Combet smears expose Labor's carbon tax desperation

Last act of desperation

As the polls slide and the public’s loathing of this deceitful government continues to rise unabated, Greg Combet has revealed the desperation that must be felt in Labor circles, as he unleashes against Tony Abbott. Denier Alert:

CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet has intensified his attack on Tony Abbott as a climate change denier, seizing on the Opposition Leader’s comments to a Perth community forum in which he declared: “I don’t think we can say that the science is settled here.”

“But having said that, whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven,” Mr Abbott said.

“We should take precautions against risks and threats, potential ones as well as actual ones, but I don’t think we should assume that the highest environmental challenge, let alone the great moral social and political challenge of our time, is to reduce our emissions.”

But Mr Combet said Mr Abbott’s comments demonstrated “what we all know, and that is that Mr Abbott is a climate change denier, which explains why his climate policy is nonsense”.

“Despite his best efforts to convince people that he really does accept the climate science, these comments make clear he has not changed his view that the science is, in his own words, ‘absolute crap’.

“Mr Abbott’s comment confirms that at the core of the Liberal Party is the extreme view that climate change doesn’t exist.” (source)

Nobody denies climate change exists, Greg. Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending? What people question is the magnitude of the effect that humanity has, and whether the massive costs of mitigation are worth the almost zero benefits (which they aren’t). But that’s too subtle for Greg, who resorts to the hysterical “denier” rhetoric when confronted with an opposing view, which is always the last act of a desperate man with nowhere to go.

You have to feel sorry for Greg [only a tiny bit – Ed], trying to sell a crock of a policy which he knows as well as blind Freddy won’t do a thing for the climate. Whether Abbott is a “denier” at all is irrelevant. Nothing Australia does on its own will change the climate so a carbon tax or an ETS will be a huge amount of pain for no gain whatsoever. In that regard, Abbott’s direct action plan is as pointless as Labor’s carbon price.

And what’s probably annoying Greg even more is the fact that the public are seeing through the futility of a unilateral carbon tax:

Voter hostility to tackling climate change with a carbon price has jumped sharply since the federal government announced the plan last month.

A Nielsen telephone poll, published in Fairfax newspapers on Tuesday, surveyed 1400 voters last week and shows found 56 per cent were opposed to the introduction of a carbon price, while 35 per cent supported it.

A month earlier, 44 per cent of voters opposed the introduction of a carbon price, compared to 46 per cent which supported it. (source)

Twelve percent increase in opposition in a month. That must sting. And it will only get worse.

Denialism, Fairfax style

Who are really the deniers here?

I don’t like Fairfax – you might have noticed that. I never buy the Sydney Morning Herald, or bother reading The Age or any of the smaller titles from the Fairfax stable. Their editorial offices made up their mind about climate change years ago, and nothing anyone says or does now is going to make any difference. Unfortunately, the Moonbat Herald is given away in so many places (because they aren’t selling enough, clearly) that some weekends, like this one, it is difficult to avoid.

So, faced with a copy, I opened up the Good Weekend magazine and was confronted with the picture shown on the right, with the headline “True Unbelievers”. In the article (which isn’t available online), it considers a range of subjects for “denial”, such as evolution (with which ACM has no quarrel), HIV-AIDS (ditto), vaccination (ditto), pointless dietary supplements (ditto), and lumps in with those, of course, “human-induced global warming”, which I have to admit, we have a teensy bit of a problem with. So, remembering always that this is viewed through the Fairfax prism, the introduction begins:

There is, in science, a sharp line between scepticism and denial. Scepticism is useful; it’s what makes science tick. A scientist never assumes anything; she sorts fact from theory by setting up hypotheses and testing them.

Denial is something else. Whereas a sceptic may doubt the theory, a denialist throws out the proof. Take global warming. One can be sceptical about the modelled consequences, or about the effectiveness of carbon trading, or about the altruism of AI Gore, but the evidence that humans are warming the planet is in. To contend otherwise is to deny the accumulated findings of sedimentology, chemistry, ecology, climatology, oceanography, marine biology, palaeontology, meteorology, vulcanology, astronomy, physics and geology.

Some scientists claim denialism is on the rise.

It’s not quite clear that it is – flat-earthers were pretty shrill back in Galileo’s day, too. What is confounding, however, is that denialist movements persist so readily in modern times.

What the author does here is brand anyone who disagrees with the consensus a “denier”, with no regard for the possibility that sceptics are indeed “sceptics”, and sets up a flimsy straw man to be hastily blown over on the next page. And isn’t it simply astonishing how the SMH can be so dumb as to mention Galileo within the first four paragraphs? In a primitive 16th century world of fear, ignorance, religion and witchcraft, only Galileo had the guts to stand up to the misguided (and ultimately wrong) geocentric dogma of the Catholic church and advocate for a heliocentric model of the solar system. Galileo was the sceptic of the time, the one that the article is attempting to smear. The Catholic church was the consensus. And he was imprisoned for it – plus ça change.

Anyway, that aside, the SMH then proceeds to recycle all the tired arguments about climate change that we’ve heard too many times before, using the same hysterical alarmism and derogatory language we have all come to accept – tobacco, DDT, etc etc – yawn (I’m not going to even bother rebutting the nonsense and spin presented here, I’m sure you can do it for yourselves by now):

Last year and the past decade were the equal warmest and warmest on record, according to NASA and the World Meteorological Organisation. But such minor details won’t sway climate-change denialists from their objectives, says Professor Peter Doherty, an Australian Nobel laureate. “Denial is driven by big business;’ says Doherty. “It started with tobacco companies fighting the evidence that smoking caused cancer, which is the first time that big business really felt threatened by science. Ever since, big business has learnt to attack the science and to attack the scientists.”

Doherty urges people to read Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. Climate change, the American coauthors argue, is merely the latest in a long line of issues where vested interests have engaged in the deliberate dissemination of scientific denial [you will note that they don’t mention the biggest vested interest of all, the global green movement, which has, over the past 30 or so years, been funded to an almost obscene degree by panicky governments the world over – Ed]. As the two authors examine various issues in turn – the threats of a nuclear winter, smoking, the accretion of DDT pesticide in the food chain, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and, of course, global warming – the same scientists and industry-funded think tanks grimly reappear. [Kind of like the late Stephen Schneider jumping on the New Ice Age bandwagon in the 1970s, only to alight at the early 1990s and jump straight on the Global Warming bandwagon – Ed]

Time and again these men – for they are mostly men, and rather old ones at that [WTF?? – Ed] – are appointed to high places to “fight the facts” in order to protect their ideology, satisfy their employers, confuse the public and delay government action. Hearteningly, in each case science eventually wins through, the world is impelled to act and – the proof of the pudding – the problem is either solved or abated. Curbs on nuclear proliferation, cigarette sales, DDT, sulphur dioxide emissions and CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) pollution have all helped make the world a safer, healthier place.

Similarly, very few scientists on top of their game doubt that a reduction in greenhouse emis- sions will help address global warming. Says Peter Doherty, “We need to beware of those think tanks that draw on the so-called expertise of retired scientists. In science, once you leave the field, you become redundant very fast. “You can remain generally supportive of science and back the consensus – that’s the dignified way to go. Or, you lose your relevance, you miss being up there in the public swing of things, and the only way to get people talking about you again is to take up a contrary position. You see it all too often.”

As a final flourish, it lists the global warming “denialists” – Ian Plimer, Tony Abbott, Steve Fielding, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Vaclav Klaus, Sarah Palin (natch), David Bellamy and “other retired scientists.”

But let’s just think about this for a moment. Do these people really deny that humanity has an effect on climate? I very much doubt it. They know as well as you or I that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some modicum of warming. Their beef is with the catastrophic predictions of half-baked climate models. So what do all these people really want? What would, in all probability, satisfy all or most of their complaints (and mine for that matter)?

  • That science be separated from politics.
  • That climate scientists share their data with their worst enemy.
  • That people stop trying to convince us that the IPCC is an impartial scientific body.
  • That they don’t fudge figures, hide calculations, delete emails, corrupt the peer-review process, stifle Freedom of Information requests, hurl ad hominems about, and generally behave like errant schoolchildren who think they can do what the hell they freaking well like.
  • That supposedly impartial government bodies, like the parliamentary climate committee and the climate commission actually listen to dissenting views.
  • That there is open, impartial, honest debate about the certainties and, more importantly, the uncertainties in climate science.
  • That the AGW hypothesis is subjected to proper scrutiny as any other scientific hypothesis should be.

If this ever happened, I would be happy to quit blogging on this subject tomorrow. But it won’t. Fairfax (and the ABC, most of the mainstream media the world over, and most Western governments for that matter) doesn’t want that. They don’t want to hear any contrary arguments that might undermine their “faith”. They are the ones that have shut their minds to the possibility of any doubt or uncertainty on the part of climate scientists. In their view, the science is settled, and the debate’s over, right?

So who are the real deniers here? Is it the sceptics, who want to engage in debate, share data, scrutinise hypotheses and advance the cause of impartial and apolitical climate science, or is it the “consensus” scientists, who desperately want to shut their eyes, ears and mouth to any possibility of doubt? I’m afraid we know the answer. That image above is the Fairfax editorial board.

Commandments for warmists

Thou shalt not… call us deniers

Busy weekend, so posting is a little sparse. However, Willis Eschenbach’s post on WUWT in response to Kevin Trenberth’s ludicrous statement that the burden of proof in climate science should be reversed (in other words it should be for the sceptics to prove little or no human influence rather than the other way round – climate madness of the week) contained a wonderful set of recommendations for climate scientists, which I have renamed The Commandments. There’s way more at WUWT, but here they are in all their glory:

You want to regain the trust of the public, for yourself and for climate science? It won’t be easy, but it can be done. Here’s my shortlist of recommendations for you and other mainstream climate scientists:

•  Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled. Climate science is a new science, we don’t even have agreement on whether clouds warm or cool the planet, we don’t know if there are thermostatic interactions that tend to maintain some temperature in preference to others. Or as you wrote to Tom Wigley, Dr. T,

“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter.  We are not close to balancing the energy budget.  The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!  It is a travesty!” [SOURCE: email 1255550975]

Curious. You state strongly to your friend that we’re not close to knowing where the energy is going or to balancing the energy budget, yet you say in public that we know enough to take the most extraordinary step of reversing the null hypothesis … how does that work again?

At this point, there’s not much about climate science that is “unequivocal” except that the climate is always changing.

•  Don’t try to change the rules of the game in mid-stream. It makes you look desperate, whether you are or not.

•  Stop calling people “deniers”, my goodness, after multiple requests that’s just common courtesy and decency, where are your manners? It makes you look surly and uncivilized, whether you are or not.

•  Stop avoiding public discussion and debate of your work. You are asking us to spend billions of dollars based on your conclusions. If you won’t bother to defend those conclusions, don’t bother us with them. Refusing to publicly defend your billion dollar claims make it look like you can’t defend them, whether you can or not.

•  Stop secretly moving the pea under the walnut shells. You obviously think we are blind, you also clearly believe we wouldn’t remember that you said we have a poor understanding of the climate system. Disabuse yourself of the idea that you are dealing with fools or idiots, and do it immediately. As I have found to my cost, exposing my scientific claims to the cruel basilisk gaze of the internet is like playing chess with Deep Blue … individual processors have different abilities, but overall any faults in my ideas will certainly be exposed. Too many people looking at my ideas from too many sides for much to slip through. Trying anything but absolute honesty on the collective memory and wisdom of the internet makes you look like both a fool and con man, whether you are one or not.

•  Write scientific papers that don’t center around words like “possibly” or “conceivably” or “might”. Yes, possibly all of the water molecules in my glass of water might be heading upwards at the same instant, and I could conceivably win the Mega-Ball lottery, and I might still play third base for the New York Yankees, but that is idle speculation that has no place in scientific inquiry. Give us facts, give us uncertainties, but spare us the stuff like “This raises the possibility that by 2050, this could lead to the total dissolution of all inter-atomic bonds …”. Yeah, I suppose it could. So what, should I buy a lottery ticket?

• Stop lauding the pathetic purveyors of failed prophecies. Perhaps you climate guys haven’t noticed, but Paul Ehrlich was not a visionary genius. He was a failure whose only exceptional talent is the making of apocalyptic forecasts that didn’t come true. In any business he would not have lasted one minute past the cratering collapse of his first ridiculous forecast of widespread food riots and worldwide deaths from global famine in the 1980s … but in academia, despite repeating his initial “We’re all gonna crash and burn, end of the world coming up soon, you betcha” prognostication method several more times with no corresponding crashing burning or ending, he’s still a professor at Stanford. Now that’s understandable under tenure rules, you can’t fire him for being a serially unsuccessful doomcaster. But he also appears to be one of your senior AGW thinkers and public representatives, which is totally incomprehensible to me.

His string of predicted global catastrophes that never came anywhere near true was only matched by the inimitable collapses of the prophecies of his wife Anne, and of his cohorts John Holdren and the late Stephen Schneider. I fear we’ll never see their like again, a fearsome foursome who between them never made one single prediction that actually came to pass. Stop using them as your spokesmodels, it doesn’t increase confidence in your claims.

•  Enough with the scary scenarios, already. You’ve done the Chicken Little thing to death, give it a rest, it is sooo last century. It makes you look both out-of-date and hysterical whether you are or not.

•  Speak out against scientific malfeasance whenever and wherever you see it. This is critical to the restoration of trust. I’m sick of watching climate scientists doing backflips to avoid saying to Lonnie Thompson “Hey, idiot, archive all of your data, you’re ruining all of our reputations!”. The overwhelming silence of mainstream AGW scientists on these matters is one of the (unfortunately numerous) reasons that the public doesn’t trust climate scientists, and justifiably so. You absolutely must clean up your own house to restore public trust, no one else can do it. Speak up. We can’t hear you.

•  Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends. It makes you all look guilty, whether you are or not … and since the CRU emails unequivocally favor the “guilty” possibility, it makes you look unapologetic as well as guilty. Whether you are or not.

•  STOP HIDING THINGS!!! Give your most private data and your most top-secret computer codes directly to your worst enemies and see if they can poke holes in your ideas. If they can’t, then you’re home free. That is true science, not hiding your data and gaming the IPCC rules to your advantage.

•  Admit the true uncertainties. The mis-treatment of uncertainty in the IPCC reports, and the underestimation of true uncertainty in climate science in general, is a scandal.

•  Scrap the IPCC. It has run its race. Do you truly think that whatever comes out of the next IPCC report will make the slightest difference to the debate? You’ve had four IPCC reports in a row, each one more alarmist than the previous one. You’ve had every environmental organization shilling for you. You’ve had billions of dollars in support, Al Gore alone spent $300 million on advertising and advocacy. You’ve had 25 years to make your case, with huge resources and supercomputers and entire governments on your side, and you are still losing the public debate … after all of that, do you really think another IPCC report will change anything?

Brilliantly put, and it’s all anyone could ask.

Spencer: The Global Warming Inquisition has begun

Fetch … the COMFY CHAIR!

The blogosphere is buzzing with the news of the National Academy of Sciences “sceptic blacklist” (see here), and Roy Spencer sums it up eloquently:

The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs.

There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.

As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.

But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.

I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”.

Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.

So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.

The growing backlash against us skeptics makes me think of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which started in the 12th Century. Of course, no one (I hope no one) will be tried and executed for not believing in anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences.

Read it here.

"Non-Scientist" magazine's special report on "denial"

How "denial" is portrayed in Non Scientist

Note that they don’t devote a special report to investigating dodgy scientific practices in climate research, such as deleting emails, fudging data and skewing the peer-review process by intimidating journals. Oh no. That’s all fine and dandy. Instead, their special report sets up a long line of straw men about “denial” and then proceeds to blow them over:

From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them? Over the next 10 pages we look at the phenomenon in depth. What is denial? What attracts people to it? How does it start, and how does it spread? And finally, how should we respond to it? (source)

And we don’t even have to look very far to see that this will be the usual tedious rant against climate realists:

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing “confirmation bias” – the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest. (source)

As if the consensus scientists are completely impartial and free-thinking, when their next funding cheque depends on alarmist research that grabs media attention? Or what about the fact that the IPCC’s sole purpose is to find evidence for a pre-conceived conclusion, that of man-made warming, and they will therefore ignore huge chunks of research because they are inconvenient? That sentence above describes the IPCC precisely. And, inevitably, the comparisons with tobacco follow:

In 1972, Tobacco Institute vice-president Fred Panzer outlined his industry’s “brilliantly executed” defence strategy. A key tactic was “creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it” while “encouraging objective scientific research.”

“Objective scientific research”: those words would almost make you believe that Panzer was talking about objective science. But when doubt is your goal, the misuse of language is just another way to confuse the public.

Where tobacco led the way, coal and chemicals followed. And, of course, the fossil fuel industry has been working overtime – and with shocking success – creating doubt about climate change. (source)

The fact that governments and environmental groups have thrown billions of dollars at shonky science to “prove” man-made warming appears to have escaped the author of that little rant, who happens to be Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog, the warmists’ nirvana. Need I say more?

There is one article (out of six) that correctly claims that denial is a cheap slur:

The concept of denialism is itself inflexible, ideological and intrinsically anti-scientific. It is used to close down legitimate debate by insinuating moral deficiency in those expressing dissident views, or by drawing a parallel between popular pseudoscience movements and the racist extremists who dispute the Nazi genocide of Jews. (source)

But to be honest it’s lost in the noise… (h/t WUWT)

Head-pop at UK Guardian over Australia's "deniers"



Why oh why oh why can’t the “deniers” just stop asking awkward questions, and just trust us?

I mean, we global warming scientists always tell the truth, don’t we? Our scientific ethics are as pure as the driven snow. We never exaggerate and peddle scare stories just to get a good headline, we never fudge and fiddle data to make it fit a pre-conceived agenda, we never destroy original observations so they can never be checked, and we are always completely transparent about our scientific methods, happy to comply with each and every FOI request that we receive.

Now back to the real world… The famously moonbattish Grauniad advocates censorship in order to ram through the global warming agenda. Only the title and the sub-heading are required:

Why do climate deniers hold sway in Australia?

If Australia does not silence its sceptics and reduce its emissions there is a real risk of the nation becoming uninhabitable.

Apart from the fact that “silencing sceptics” is the antithesis of the scientific method, reducing Australia’s emissions, by 5%, 10%, even 100%, will make not one iota of difference to the climate, local or global, and will have no bearing on whether the nation “becomes uninhabitable.”

Don’t forget that the opposite of “sceptical” is “gullible.”

Idiotic climate madness on an epic scale.

Read it here (h/t Climate Depot)

Quote of the Day: George Monbiot

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

George Monbiot on denial (but slips in a Denier Alert at the same time):

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers [!!] have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away.

Read it here. (h/t Andrew Bolt)

Clive Hamilton: offensive article equates "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers


Clive Hamilton: offensive nonsense

People of Higgins: this is the Greens candidate for your electorate. Read the following, frankly astonishing, extract carefully, and then decide whether these are the words of a responsible politician, or a hysterical alarmist who has lost all touch with reality, and more importantly, decency:

If the David Irvings of the world were to succeed, and the public rejected the mountain of evidence for the Holocaust, then the consequences would be a rewriting of history and a probable increase in anti-Semitism.

If the climate deniers were to succeed, and stopped the world responding to the mountain of evidence for human-induced global warming, then hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change.

They will die from famine, flood and disease caused by our unwillingness to act. The Stern report provides some sobering estimates: an additional 30-200 million people at risk of hunger with warming of only 2-3°C; an additional 250-500 million at risk if temperatures rise above 3°C; some 70-80 million more Africans exposed to malaria; and an additional 1.5 billion exposed to dengue fever.

Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.

It is a ghastly calculus, yet it is worth making because the hundreds of millions of dead are not abstractions, mere chimera until they happen. We know with a high degree of certainty that if we do nothing they will die.

If, like me, you adopt a virtue or duty ethic, but one tempered by consideration of the consequences of an act, climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.

However, as the casualties from a warming world mount over the next decades, the denialism of those who continue to reject the scientific evidence will come to be seen as more and more iniquitous. So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.

Not yet?! When someone rants like this, and makes deeply offensive comparisons with Holocaust denial, you know for sure they’ve lost the argument (and the plot).

Read it here.

UPDATED: UK Poll: Majority say global warming "not our fault"

More colourless, odourless CO2

More colourless, odourless CO2

More bad news for the warmists, as the public wise up to the propaganda and spin. From the UK Times Online:

Less than half the population believes that human activity is to blame for global warming, according to an exclusive poll for The Times.

The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade [mislead? – Ed] the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

Tory voters are more likely to doubt the scientific evidence that man is to blame. Only 38 per cent accept it, compared with 45 per cent of Labour supporters and 47 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters.

The high level of scepticism underlines the difficulty the Government will have in persuading the public to accept higher green taxes to help to meet Britain’s legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.

But then Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, gets desperate and lobs in the D-word:

“The overwhelming body of scientific information is stacked up against the deniers and shows us that climate change is man-made and is happening now. We know that we still have a way to go in informing [brainwashing – Ed] people about climate change and that is why we make no apologies about pushing forward with our new Act on CO2 campaign.”

Read it here. (h/t Climate Realists)

UPDATE: The Times opinion writers cannot conceal their contempt for the British public for being so ignorant of the “climate crisis”, branding them “global village idiots”:

It is possible that the collective expertise of brilliant scientists could be wrong. The best minds in the world once held a geocentric theory of the solar system. Before the discovery of sub-atomic particles they believed that everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Right up to the 19th century, serious scientists wrote recipe books for making animals. But no previous process of scientific trial, error and progress has ever overturned such a well-attested thesis. Lord Rees has reminded us that we now live in a global village and it is, he pointed out, probably inevitable that there will be some global village idiots. (source)

Read all of James Delingpole’s blistering attack on this nonsense in the (usually more sensible) UK Telegraph here.

Jo Nova: Rudd the global bully

Rudd the bully

Rudd the bully

In response to Kevin Rudd’s extraordinary tirade at the Lowy Institute last week, Jo Nova has crafted a brilliant article:

In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC.

Read it all.

%d bloggers like this: