Eco-extremists have nothing left but abuse

Lord Lawson

Lord Lawson, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, was interviewed on the BBC yesterday. The “environmentalists” were furious:

LORD LAWSON had barely removed his microphone when the vitriolic attacks began.

The veteran politician had just taken part in a calm debate about the merits of extracting gas from shale. During the discussion on the BBC’s Today programme he stated his firmly held view that there has been no global warming so far this century.

It was the catalyst for an outpouring of venom on message boards and social networking sites. In a selection of the printable insults Lord Lawson was described as “a rabid climate change denier”, “a liar” and “a lone nutcase”. One listener even posted: “Why isn’t he dead yet?” (source)

The “environmentalists” have lied, spun, and misrepresented the global warming debate for their own ends for so long that people are switching off in droves. And now, when faced with some inconvenient truths that challenge their sacred belief, they attack like wounded dogs. Click the image below to see some Twitter responses to Lawson’s interview. Hardly any address substantive issues, but plenty talk about Lawson being a “shill” for Big Oil:

Twitter rage (click to enlarge)

As if that wasn’t enough, the green juggernaut is desperately trying to establish who “funds” the GWPF – three men in a shed somewhere, with a computer. Funny how no-one asks who funds the greens, because the greens have the moral high ground, and therefore are above grubby concerns like that.

The reality is that sceptical organisations like the GWPF survive on the tiniest fraction of the massive funding streams that green groups like FOE, Greenpeace or WWF receive.

Big Green = Good, Tiny Oil = Bad. So don’t even think of mentioning sceptics funding…

P.S. I put “environmentalists” in quotes, because that term is too nice for them, makes them sound like harmless tree-huggers, instead of the anti-human totalitarians that they really are.

Media hypocrisy: Wikileaks good, Climategate bad

Double standards...?

More journalistic double standards in our balanced media. Fairfax loves to defend Julian Assange, darling of the Left, for the release of the Wikileaks material, but is far more reticent about defending those who were responsible for the release of the Climategate emails.

Sunday Age editorial, 12 December 2010

Julian Assange and the public’s right to know

WikiLeaks, acting with newspapers around the world including The Age and The Sunday Age, is publishing information that makes governments uncomfortable. This action affirms the role of the media, which have a duty to expose the secret machinations of those who wield power. In the US, the chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, has suggested that because it published some of the leaked information The New York Times might be subject to criminal investigation. This would breach the First Amendment protecting freedom of the press.

So leaks of intelligence that may damage national security is fine, because it is the duty of a journalist to “expose the secret machinations of those who wield power.”

The IPCC and climate scientists around the world also wield power. Lots of it. National governments are on the verge of turning their economies upside down on the basis of the IPCC’s dire predictions for the climate if emissions are not drastically reduced. How would The Age respond to exposing the “secret machinations” of the IPCC? Very differently, of course.

When Climategate 2.0 broke this week, The Age was more interested in the opinion of Phil Jones, one of the alleged “victims” of the leak, rather than staunchly supporting the release of the emails themselves:

The Age, 24 November 2011

Climatologist speaks out after new leak

The British climatologist ensnared in a major new email leak has taken his case to the public, arguing that he and his colleagues’ comments have again been taken out of context.

The University of East Anglia’s Phil Jones was one of the major players in the controversy that erupted two years ago over the publication of emails which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and attacking them in sometimes vitriolic terms.

The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is one of the world’s leading centres for the study of how world temperatures have varied over time [not any more – Ed], and Jones came under particular scrutiny following the 2009 disclosures – even receiving death threats over allegations that he was a leading a conspiracy to hype the dangers of climate change.

Jones and his colleagues have since been vindicated by a series of independent investigations, but the university’s reputation has been dented by criticism that it refused to share data with sceptics.

Jones said that his “heart did sink a bit” when he heard about the most recent leak, which apparently consists of old messages held back the first time around. (source)

A quick Google search of “Wikileaks” at “” produces 15,400 results. A similar search of “Climategate” produces just 330, barely 2% of the coverage given to Wikileaks. Fairfax also invariably refers to the release of the Climategate emails as a “hacking”, in order to taint it with illegality or criminal behaviour. Naturally, Fairfax also avoids giving prominence to the story because it challenges one of their preset agendas, that of the reality of dangerous man-made climate change.

