationalise lost opportunity) It seems all the “smart money” was on bicycle stocks, until the Chinese flooded the market on low margin.
“Do you know the best part about the price increases in Uranium stocks? None of those hideous green/left lumpen scheiser who think they have saved the planet by investing in so-called “ethical investments” made a brass razzoo from the price increases”
too bad petrotherms (geothermal) stocks have doubled since april 2006 though, eh motty?
🙂
Luke: yes, i noticed woody referring to ‘liberals’ a while ago. wonder if he’s also one of those types who refers to the american ‘liberal mainstream media’? would do him some good to read some ‘mainstream media’ of other western countries to get a feel on how conservative theirs actually is.
You havent been backward in coming forward with your own home brewed •political categorisation stuff• Luke, particularly when it comes to them “Americans.”
Goddam Rog boy, that’s darn tootin’. Yee haa.
P.S. Hey what’s with this new dots game – come on – how do you do it – it looks cool. You been hitting those books again?
I watched the 4 Corners programme on Mon. night, and didn’t even feel angry. It was so trite, ametaurish , badly done and boring. Of course it was totally and utterly biased in the usual childish way. That extremist organisation, Greenpeace, and all the paid scientists and groupies working for the global warming industry were the good guys, while any lipspittle scientists working for the evil Denial Machine, were the bad guys.
Oh, so utterly trite and boring! I bet some of the luvvies at the ABC even felt a bit uncomfortable with it!
Luke Walker? A play on the apprentice of Obi Wan?
This is tiresome – another noms des plume to hide behind.
That said, Luke Walker’s comments about Luntz seem somehwat familiar to another critical op ed, but I can’t easily place it – so Luke’s little piece seems a bit of artful plagiarism.
Luke
eat your heart out
•™
ooooo – Sid is weeeely weeely angwy. He’s gonna hold his bweath until he’s bew. Poor siddles. How does it feel to have tobacco shills selling your stupid diminishing viewpoint Sid – make you feel relaxed and comfy. I mean THAT’s desperate.
And you can’t tell me that Louis Hissink is anyone’s real name? Sounds a bit marxist to me. Luke S Walker to you Master Hissink ! Alas Louis it wasn’t plagiarised – unlike yourself reading from the right-wingers armadillo fact sheet some of us are capable of original thoughts.
Thx for the links Paul, interesting to see UHE back on teh agenda/…..and the obvious innacuracies of past measurements and proxies.
Have you got links to rebutt these luke?
Luke, Julian, do you truly not see the possibility (nay likelihood!) of climate change “solutions’ leading to ‘big brother’ type controls?
Well Wuke, when you Google my name you get wots of factual links.
Wink Phil Done or Luke Walker, and, well as far as Fill Done is concerned, it is a Google Zilch.
Much like your arguments here – all of which seem to be plagiarisms rather than independently thought out ideas.
Because you have been trained to think, not taught how to think.
Or do ewe meen lotsa nonfactual wanks – that’s what I remember – don’t get me started reminding you of some. So are you going to hang around and debate Louis or do a runner as per usual.
Well Toby you’re a big boy now – you should be critically reading and see if what they’re saying stacks up and how it compares with other independent lines of evidence on warming /cooling. What do you think. I reckon the world is cooling and we’re heading for an ice age.
And Toby – re “big brother controls” – well we live in a democracy – kick any govt out that you don’t like or vote for them to do nothing. The reality is that you’re most likely to get a big nothing so gee I wouldn’t be too concerned.
Priceless rog! I can now picture Luke frantically Googling away, trying to find how to one up you.
An interesting bit from Bloombergs, (London) states that while enthusiasm for alternate energy, and other ‘global warming’ stocks, seems to be at an all time high, the really smart money seems to be scurrying for the exit. (Like rats deserting a sinking ship!)
Why? Top financial analists around the world are noting that more and more quality scientific research is showing that the whole AGW thing could be a dud.
Well Sid I know you spend a lot of time with anal-ists but the rest of us try to engage actual scientists. Avoids looking like you’ve just pulled information out of your bottom.
Oh BTW – don’t hold back with your analism – post us the links for the “quality research”. By Singer, Ball or the like perhaps?
toby – no, im not one of these economic doom-believers with shares in the coal industry, i see the whole climate change issue as an opportunity for other industries to take the place of the dinosaur non-renewables. like i said, petrotherms shares have doubled since april, and i cant say ive checked what has happened to them since they have announced their chinese partnership to develop geothermal plants over there.
one cant help but feel the big players in the energy supply game arent so happy with double edged sword of global warming issues requiring cuts to fossil fuel use AND the fact that renewables dont require a source supplied wholy from said players. i guess thats why theres such an industry push to replace petrol with the less efficient, more expensive, more dangerous hydrogen (which is produced with electricity) instead of just cutting out the middle man with plain old electricity – explains Chevron’s purchase of the NiMH battery patents and prevention of their use in electric cars.
that kinda restriction & killing of competition/development is a tad more big brotherish dont you think?
People,
Now is the time to invest in coal stocks. The bubble will pop, people will realize that coal is all-natural, all-organic biomass. They will realize that it was an artificial media-driven run for speculators.
When people realize that the “terror of CO2” is bunk, there’s going to be a run on coal.
Julian you are right that it is a danger big business will try to surpress technological ideas that they will have little control over or be unable to profit from over the medium to long term ( is this what you mean by big brother?). Theres lots of examples of conspiracy theories involving shutting down or killing alternatives….are they real I do not know, but for sure big business is not squeaky clean. Far from it. ( read ‘Confessions of an economic hit man’ for an example….very biased, but never the less interesting and thought provoking)
I am however thinking more in terms of govt controls. Gw walks straight into the hands of big govt, IMHO. And it scares me.
Toby, i am as equally alarmed by excess government control as corporate, but i think the problem of completelt unnacountable corporate power is often underplayed. the chevron/NiMH battery patents thing is a well know one.
unfortunately, groups like the IPA, for which Marohasy is a pivotal member, advocates the free market as a solution to any external problem, but as we see ‘free markets’ are seldom free and often stifle true competitiveness by allowing the larger entities to dominate or hog market share, and in the case of global warming etc the increasingly unsustainable western energy-hungry over-consumption is very much at the heart of the problem.
You wanna hear a good one about Tim Ball, the “expert” that was panned in this special?
According to one of the guys who lives in the same condo building as Ball, there was a decision made that each resident was to pay $5000 to fix a minor leakage problem in the building.
Ball, went around talking to all the residents telling them that the damage wasn’t as bad as people thought and to listen to him because he knew all about building envelopes.
When it came to the vote, Ball convinced enough people that the decision failed and Ball won. The repairs were never done.
Fast forward two years later:
Since the initial damage was never fixed b/c our little “leaking building envelope denier,” Tim Ball, it got way worse and now everyone in the building is facing $100,000 each to repair the damage. I’m not making this up, heard it straight from one his neighbours, who obviously hate Balls’ guts.
If you don’t believe me, ask Ball himself: timothyball@shaw.ca
So how does this relate to global warming. Well, Ball is NOT an expert in climate change, he has not published any research in over ten years. He is also NOT the “first PhD in climatology in Canada,” not even close. Just like the leaking building envelope he fought against taking action on, global warming is only going to get more expensive the longer we wait to take action.
Seriously, read up on this guy before you start using him as a source of expertise on global warming, you are just assisting him in spreading misinformation.
if thats true JC its a beautifully poetic parable.
ill bite my tongue however, lest i look like the fools who attempted to smear al gore re his home offices running on green power and having the cheek of costing more than the average home to run.
Interesting to see he is basically the canadian equivalent of Jennifer Marohasy (fronting a faux-environment group funded by a right wing free market think tank, sponsored by oil, mining and energy industry groups), but perhaps a little sloppier.
But you are smearing Julian so your tongue must be forked.
ps,
that list of ‘good’ things you have done around your home…
..big deal, no more than anyone else in the sticks. So, what was your electricity/gas bill?
Luke,
you have no understanding of debate, so no, I won’t bother with you.
I accept your surrender Louis.
Julian is the classic hypocrite. Enjoys the trappings of free enterprise but opposes it at every opportunity. The word parasite springs to mind for some reason.
So who funds Julian? Probably me and you via the DSS. Or is he 36 years old and still sponging off mum?
Ian, you are a complete f-wit, wrong about me on all counts, but then you wouldnt want to surprise everyone by ever getting something right, it would ruin your rep.
nothing like the anger of the public handout farmer having a go at a self supported urbanite is there?
black and white, black and white, black and white. i wish my world was as simple as yours ian. lucky for me i have the mental capacity to understand complex issues. im surprised you have the ability to put one foot in front of the other without your knickles dragging on the ground.
“..big deal, no more than anyone else in the sticks”
rog – im calling BS on you there. im sure neither you nor motty have anything more than a clorinated seppo tank for your respective prefab dog boxes.
Luke,
Surrender? Such positions are absent in science, so obviously you are blathering about something else.
Wrong again, Julian. I have 4 houses, 3 of which have water tanks and recycled grey water and one with solar power and hot water. And on top of all this, my forest absorbs more than 1000 tonnes of CO2 each year so my three kids have already ensured that they can spend their entire lives in carbon surplus.
My family went into carbon surplus (after being forced into carbon deficit by government) in about 1937. Our lives have been one long continuum of quietly doing sensible things with water, vegetation and resources until some suburban dropkick discovers the same thing and proclaims himself the leader of a new movement. To save the planet no less.
Lets face it Julian, you are nothing but a cliche.
How lucky to inherit the family farm in great rainfall country then preach to others who don’t and never will have the land resource base. What supreme arrogance from a elitist squattocracy. 4 houses eh – well on the way to Al Gore emulation !
Inherited, eh Luke? No, I paid full price to all my siblings, in fact, am still paying 15 years later. More to the point, my kids are still doing without after 15 years but what would I know about intergenerational equity. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a bigoted urban stereotype.
Full price as unimproved cow paddock ? – yea sure. And if your kids are doing without while you play forester whose fault is that? 4 homes indeed.
What an ignorant bozo you are Luke. Do you seriously think probates are settled on anything but full and proper valuations? You know absolutely jack s&*%#@ about what goes on in your own country. You’ve got a head full of sad cliches out of a bad ’50’s novel.
Test
Test2