So instead of robustly defending the release of the emails as a “journalistic duty”, Fairfax pens a teary piece about the “victims”, including rehashing the non-story of the “death threats” in order to garner sympathy for the scientists whose confidences have been betrayed. Such a stark contrast.

Flannery fears "Norway-style attack"


Because as we all know, anybody who dares question the ridiculous predictions of the Official Government Climate Prophet is only a whisker away from buying a machine gun and killing dozens of innocent people.

Desperate to regain what little is left of his credibility after it emerged this week that he owns a waterfront property, having previously warned of drastic sea level rises, Flannery makes deeply offensive remarks tarring all “conservatives” with the brush of Norwegian madman Anders Breivik.

As The Australian reports:

While his place was, he admitted, “very close to the water”, the issue was how far it was above the water — something Professor Flannery would not reveal because, he said, it could help identify the location and subject him to a Norway-style attack by conservatives.

There really is no limit to the depths alarmists will go to protect their own interests and smear those who dare question them.

Read it here.

Will ACMA investigate carbon tax ads as well?

Targeted by GetUp!

The totalitarian instincts of the Left to shut down debate are on display for all to see – people of Australia, observe closely. GetUp! has filed a complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority about statements made by Alan Jones on 2GB about climate change, as the Sydney Morning Herald gleefully reports:

THE Australian Communications and Media Authority is investigating a complaint about alleged inaccuracies in statements on climate change by broadcaster Alan Jones.

GetUp! had made a complaint, which it believed was not being pursued by the broadcasting regulator, but Fairfax Media has learned ACMA is investigating the GetUp! complaint, and some others, concerning Mr Jones.

If the complaint is upheld, Mr Jones may be asked to acknowledge the statement was wrong and promise not to repeat it. (source)

So I assume the ACMA will also be investigating the outright lies and falsehoods in the carbon dioxide adverts? No, because political advertising is exempt from regulation and they can say what they like. Will they be investigating the ABC for not providing enough balance on the climate debate, and broadcasting Tim Flannery’s apocalyptic nonsense? Will Flannery be required to acknowledge his statements about Australia running out of water were wrong and promise not to repeat them? Where were GetUp! then, hmm?

Aren’t double standards wonderful?


Julia quotes "the science"


And gets it spectacularly wrong. Hypocrisy Alert as Julia Gillard launches a scare campaign, and then accuses the Opposition of, er, a scare campaign:

JULIA Gillard has invoked a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic [the dumb journo means “climatic” – Ed] zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.

Setting the scene for a week of intense debate on the government’s carbon tax – which is yet to be fully detailed – the Prime Minister today returned to scientific arguments for putting a price on carbon.

The move came as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott renewed his now hopeless call for a plebiscite on Labor’s carbon tax, but changed tack by saying he would accept a popular vote if it backed the measure.

Ms Gillard warned of threats to infrastructure, failures of urban drainage and sewerage systems, blackouts, transport disruption and private property damage as temperature rose by between 2.2 and 5 degrees by 2070.

“Now this is a huge change,”  said Ms Gillard, as she again accused Mr Abbott of mounting a scare campaign over prices under a carbon tax.

Where on earth does Gillard get 5 degrees by 2070? That’s total fiction. In fact it supposes a rate of warming of over 2 degrees per century MORE than the absolute WORST estimate of the IPCC (which is 6.4 degrees between 2000 and 2100):

IPCC AR4 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

And a 2000km shift in climatic zones? This is pure, unadulterated nonsense. A metre rise in sea levels? Again, the worst IPCC estimate is 59cm, and with sea levels currently rising by about 3mm per year, it’s probably more like 25cm. More exaggeration and spin.

Keep it up, Julia, your credibility is sinking faster than a Pacific island. Desperation has taken over, and invoking alarmist, hysterical claims like these is like tying a hundredweight of lead shot to your ankle.

This debate (if it could ever be called that) has descended into total and utter farce. At least Abbott’s scare campaign on the carbon dioxide tax is based on some kind of possible future reality, but this is just lies, pure and simple.

Read it here.

Climate scientists put out call for "respect"

Rank hypocrisy

Maybe they would not have lost it in the first place if they hadn’t:

  • resorted to smears and petty name calling of those who disagree (“deniers”)
  • fudged data to get their desired result (Hockey Stick)
  • avoided providing background materials for independent checking (Hockey Stick again)
  • avoided Freedom of Information requests by deleting emails (Climategate)
  • ganged up on journals that dared publish materials challenging their precious consensus (Climategate again)
  • dressed up political propaganda as impartial science (IPCC/Greenpeace, repeated occasions)

Don’t make me laugh, Anna-Maria Arabia.

UPDATE: Arabia has apparently received a “death threat” this morning – see here. I trust that it has been reported to the police.

UPDATE 2: Arabia was previously an adviser to Anthony Albanese and Kim Beazley, so there are obvious political motivations at work here.

UPDATE 3: Excellent comment on this post via Facebook:

As a real scientist I know respect must be EARNED.

These Climate pseudo-scientists are not entitled to respect. They must earn it by stopping the lies, half-truths, and deliberate politicization of their “research”.

They must perform real, verifiable work that meets the basic scientific principle that their work must be reproducible by ANY OTHER scientist who is competent in the field. They have failed that test, miserably.

Then they may begin to earn “respect”. Until then, all they deserve is contempt.

Carbon Cate buys beachfront property… in Vanuatu

Buying beachfront property?

Now if you were really concerned about climate change, as she clearly is, having badgered us all to pay more tax for no reason, why would you buy a beachfront property on an island that all the alarmists agree is one of the first in line to be swamped by the alleged sea level rises resulting from, er, climate change? And why stop at Vanuatu, go the whole hog and buy something on Tuvalu?

The movie star-turned-ecowarrior is believed to have recently bought a plot of land in Vanuatu, one of the countries hardest hit by global warming.

Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of a village in the Pacific island nation in 2005, the first time climate change was known to have displaced an entire community. [Just for the record, climate change had nothing to do with it – sea levels have been rising at the same rate for centuries – Ed]

Blanchett is thought to have bought a waterfront property near the luxury area of Havannah Harbour during a visit last year.

However, it may not be paradise for long. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says sea levels could rise by as much as 59cm by 2100 in Vanuatu, which would obliterate much of beachfront property. (source)

But Carbon Cate isn’t bovvered, clearly. She can just go to one of her numerous other properties around the world when that one falls into the sea.

Unfortunately, Cate is just the latest in a long line of eco-celebrities who lecture the little people on how they should behave, and then go and do precisely the opposite. Like Al Gore. Yawn. Next.

Left smears carbon tax protesters as "extremists"

Hey Bob, where's your apology for this? (photo via Bolt)

A favourite trick of the Left – brand your opponents as “extremists” and then you can avoid actually engaging with their arguments. Thousands of ordinary Australians protested in Canberra yesterday, angry at being lied to by Julia Gillard before the election about her policy for a carbon tax. But the Left’s smear machine is in full swing this morning, rubbishing the genuine concerns of ordinary people:

Labor backbencher Nick Champion says the protesters are extremists.

NICK CHAMPION: A rally that has all the credibility of a Dungeons and Dragons convention – full of fantasists, full of people who think we can just avoid this problem – and we can’t.

It’s a serious problem. The world has to deal with it and Australia has to do our part.

REPORTER: Does that mean you think that they’re extremists, the people at this rally?


SABRA LANE: Labor MP, Michelle Rowland:

MICHELLE ROWLAND: Some of these people, you objectively analyse their positions and they are extreme. They are extreme. (source)

She said it twice just in case you didn’t get it the first time. Greg Combet also used the word “extremists”:

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said some people in the rally crowd were extremists.

“We had the Lavoisier group – a group which, as one commentator points out, warned the Kyoto protocol was part of a new imperial structure that would relocate Australian sovereignty to Germany,” he said. (source)

WTF? And one Labor MP has gone even further:

FEDERAL MP for Bendigo Steve Gibbons has been caught on social media website twitter comparing anti-carbon tax protesters to the notorious Ku Klux Klan.

But Mr Gibbons has defended the tweet, saying one of three anti-carbon tax rallies yesterday had been infiltrated by right-wing groups with a racist agenda.

Bendigo man Tony Hooper, a key organiser in Victoria of the No Carbon Tax Protest Group, says he is absolutely disgusted at the comments and will demand an apology.

In his tweet on the pro-carbon tax “noCTrally” Twitter feed, Mr Gibbons said: “Looks like all the extremists were having a day out. Was the Ku Klux Klan represented?”. (source)

Bob Brown even went as far as to write to Julia Gillard, apologising to her for some of the signs, which admittedly went too far: the words “bitch” and “witch” were undignified. However, when did Brown ever write to Howard about some of the disgusting treatment he received from the thugs on the Left? Never, because it’s OK when the target is from the Right of politics.

ABC: climate still warming

Heaviest global warming in US for 60 years

Of course it is. No matter how much snow, ice and cold, the ABC will always be there to find a CSIRO scientist (funded by a government which is committed to the global warming narrative) to tell us not to believe our senses, but to put our trust in their flaky models: the climate is still warming, and don’t you forget it! The same is happening in the UK and the US as well, where the faithful are on a desperate crusade of spin to convince an ever more suspicious public that extreme cold is a sign of global warming, even though last year we said there wouldn’t be any more extreme cold, because of… er, global warming:

Snow storms in the northern hemisphere and torrential rainfall in parts of drought stricken Australia could have you wondering whether there’s been a permanent shift in average temperatures.

According to the CSIRO, the recent extreme weather in both northern and southern hemispheres reflect short-term variability’s [sic] in climate.

Barrie Hunt, an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research , says periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming.

“Despite 2010 being a very warm year globally, the severity of the 2009-2010 northern winter and a wetter and cooler Australia in 2010 relative to the past few years have been misinterpreted by some to imply that climate change is not occurring,” Mr Hunt said. (source)

Neither side of the argument should use individual short term weather events to claim that climate change is or is not occurring. The point is, however, the glaring hypocrisy of the warmists: on the one hand, they claim no single short-term weather event can prove or disprove climate change (especially when it is a cold event), but on the other, when it suits, they cite bush fires and heatwaves as “evidence” of global warming, and on the third hand, as a last ditched effort, try to argue that extreme cold is evidence of global warming as well! And you will never, ever read the opposite, but equally valid, assertion, namely that bushfires and heatwaves are ” entirely consistent with global cooling”…

With twisted logic like that, you can’t possibly lose.

Climategate vs The Afghan "War Diary"

Hycposiry from The Grauniad

Richard North contrasts the media treatment of the Climategate “leak” with that of the War Diary files posted on Wikileaks relating to the conflict in Afghanistan. We all know, because the media told us, that the Climategate emails were “hacked” or “stolen”, despite the fact that the material was, by and large, well ordered and relevant, and has all the hallmarks of a leak. But what about the War Diary?

Big news of the day is how “a huge cache of secret US military files” provides a “devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan”. They have been obtained by the “whistleblowers’ website” Wikileaks in what is described as “one of the biggest leaks in US military history.”

The files have been made available to The GuardianThe New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, with The Guardian in particular, pushing the boat out, running multiple stories and linking to the files.

But do we see here, or in The Independent, or even in The Daily Telegraph – which also features the files – any suggestion that they are stolen?

Largely, is seems they have been “revealed” or “leaked” and the contents “disclosed”. But nowhere do I see the word “stolen” – so far. How so very different this is, then, from the treatment of the “Climategate” files, which had the media, and especially the left wing press, spluttering in its muesli.

We even had The Times report that: “UN officials have likened the theft of e-mails from university climate researchers to the Watergate scandal, ” and that was after them claiming that “computer hackers were probably paid by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit.”

Thus, whatever the merits or otherwise of “release” of the “war logs”, as The Guardian is calling them, the difference in treatment is quite remarkable. Some might even call it hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy? From The Guardian? Surely not…

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: