Chief sceptics explain everything about climate denial

h/t – Mike Jowsey

E.M. Smith, known in blogworld as Chiefio, replied at Jo Nova to Paul Bain’s response to Jo’s letter critical of Bain’s Nature “paper” on climate scepticism, which uses the deplorable term “deniers”.

Here is Jo’s delicious letter to Bain, wherein she takes a rational machete to tangled thickets of climate denial and produces an irrefutable exculpation of climate sceptics:

Dear Dr Paul Bain,

Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.

I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.

Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.

They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 1984, Bony et al 2006, and the IPCC AR4 report, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).

All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.

Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?

When you find this paper and the measurements, it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available, but of course, all good scientists do that already don’t they?)

As a diligent researcher, I’m sure you would not have described a group with such an unequivocally strong label unless you were certain it applied. It would be disastrous for an esteemed publication like Nature to mistakenly insult Nobel prize winning physicists, NASA astronauts, and thousands of scientists who have asked for empirical evidence, only to find that the Nature authors themselves were unable to name papers (or instruments) with empirical evidence that their subject group called “deniers” denied.

If those papers (God forbid) do not exist, then the true deniers would turn out to be the researchers who denied that empirical evidence is key to scientific confidence in a theory. The true deniers would not be the skeptics who asked for evidence, but the name-calling researchers who did not test their own assumptions.

The fate of the planet rests on your shoulders. If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action. Should you find the evidence, I will be delighted to redouble my efforts to communicate the empirical evidence related to climate change.

Awaiting your reply keenly,

Joanne Nova

Dr Bain responded with an apology of sorts at Jo Nova’s place and several others. He says: “Comments about the use of the “denier” label are a fair criticism.” And:
“Actually, the paper is not about changing anyone’s mind on whether anthropogenic climate change is real.” Heh, as if THAT was important.

Then E.M.Smith, blogger at Musings from the Chiefio, took aim at Bain. This essay is worthy of global distribution. It explains a great deal of what’s important to climate sceptics and describes what stands between them and the “warmists”. So many believers in AGW deliberately mistake and mischaracterise sceptical viewpoints because it’s easier than confronting our real arguments.

Here, the “Chiefio sceptic” sets it out plainly.

June 22, 2012 at 8:10 am · Reply

Dear Paul Bain:

First off, thank you for responding.

I am a hard-core skeptic – I’m the “target” of your analysis. As such, what folks like me think ought to be particularly important to you. So a bit of history on me and climate change.

I first came to the AGW issue thinking: “Gee, this looks important, I ought to learn more about it.” At the skeptical sites (like WUWT) I had generally kind acceptance and explanation of where I had parts missing from my understanding of the “issues” about AGW and where it had “gone wrong”. At “believer” sites (a curiously appropriate term as it has all the hallmarks of a religious belief) I would ask simple and innocent questions and largely get derision in return. Simply asking: “But doesn’t CO2 have a log limit on absorption effects that we have passed?” or worse, saying: “But this article (on a skeptical site) seems to have a valid issue” would bring “attack the messenger” responses. That, for me, was the first and largest clue about which side was indulging in propaganda more than dispassionate examination of facts and data.

So I set about a long path of learning for myself.

At believer sites, I’d have a load of links shoved down my throat with, effectively: “You idiot, read all this first or shut up”… At skeptical sites I’d get: “Well, here are some links, and the message is that the data are lousy and the models do not predict well. But check it out yourself.” Nothing to make one feel that believers were engaged in unbiased examination of the facts.

But I read a lot of the links anyway. Most were of the form: “Assuming that AGW is real, what bad thing happens?” Many more were of the form: “Assuming the theory is correct, what does our model show?” While all of that is interesting speculation, none of it is really what I’d call science. Where are the data, the analysis, the testable hypothesis, etc.? In short, where is the SCIENCE in “Climate Science”? (For the most part it really ought to be called “Climate Model Storytelling” once you get to the end of the papers.)

At the core of it, I found the general truth that there is Agenda Driven Politics. What published papers could be brought to support a pre-designed agenda for political change. (Only much later did I find the Agenda 21 site at the UN and found the source of The Agenda… but it was nice to learn that my earlier conclusion was supported by the facts.) The more I looked at the AGW “science” claims, the more I found flawed and politically-driven papers being written with little in the way of an unbiased search for truth.

On the skeptical side I found a lot of folks who had no agenda. Often, like me, they just needed everything to “fit”. And that “fit” must also accord with the scientific method we learned so long ago. (No ‘new age’ science here, no “moral relativism” – and there IS an objective reality.) So when we find things like the GHCN temperature history being continually re-written to create a warming trend, it doesn’t “fit”. History is fixed. Temperatures were recorded once, by a known person, and written down. They do not change. And a big buzzer goes off… (One of the earliest users of thermometers was Newton. Another was Galileo. Do we really think folks of that quality could not read the instruments that they, themselves, created?)

We get folks looking at the statistical methods used and finding them badly designed and poorly used, even “broken”. I took it on myself to look into GISTEMP as I am a computer programmer who knows FORTRAN and after saying for six months “someone ought to look at it” decided “I am someone”. What I found was a nightmare of crummy code and questionable methods. A complete lack of any kind of ‘test suite’ or ‘benchmark testing’ code. A level of amateurish code and testing methodology that in my shops would have caused me to stop the product from shipping. (I have managed software production commercially including software that got four patents and was used in production.) Eventually that lead to examination of the GHCN data set directly where even worse issues were found.

The result from the believer side has largely been “We are right, shut up.” Occasionally “We are right, our friends tell us so and we tell them so.”

Then ClimateGate broke. In the emails was direct evidence in their own words of exactly those faults. Producing science for effect and manicuring the data and code to produce desired warming results.

Along the way, the term “denier” was coined (as noted in the links) directly to tie skeptics to the Holocaust and as a political term. Please read that twice and think about it.

Now, to your response.

Your first paragraph amounts (or reduces) to an argument that “everyone is doing it”. So, it is OK to use the N word because all your friends in the KKK use it? Is it OK to use ANY insulting or degrading term “because all your friends” use it? Really?

Ignorance of where a term came from, or what its propaganda purpose was and is, is not an excuse. It is an even worse excuse in what is supposed to be a peer-reviewed or carefully objective scientific context. Is it acceptable to just plead ignorance of, say, Einstein and relativity in a paper on physics? Just say “Oops, didn’t know that, but I’m going to keep on ignoring it anyway”? In ANY paper on the sociology of “denier” one would reasonably expect the very first step to be looking at where the term originated, for what purpose and to what effect.

So here’s one free clue for you: I, like others, will now use the term “denier” from time to time for ourselves. This is EXACTLY like blacks using the N word with each other to blunt the effect of it. Someone outside the group uses it, it is a red flag of bigotry. Similar to an Italian calling himself a “Wop” or any of a dozen other bad terms being used inside or outside the insulted group. So WHEN you use the term denier, and you are not a skeptic, you are waving a large “I Am A Bigot” flag. Got it?

Keep using it, and you are saying “I am HAPPY to be waving a large I Am A Bigot flag.”

Saying “all my friends use it” means “I’m happy that all my friends are waving large I Am A Bigot flags”.

Just ask yourself when the N word is acceptable and you will have a decent guide to the proper usage and context of the term, and an accessible touchstone for the sociology of the term.

Now, ask yourself this: If you wish to convince skeptics to join the believer side, do you think calling them “the D word” will be helpful?

Your second paragraph, as others have pointed out, is mostly a ‘dodge’. “We don’t care to figure out if it is real, just how to convince folks to act on it.” If it isn’t real, acting on it is incredibly stupid. At the core of the “Skeptic Problem” you face is simply that we do not agree that “action” is needed and never will as long as the science is dodgy, the data are mutating before our eyes, and the “science” is politically Agenda (21)-driven and of the form “Given these conclusions what assumptions can we draw?”

So dodging the issue of “truth” is to simply ignore the basic problem. Skeptics are all hung up on that truth and accuracy thing. We are not so interested in “truthyness” and “feeling good”, but in what is actually true and correct. ANY proposed “solution” that does not recognize that will fail. What I like and what I want and what makes me feel good is entirely irrelevant. My ‘belief’ or ‘skepticism’ is entirely a function of the analytical side of the brain, of hard-core real science, based in data and analysis. No amount of “feel good” or “peer pressure” or “desired outcomes” will have any effect. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing. Got it?

Your third paragraph says, in essence: “Some believers think we have to convince them. That hasn’t worked, so maybe if we focus on other presumed ‘benefits’ of the actions we propose then they will get on board anyway.” See my last paragraph.

But it is even worse than that. The Agenda 21 stuff comes directly from efforts by The Club Of Rome to foster panic and fear about “running out” as a means of social control. They have been at this at least since the ’70s (when I studied “The Limits To Growth” by Meadows et al. Yes, studied. I had an entire three-unit class at University focused just on that book, promoted by The Club Of Rome). They have now updated The Big Scare (since Limits predicted Doom In Our Time for the ’80s and ’90s and those have, well, kind of passed by without incident…) to be the AGW Scare (and with an ongoing ‘resource shortage’ scare sprinkled in for good measure). Now I’ve devoted several years of my life to looking at resource issues. The bottom line is, we are not running out, we never run out, and the Big Scare is a political tool.

So, you see, attempting to convince me that we need to destroy Western Industrial Economies to support a political agenda that is based on misdirection and error is not going to be a very productive path either.

Make no mistake about it. Cutting CO2 emissions to 1990 levels means little things like no iron production (coal is used as coke in reducing iron ore from the oxide, and putting out CO2 in the process), no steel (that depends on iron), no aluminum (that uses massive amounts of electricity of a sort not available from solar panels. It needs cheap and concentrated electricy, not expensive and diffuse). It means no shipping of goods by trucks, ships, or airplanes. (You can make a marginal electric car, but not an effective electric truck or ship. They need energy dense fuels.) It also means a dramatic reduction in food production and the attendant deaths. (Modern agriculture largely turns fossil carbon sources into fertilizers, ploughing and harvesting, processing and delivery. It is not possible to change that and produce the food needed by the world.) BTW, my degree is in Economics and from an Ag School in Ag country. I’ve helped raise cows, grow corn, pick fruit and nuts. This isn’t hypothetical.

So while the believers have what looks like a “Fuzzy Bunnies and Fluffy Slippers” view of the economy, where it’s always simple, easy, and there are no consequences to things like substituting solar cells for nuclear and coal; ask the engineers and farmers who have to make it work. Ask the business owners who have to make a profit to keep folks employed and fed. They can tell you that it isn’t all Fluffy Bunnies and Fuzzy Slippers. It’s hard work, often just barely worth it at the margins.

That means that your “maybe we can convince them it’s just a good idea anyway, even if it’s wrong” approach is going to run headlong into reality. The only question, really, is “before or after the economic collapse is realized in the economy?” That is going to be a very hard sell. Especially to folks trained and experienced in avoiding The Bums Rush and The Fairy Tale Story and Yet Another Bright Idea That Implodes. In essence, the skeptics tend to come from the group that is expected to make things work, and they can see that the proposed “solutions” just don’t work.

A specific note on oil

The Peak Oil Theory is only a theory. Right now oil prices are in freefall as supply is well ahead of demand. Even if Peak Oil is true, it’s a bell curve. We’ve taken 200 years to get here, so even if this is the peak (and that has certainly not been demonstrated, what with Brazil finding oil faster than they can produce it and with at least a trillion barrels in shale oil in the USA coming into production) but even if this is the peak, it will take 200 years to slide down the back side of the bell curve. So given that we have a few hundred years of coal, and at least 200 years to the last of the oil, exactly what is the urgency, what is the “emergency” right NOW to do anything, if not AGW and manufactured panic?

At MOST, we ought to use natural gas to replace oil in cars and trucks, as fracking has provided a few hundred years of it at about 40 CENTS per Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent (though it is retailing at $1.80/GGE locally due to government tariff issues).

We simply are not running out of fuels. Period. Full stop.

So what are you “fixing”?

For a very long time (about 40 years) I’ve been a strong advocate for things like eliminating reliance on foreign oil. One of the major issues I have with the AGW Agenda is that it is directly in conflict with that goal.

The single most effective thing we in the non-OPEC West could do to eliminate dependence on foreign oil is to build Gas To Liquids (GTL) and Coal To Liquids (CTL) factories to turn our natural gas and coal into gasoline and diesel. This avoids fleet change. Take the 300,000,000 or so cars and trucks in America; multiply by about $30,000 each for a new replacement. That’s one heck of a lot of dollars needed to change that fleet. As the average vehicle is presently kept for 10-15 years, any solution that involves fleet change would take at least 20 years to turn over naturally even if we were already buying the new non-oil cars, which we are not. So you simply MUST make gasoline and diesel fuel if you wish to get off the OPEC oil.

Yes, by all means, make e-cars and sell natural gas conversion kits and LNG trucks, methanol cars and everything else. But recognize that the likely “time to solution” down that path is a quarter century of gradual fleet change.

Now think about THAT for just a minute too. You want to convince me to support mandatory sales of e-cars and destruction of coal mining with mandatory consumption of solar cells (never mind that we can’t both charge cars AND eliminate coal-powered electricity generation). You want me to embrace electricity that costs 25 cents US/kW-hr (as per my bill – headed for $0.50/kW-hr as per filed rate tariffs for mandatory ‘alternative energy’ in California) and at the same time expect me to buy an e-car as a ‘solution’ to OPEC oil? Just nuts. Obvious to anyone who’s an engineer. We can turn coal into methanol and with a minor ($500 or so) kit on the car or truck run it in the existing fleet. We can do that conversion in about five years and with fuel that would be about $3/Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent OR LESS. We can turn coal into gasoline and diesel, as South Africa has been doing since the ’70s, at similar costs and in similar time frames.

Now think about that.

You want to sell me a “bill of goods” that includes destruction of electricity generation as my transportation is made dependent on electricity generation. You want my electricity costs to rise from 10 cents/kW-hr to 50 cents kW-hr at the same time. You want me to buy a new $50,000 to $100,000 e-car instead of a $30,000 gas car (or just keep my old Mercedes diesel running at about $2000 per year) and you want us to do all this buying inside five years.

Can you see how nutty that is? If you can’t, I strongly suggest spending some time with an engineer who can do the maths for you and perhaps a business major who can show you the costs. By putting coal and natural gas off limits you ensure that there can be no effective conversion away from OPEC oil. Not now. Not in a decade. Not in my lifetime.

If, instead, you advocate for CTL and GTL, you can tell OPEC to go away in less than a decade even if you are slow about it. No fleet change is required. Gasoline and diesel prices would likely drop some. They are competitive with oil at about $80/bbl, so cheaper than oil above that price point, more expensive below it.

So think again, for just a couple of minutes, about how effective it will be to try to persuade me that e-cars and solar cells and windmills will replace OPEC. That taking that path, for that reason, is a suitable alternative to AGW belief.

I’ve been an advocate of alternative energy since the ’70s Arab Oil Embargo and have advocated for substituting any and all alternatives (including solar, wind, hydro, garbage gasification, you name it) for OPEC oil for that whole time. I am not against solar and wind. It is just that you must recognize their costs and technical limits in any real-world solutions. They are bit players at best, with very large ‘dispatch’ issues.

So, in summary: Social POV, meet Engineering Mindset and Reality Constraints.

Want to convince me? Then show an engineering solution that makes business sense.

Until then, the Fluffy Bunnies live in the back yard… (which reminds me, I need to go check their feed and water… I really do have bunnies…)

Visits: 541

62 Thoughts on “Chief sceptics explain everything about climate denial

  1. Andy on 22/06/2012 at 10:21 pm said:

    Thanks for posting this, and thanks to Mike for bringing it to our attention.

    It always comes down to numbers for me, and anyone else that runs a business in the real world.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 10:02 am said:

    Says so much, adding anything would actually detract.

    Sadly, the clarity of reason of either Joanne of Chiefio would be lost on Climate Warrior Anna Rose or Brainwashed Brittany Trilford

  3. Mike Jowsey on 23/06/2012 at 11:53 am said:

    It is excellent fun following this stuff – some very worthwhile points are being made about the integrity of science. At WUWT is another brilliant comment which Anthony has added to the original Bain article as an update:

    UPDATE: Dr. Robert G. Brown of Duke University, the commenter rgbatduke, made a response that was commented on by several here. It is eloquent, insightful and worthy of consideration. See below.

    Dr. Brown concludes with this:

    Why am I a skeptic? Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance in addressing this supremely difficult problem, while at the same time as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its benefits against draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time scale.

  4. Andy on 23/06/2012 at 11:59 am said:

    In terms of “denier”, I am having a little fun on HT giving evidence of the noise issues with Wind Turbines.
    According to Rob Taylor it is psychosomatic, Ian Forrester claims they are “dishonest despicable people” (his standard line for anyone who challenges his world view), and Thomas just claims all these people who have to abandon their homes are “just in it for the money”

    I have provided several videos, one from Australia that has several doctors names endorsing it

    Watching the denial is entertaining but somewhat disturbing too.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 2:32 pm said:

      So this comment above has now resulted in me being put on moderation at Hot Topic. Apparently the term “a little fun” was deemed so offensive to Gareth.

      Since this has now been hyperlinked from Hot Topic, it gives me great pleasure (with your permission Richard T) to describe in great detail how much unmitigated contempt I have for these environmental zealots.

      (1) They justify frightening schoolchildren to support their political agenda.
      (2) Thomas Everth is working as a “science” teacher, propagandising schoolchildren for political gain. His views of AGW are on the extreme side of extreme.
      (3) The same person thinks that those who complain about wind turbine noise are in it for the money.
      (4) Rob Taylor thinks that the wind turbine syndrome is psychosomatic.
      (5) A foaming-at-the-mouth Ian Forrester constantly refers to me as a “liar” and a “despicable person” at every opportunity.
      (6) Rob Taylor constantly refers to me as a “Rent Boy” for pollutocrats.

      What surprises and worries me is that some of these people are tenured academics.

      If you are reading this as a Hot Topic reader, I feel pure undiluted hatred towards you. You are arrogant, contemptible and dogmatic religious zealots.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 3:17 pm said:

      Great that my comment got a bit of airtime and everyone knows how I feel about them.
      My heart goes out to Bill who compares me with Anders Breivik
      Apparently I am supposed to feel some compassion to people who dismiss the real human suffering that their zealotry causes. I am supposed to be polite to people that refer to me as a “rent boy”.
      I am supposed to be polite to people who post my contact details on the blog without my permission.

      No, I feel no compassion to you whatsoever

    • Mike Jowsey on 23/06/2012 at 4:32 pm said:

      Andy, being on the front line is never easy, which is why so few are brave enough to stick their heads above the parapets and cry ENOUGH BS! Sometimes, however you may be fortunate to have a little fun. As for the hate, here’s my take on it fwiw.

      You are arguing against fellow human beings who, right or wrong, have a viewpoint which they believe is rational, justified, and worthy of their efforts on the front line. So don’t hate them. They are just like you and me. Only on a different side of that front line. You can hate their arrogance, bigotry, zealotry, sure. But, as the Christians used to teach me on a Sunday morning, love the sinner, hate the sin.

      I watched a program on TV the other night. Something I only do when bored with life. However, this was an Australian doco on Tim Flannery and his life work in ecology and paleoclimatology. I came away with the feeling that Tim is a stand-up all-Australian good guy. His desires for more biodiversity and ecological harmony have merit, imho. However, his alarmism about climate change is misguided. That’s all. Misguided. Most of these people we argue with are in a similar frame of delusion. They cling to that delusion because it is the framework for all their other ecological desires. They are misguided because:
      1. There is no empirical evidence that the current climate trend is outside natural variation during the last 1000, 10000, or million years on this planet.
      2. The ’cause’ has been driven from inception and has now been completely hijacked by the very people they despise – large, multinational non-government bankers, capitalists and bureaucrats. By the time they wake up to that it will be too late.
      3. They believe that you and I have a hidden agenda. Something to do with being a paid shill, or just being obstructive in the drive for a cleaner, greener earth. We are the enemy.
      4. If only they would focus on real ecological issues, we would be with them 100%.

      Although I could continue on that list, that is enough to make my point. Misguided.

      Another point I would make, at the risk of being long-winded, is that some people I have talked to like me enough to ask me not to talk to them about this. Why? Because they have to focus on work, kids, real life, and don’t have the bandwidth to focus on the noise coming from my moving lips. That’s okay and I completely get that. So I don’t talk to them about this. Nor about one-world government or the impending global financial collapse. I simply tell them it is a hobby, and go back to my cave. One day they may say, “holy crap, how did this happen?”, at which time they may be interested in my opinion. And my fortified bunker (just kidding!). Meanwhile, it is my hobby and I don’t hate anybody. OK?

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 4:48 pm said:

      I appreciate your comments
      My mother was propagandised as a child in Nazi Germany. She had to join the Jungmädelbund (the young girls version of Hitler Youth) which was compulsory.

      Children were trained to tell on their parents if the parents stepped out of line. She had a gun pointed at her head at age 12 for not saluting The Fuhrer.

      When the Russians invading Prague, the family were interned by the Russians. My mother had to endure near starvation. Her sister was raped by a Russian soldier. She got pregnant, and had to have a brutal abortion. The mother, a brother and sister died of disease (cholera I believe). Another uncle of mine was conscripted at age 16 to fight on the Russian front.

      The family were split up and my mother met my father in England. She recalls her anti-semitism at the time that had been drummed into her by the state.

      Thankfully, she grew out of this brainwashing.

      My father, on the other hand, was beaten by a teacher (with leg irons) for writing with his left hand. It was a consensus view that left-handedness was wrong. He was so traumatised that he couldn’t speak for a year.

      My “hatred” is largely a projection of the hatred of these authoritarian pricks who did this to my family. The authoritarianism is still there though, and they won’t stop unless we stand up to them.


    • Mike Jowsey on 23/06/2012 at 4:59 pm said:

      Mate, I have so much to learn about what is at stake here. Thank you for sharing heartfelt pain. I can see that. I am sorry that I, like most born post-1950 have little comprehension of the shit that this shit is leading towards. I have never known war. My kids are removed generationally from my memories of memories. I now understand your hatred of a mindset which seeks control rather than freedom. Thank you for reminding me of what is at stake.

    • bill on 23/06/2012 at 11:27 pm said:

      Yep, Andy, you’re a real misunderstood sweetheart, and no mistake! Tell all your little friends about this, did you? This is ‘being on the Front Line’, is it?

      Also, little man, as you well know, my ‘comparison’ to ABB was a reaction to your continual over-wrought, histrionic extremism – if I’m somehow responsible for some ‘apparent’ ‘AGW suicide’ then I can say that since you share so many ideas you must be responsible for ABB’s insane outburst, with roughly equal justice.

      People get a bit tired of being referred to as ‘jerks’, ‘Brown Shirts’, and the tremendously witty ‘Khmer Vert’. You, collectively, can keep this abrasive – and highly-disturbed – troll…

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 11:45 pm said:

      Feel better bill?

      You’ve refined denigration to a very fine art by repeated practice haven’t you?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/06/2012 at 12:22 am said:

      bill if you’re puzzled at the anti-green sentiments you describe so eloquently, I suggest that you have a quiet think about say, lightbulb policies i.e. the enforcement in some countries (not in NZ thankfully) of the installation of CFLs and the banning of incandescents.

      That’s enforcement against peoples will bill, a bit like having a wind turbine nearby against your will with little recourse to personal justice.

      It’s the “against peoples will” issue on both trivial (lightbulb) and non-trivial (wind turbine) levels that people resent and resist bill.

      Imagine if you can, what your reaction would be to having some form of religion imposed upon you against your will, rejection of which would result in some form of retribution against you. That is the type of imposition that Green policies are producing.

      If there was willing society-wide uptake of said policies that would be a different matter entirely but swathes of society are seeing through the duplicity, fallacy and foolishness of AGW and Green inspired regulations. You should expect push-back and you are getting it, that is not going to change for a very long time so get used to it.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 2:04 am said:

      Wow bill has come back with his little fantasies about all those pseudonyms that I apparently have used. He has earnestly been keeping track of every person he thinks may be me and decided to dutifully keep a little pocket book as any dutiful citizen should

      Bill will take his little pocket book of unfounded allegations and smear my name across the Internet.

      Like his hero Clive Hamiltion, he’ll probably get The State to take my son away from me and have him re educated.

      Bill should get an award from The Furher himself for being such a good citizen

      das is gut Herr Bill. ya ya!

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 9:56 am said:

      Here is a story to back up my claim that people have killed themselves over fears over global warming, dating back to 2010 from Argentina

      Baby survives parents’ global warming suicide pact

      A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming

      Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

      Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

      However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father’s handgun missed her vital organs.

      Police were alerted by worried neighbours who discovered the massacre three days after the shooting and the girl was taken to hospital.

      The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.

      Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

      I expressed my views that we shouldn’t instill fear into people, especially children. It is a typical control tool of totalitarian mindsets.

      Apparently my views are not acceptable in certain quarters in NZ

  5. Andy,

    So this comment above has now resulted in me being put on moderation at Hot Topic. Apparently the term “a little fun” was deemed so offensive to Gareth.

    Just so we’re clear on this: you were “punished” with moderation at Hot Topic not for what you wrote there, but for what you wrote here (“In terms of “denier”, I am having a little fun on HT giving evidence of the noise issues with Wind Turbines”). That’s prejudiced and it makes Renowden a laughing stock.

    Since this has now been hyperlinked from Hot Topic, it gives me great pleasure (with your permission Richard T) to describe in great detail how much unmitigated contempt I have for these environmental zealots.

    I understand how it feels, Andy. No problem, it just makes me sad. Considering the larger picture, I see a bunch of people at Hot Topic who might not now have the opportunity to hear your exposition of an alternative reality.

    Reading through some of the comments, I wonder at Gareth’s grip on reality, to allow that merciless baiting of you only to ping you for expressing frustration on someone else’s blog. It was almost gleeful – you couldn’t handle it, so I’ve got you! He mentions lack of citations and “unsavoury” assertions – though he ought to moderate himself, for he makes that unreferenced claim against you.

    You’ve joined an elite group: he banned me ages ago for insulting NZ’s official climate scientists with our paper “Are we feeling warmer yet”. The prune won’t comment here (at least, not under his own name) but won’t let me comment there. Now that’s a refusal to debate! Considering we’re New Zealand’s most popular sceptical blog that says a lot about his confidence with climate science.

    I see that for giving the details of your contempt he’s made the moderation permanent; congratulations. Take two demerits and reflect on your attitude, young man!

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 5:36 pm said:

      I appreciate the space on your blog to express these feelings.

      Actually it is a good thing I don’t need to go back there. It was not good for my sanity or health.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 7:42 pm said:

      Andy, “permanent moderation” does not exclude you from making comments. I am in permanent moderation too but still make comments. There’s just a few hours time delay before they get posted that’s all (my status may be about to change though if my other comment on this CCG thread does not conform to HT comment policy).

      I do suggest though that some time out from that toxic environment would be healthy.

      RT on the other hand is persona non grata (as are all “deniers”) but in his case the grounds for his complete exclusion was an individual policy exception (Gareth’s prerogative) from what I can gather.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 7:44 pm said:

      I’m no that bothered to be honest. If they want to live in a two-dimensional universe it’s their choice.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 2:46 pm said:

      Strange that Dave at HT is now suggesting that I am proposing genocide and bill is comparing me with Breivik,

      I wonder how long it’ll be before the police knock on the door.

      When I said I had respect for Linkolla, it didn’t mean I liked or approved of his viewpoint, but that is was a logical one if you accept CAGW.
      Respect comes from a view that is not hypocritical.

      Besides, the UN suggest population control, and there is the Optimum population trust, which
      has people like Attenbrough on it’s board.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 7:21 pm said:

      As a fellow HT Permanently-Moderated as Andy for exactly the same reason (comments made here at CCG) , I can relate to this situation too.

      Over some time now the atmosphere of “debate” at HT has degenerated into obscene irrationality (hence Andy’s contempt). Gareth seems to have no conception of evenhanded moderation, allowing the most lurid diatribes by the HT faithful who experience only the most light-handed correction but pinging “simple trolling” (basically any point contrary to the collective HT in-house world view).

      Neither can Gareth abide being shown up personally or have the HT prevailing point-of-view (“reasoned and reasonable discussion” as Gareth puts it – if you conform) disputed by citations and quotes of peer-reviewed literature, IPCC reports, any reputable source etc, preferring instead to censure. The HT MO is the totalitarian mindset: conform or you will be punished, censured, banished, ostracized or otherwise silenced – our view is the ONLY valid world view). Recently he demanded supporting evidence for an anecdote provided by an energy industry insider that I duly provided but he dismissed purely from the basis of his own inability to connect the dots. When I assisted in that process (making it as simple as possible) that comment didn’t see the light of day at HT although it probably showed up in the email feed. That was in reply to this from Gareth:-

      Gareth June 19, 2012 at 8:10 pm

      That is not a reference supporting your “insider” comment. Any further unreferenced assertions will not pass moderation.

      As you can see, my followup joining-the-dots-for-Gareth comment was never posted. Gareth’s considerable (but delicate) ego must have been offended.

      Personally I find the loss of HT comment immediacy to be a gain in reality because the lockup time allows a more considered approach and more productive pursuits enjoined, climate related in my case at the moment being an investigation of ACORN – SAT.

      I would not be surprised at all if this comment gets me tossed into the same category as you at HT Richard T (banished completely) – it’s the nature of the genre to respond in that way.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 7:26 pm said:

      Well we might as well enjoy our newly liberated “denial”. It looks like a whole more fun than inside the fishbowl

      By the way, I found this audio of Richard Feynmann’s talk on Cargo Cult Science

      It’s about 20 mins but fun and cheeky

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 10:38 pm said:

      “That is not a reference supporting your “insider” comment” – Gareth

      Ironically, Thomas supported my insider quote a few comments later – that didn’t put Gareth in a very good light either.

  6. Andy on 23/06/2012 at 5:49 pm said:

    Incidently, the expression “having a little fun” didn’t imply that I was treating the issue lightly.

    I often use this expression, as in I am “having a little fun” implementing your ridiculous design spec.

    It is a typical British euphemism.

    Anyway, better pastures to sow….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 8:29 pm said:

      Gareth is VERY sensitive to people “having a little [extra-HT] fun” Andy – however he may misconstrue it.

      And yes, better pastures. I’ve been somewhat bemused at your level of HT engagement lately

      In critique of one of your arguments, I have to say I think you made a tactical error wrt your quote from the synopsis of Nina Pierpont’s BOOK ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome A Report on a Natural Experiment’ in response to Thomas here

      His criticism? “Her self published book is not peer reviewed”.

      What BOOK is “peer-reviewed” except by the reading of it?

      The most authenticated literature of all time from manuscripts e.g. Bible (over 24,000 manuscripts I think), Shakespeare or Homer isn’t “peer-reviewed” either but those have been read quite a lot over time (“peers” long since dead) and “accepted” (see below) by many.. There are other book parallels obviously.

      I think you missed an opportunity to point out that Pierpont was documenting an issue in book form and that Thomas’ criticism “Her work is not accepted by the mainstream health science nor is her “Syndrome” recognized medically” is irrelevant and possibly premature. Thomas does not know with any certainty that the issue wont be the subject of research in the future (possibly even progressing right now) and the case presented in peer-reviewed literature that WTS although not “accepted” or “recognized” now may be in the future albeit under a different name (that may even be the case right now too?).

      Coining the term (WTS) was a sensible abbreviation for the issue surely?

      Food for thought for any similar skirmish you may engage in at a later date (not necessarily at HT)?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 8:52 pm said:

      “There are other book parallels obviously”

      More specifically of a scientific or medical nature i meant – can’t think of any offhand though.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 8:55 pm said:

      I can’t be bothered with Thomas Everth
      He is a 10 out of 10 Eco faschist who hates humanity and wants to concrete over the world with his stupid windmills.

      They claimed all sorts of things and I even provided a Campbell Live piece that showed there were serious issues at Makara
      Everths response was that it didnt matter because there weren’t many people affected.

      This was following a previous comment of his that all people involved in this were just doing it for the money.

      Everth gets paid out of my taxes to propagandize children.

      Of course, wind turbines are the crucifix of the Eco religion. To criticize them is worse than mocking the prophet Mohammed

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 11:13 pm said:

      Speaking of religious connotations, I found the greening of the Christ statue at Rio to be an interesting development

      I don’t mean in terms of blasphemy but that it was accepted without protest to my knowledge. Muslim colours being green would not have provided the same impact but if in that case the colour had been red say, there would have been riots all over the Muslim world if the statue was Mohammed instead.

      Seems to me the green religion has a big foothold in Christendom at the expense of the original deity..

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 11:34 pm said:

      My impression is that Thomas and friends have no empathy whatsoever for people subjected against their will to the various forms of degradation to their quality of life as a consequence of the erection of wind turbines nearby.

      Wind schills (by alignment) cannot and will not put themselves in the shoes of those people.

      I suspect that their lack of empathy is a trait that disbars them from any ability to relate to the difficulties their fellows experience when afflicted in some way e.g. blindness, deafness, intellectual or physical disability, disease, disfigurement or whatever. Would they ever contribute financially to one of those type of charities for example? I would be surprised if they did, I think they would prefer to contribute to Greenpeace or WWF. UNICEF might get a few dollars their way but only because the UN is the darling of “civil society” and the fact that their donation via that avenue goes more towards UN “capacity building” than it does to provide direct aid probably escapes them.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 2:50 pm said:

      Funny, we used to have a standing donation to UNICEF, at my wife’s instigation. That UN thing nagged at me and we canned it.

      I prefer to support local efforts where I can see where the money is going.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/06/2012 at 3:52 pm said:

      I used to support World Vision until they got too cozy with the UN. They’ve lost me forever now but I noticed that the NZ arm has distanced a little from where they were. Not so the US arm, they had a $200 million UN contract last I heard.

      I’m now much more circumspect about who I support. Intl orgs like Fred Hollows Foundation are right up there along with the local foundations too because they are infinitely more efficient and effective. I just don’t see the need for the UN middlemen.

      Monckton agrees:-

      As I said at a press conference here, the UN has outlived its usefulness and should now be brought to an end. Everything it does could be better done, at far less political and financial cost, by individual nations cutting out the predatory UN middlemen.

      The UN has had its day. Time to abolish it, in an act symbolic of the freedom and democracy that we, the people, intend to keep for ourselves whether the dictators-in-waiting and their fawning lickspittles in the mainstream news media like it or not.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 4:00 pm said:

      Ray Avery describes, in his excellent autobiography, the shoestring condition he was in. He of course was closely linked with Hollows.

      On the other hand Big Aid would routinely stay in $300 a night hotels

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/06/2012 at 5:45 pm said:

      No outfit that has personnel turn up and luxuriate at Cancun, Durban and Rio as part of “civil society” e.g. Oxfam, will ever make it onto my list.

      It bothers me too that I’m not represented by the civil society sector that does turn up unless you include say CFACT in that group. I suppose they must be included but if they aren’t I’m effectively relegated to uncivil society by default and non-representation.

      I suspect that the UN would not regard CFACT as part of their conception of civil society though.

    • Marian on 04/07/2012 at 1:28 pm said:

      Yes Richard.

      We see that with the UN.

      The UN unable to distribute its aid. Still stuck in its warehouses. While Smaller Aid providers have efficiently distributed their aid.

      The complaints from the E. Timorese Govt a few years ago was further proof of the Big RORT the UN Aid program is. 90% of UN aid monies to E. Timor going back to the UN in ADMIN Fees!

  7. Mike Jowsey on 23/06/2012 at 6:02 pm said:

    Buy popcorn, folks… When a physics professor says “This is silly” take note.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 6:54 pm said:

      Great post.

      is that it is as close to absolute evil in social and public discourse as it is possible to get. I strongly suggest that you read Feynman’s rather famous “Cargo Cult” talk:

      In as much as I dislike having “heroes”, I make an exception for minds like Richard Feynman.

      He was a great physicist, funny guy and iconoclast.

  8. Andy on 23/06/2012 at 6:19 pm said:

    In the thread at HT, I posed a question about Pentti Linkola, who I have mentioned here previously.

    He is a Finnish activist who has rather extreme views that we should celebrate the holocaust, and the world’s population needs to be seriously culled.

    In a strange way, I have more respect for this guy than the typical arm waver who prattles on about their latest Prius acquisition. It was one of the viewpoints that led me to where I am now.

    I thought to myself, if it really as bad as they say, then surely we need to stop development, particularly in the developing world, and the only way to do this quickly would be to rapidly reduce the world’s population by whatever means

    In science or engineering terms we might call this an “edge case”. It represents the most extreme end of a particular scenario,

    Another example I have used is “how many wind turbines do we need to build per day for the next 40 years to get 100% wind power in the UK”. These questions are routinely dismissed, but it gives you bounds on the problem at hand. (i think the answer might be about 4 per day for 40 years as a back of envelope guess)

    Asking these questions gives you some good insight into the viability of your proposed solutions at hand. I think E M Smith expressed this very well as documented in this post.

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 9:50 pm said:

      There is a response to this comment.

      It appears that Dave is quite thick. He seems to think that I agree that we should kill most of the world’s population.

      Of course I think no such thing. I am merely suggesting the “edge case” of thinking and where we all fit in the spectrum.I am asking them whether this is a view they would like to force upon children, since they are quite happy brainwashing them.

      “Dave” was also suggesting that I should have been censored for my comment. Unfortunately for Dave, I suspect that Richard T understood the meaning of my comment.

      This is a recurring theme with the warmist creed. They collectively have the intelligence of poultry and do not understand the concepts of analogy, rhetorical questions etc.

      You have to keep explaining stuff to them, and they are offended at the slightest thing.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2012 at 10:47 pm said:

      In Dave’s defense, he does have enough insight to admit that he “may be a bit slow, coming from OZ”

      But re “You have to keep explaining stuff to them”

      I know EXACTLY what you mean.

  9. Andy on 23/06/2012 at 8:10 pm said:

    I seem to be getting a stream of thanks to Gareth that I have been banished for that “despicable person” who disagrees that with the idea that we shouldn’t indoctrinate children with eco-doom messages.

    Good for them, they can get back to congratulating themselves on how many solar panels they have installed and how many petitions they have signed and how many Guardian articles they have read.

    It’s great eh? A bit like looking into the monkey enclosure at the zoo

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 4:33 pm said:

      This is the latest comment at HT

      davsab June 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      So what, I’m an ex-pat and post-grad as well. Nope, andyS is a ‘fruit-loop’ (imho) but still sane enough to be held to account – as should Anders Breivik.

      Nice. I have posed the question what I need to be “held to account” for?

      Thought Crimes perhaps?
      High Crimes against windmills?
      Failing to allow the State to propagandise children?
      Showing an interest in obscure Finnish extremists who propose genocide?

      Will the police be knocking on the door and seizing my secret stash of James Delingpole books?

      I live in fear I tell you…..

    • This post is about denial so it anticipates some discussion of intolerance and bigotry. I was content to let the exchanges with Bill stand (though I’d normally snip comments like that) because they example much of what we’re talking about.

      But one of the reasons we converse here and not at Hot Topic is we don’t like their attitudes and they won’t discuss the science. Although if they visit us, we welcome them – why should we stoop below our usual standards because they lack self-control? So at some point, I hope soon, you can let go of their hatred towards you and not import their corrosive opinions into our conversation, nor dilute the reasons you so eloquently described earlier for your support of science against the inroads of prejudice. Cheers.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/06/2012 at 5:55 pm said:

      “…they won’t discuss the science”

      Have to disagree with that. I’ve found the likes of Rob Painting, Mike Palin and even Thomas will engage quite productively on occasions but others are incapable and just snipe.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 5:58 pm said:

      Hi Richard
      Yes I apologise for letting all this toxic stuff get into your blog. It’s nothing to do with you really and there’s no reason why I should impose it on you or anyone else here.

      I am going to let it go and desist from mentioning them again.

    • RC: And they are refreshing exceptions, when you’re “known” as a sceptic. Let me amend my comment to “… they won’t discuss the science as a general rule.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/06/2012 at 6:59 pm said:

      “Science” has a different meaning there though. For example a popular paper at HT and SkS is:

      ‘Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods’

      * Gerald A. Meehl,
      * Julie M. Arblaster,
      * John T. Fasullo,
      * Aixue Hu
      * & Kevin E. Trenberth, 2011

      They’re very big on “model-based evidence” and the paper seems to be read as fact. Never mind that it’s highly questionable and questioning of it (and what’s missing from it) will get you tagged “denier” very quickly.

      I doubt too that raising the topic of NIWA’s NZT7 step changes under dispute by NZCSET would attract any knowledgeable comment (they wouldn’t have a clue) or BOM’s radical step methodology in the AU equivalent ACORN – SAT (even OZ sceptics are struggling with that) where BOM have adjusted seasonal change OUT of location series.

      Ironic that in the latter case, using the “denier” tag would be baseless on their part due to their complete ignorance of the topic but they would as in the former take ACORN -SAT at face value and disbar questioning of it (that’s “sowing seeds of doubt” apparently)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/06/2012 at 7:43 pm said:

      Curiously, ‘Merchants of Doubt’ (Book) by Naomi taken as something of a reputable reference text

      But I do not see Thomas in comments demanding that “the findings of the book” (as Gareth puts it) be peer-reviewed as was his criteria for Andy’s quote from the synopsis of Nina Pierpont’s book ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome A Report on a Natural Experiment’.

      Gareth reviewing ‘Merchants of Doudt’ in the above-linked post:-

      The shift in the community of global warming deniers from merely attacking mainstream climate scientists to alleging their involvement in criminal activity Oreskes and Conway describe as “an unsurprising but alarming development” in the continuing campaign to discredit the science.

      So THAT’S what all us “deniers” have been up to – good to know.

      And quoting a Hollywood celeb erases any doubt on the issue apparently:-

      It has appeared in recent years that the science of global warming was also on the way to prevailing. They note, for example, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying in 2005: “The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate.”

      How can we possibly continue our “alarming” “campaign to discredit the science” when Arne declares “the debate is over”?

      It’s unthinkable (and Gareth obviously doesn’t) to doubt the wisdom of such a celebrated persona as Arnold Schwarzenegger whose scientific understanding of the effects of anabolic steroids in combination with intense resistance training is legendary, albeit far removed from the physics of climate science but hey – Arne said it – that clinches it.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 9:03 pm said:

      Richard C – I haven’t read “Merchants of Doubt”. It would be an interesting exercise to do so.

      I think a good chunk of the book is a hatchet job against Fred Singer
      My understanding is that Oreskes et al claim that Singer was in the pay of Big Tobacco
      I have no idea whether this is true.

      However, I have also heard that he looked into the issue of second hand smoking, and found no statistical evidence that supported the a priori answer the sponsors wanted.

      I am more likely to believe the latter.

  10. Andy on 23/06/2012 at 9:23 pm said:

    Another feature of HT ( sorry to keep banging on about it ) is that I have often started a thread with a polite or interesting link, for example about swabs move into electric cars. These comments always get ignored, because once you have been identified as One of Them, they cannot engage with you.

    Jonah Goldbergs book Liberal Faschism is quite a good read in this context.

  11. Mike Jowsey on 23/06/2012 at 10:22 pm said:

    Not sure what this means, but have some foreboding that it relates to your situation Andy….

    “amongst whose ranks the prelatariat of all denominations have constituted a prominent and discreditable cadre of alarmist partisans”

    • Andy on 23/06/2012 at 10:57 pm said:

      I just saw this on Gosselins site about Big Wind in Vermont

      The 5 min video is worth the watch.

      The money quote is this

      Maybe 10,000 years from now they’ll come around and wonder what went on here. […] Pads and pedestals look like sacrificial sites of some sort, and they are.”

      Note that this is yet another video about the noise pollution from Big Wind that the wind noise deniers at HT refuse to let me post about now that I have “offended” them.

  12. Douglas on 24/06/2012 at 3:59 pm said:

    Mike Jowsey says:
    June 23, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    “Another point I would make, at the risk of being long-winded, is that some people I have talked to like me enough to ask me not to talk to them about this. Why? Because they have to focus on work, kids, real life, and don’t have the bandwidth to focus on the noise coming from my moving lips. That’s okay and I completely get that. So I don’t talk to them about this. Nor about one-world government or the impending global financial collapse. I simply tell them it is a hobby, and go back to my cave. One day they may say, “holy crap, how did this happen?”, at which time they may be interested in my opinion. And my fortified bunker (just kidding!). Meanwhile, it is my hobby and I don’t hate anybody. OK?”
    I can resonate with this

    Except that I know that we cannot predict the future on any of these things. I for one think that the world’s financial system will collapse sooner than any of the other above matters and with that this whole shambolic load of crap will disintegrate along with it because we will all be too busy picking up the pieces in order to fix things (like having enough food to eat). But that is probably wishful thinking on my part. However, there’s nothing like a real crisis to concentrate one’s mind.


    • Mike Jowsey on 24/06/2012 at 5:25 pm said:

      Cheers Douglas, I heartily agree. The future is hard to predict for sure. But when the leaves start falling en masse, you can bet it’s going to get cold soon. And as far as USA, Europe, and the Middle East is going, I see a lot of leaves falling. I have no first-hand knowledge of the Great Depression or the subsequent World War, except some snippets passed on from my grandmother. I don’t wish any of that on anybody, but suspect that if the big ponzi scheme that is the banks/finance institutes’ house of cards comes tumbling down then hardship will come quickly to many. And as you point out, the silver lining is that CAGW will die pretty well immediately. Who wants to pay for carbon credits when there is no bread or butter in the pantry?

      I like Max Kaiser, btw – you have probably heard some of his broadcasts.

    • Douglas on 24/06/2012 at 7:47 pm said:

      Yup Mike you are on to it alright. I have been watching the financial situation pretty closely since about 2008 and it’s apparent that nobody has any answers that they have the courage to follow. Not the bankers, not the politicians, not the economists. It’s “kick the can down the road”. As Maggie Thatcher said “there is a terrible air of Micawberism about” They (i.e. some people) liken it to arranging the deck chairs on that famous ship of about 1912. But the issue seems to be quite complex now including massive Ponzi schemes of global scale proportions involving banks, insurance, credit swaps, the lunatic European zero carbon policies as well as the enormous implications of global trading imbalances. It puts the European carbon credit scam into proportion and in turn, our pathetic fixation on the “green” economy. Sheesh!


    • Mike Jowsey on 24/06/2012 at 9:13 pm said:

      Yup Douglas, we are not the only ones onto it. Watch this 3-min clip made today… “Banks are dead”. Chilling. The leaves are falling, my friend. Buy gold. Oh wait…. sorry, too late.

    • Mike Jowsey on 24/06/2012 at 5:45 pm said:

      Sorry, as much as I like him, I can’t spell his name!

    • Douglas on 24/06/2012 at 9:42 pm said:

      Aha – yes Mike Keiser puts it well in that clip. Seems like the only way for the “Pollies” to learn is through bloody rioting I’m sad to conclude. Ambrose Evans Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph has it summed up but is not so direct ha ha.


    • Douglas on 25/06/2012 at 9:25 am said:

      @Mike Jowsey says:
      June 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm
      Mike good to note that maybe one of these is awake – notice this from the Bank for International Settlements:

      A good observation I think.

    • Mike Jowsey on 25/06/2012 at 2:50 pm said:

      Thanks Douglas – a good article.
      Low rates have allowed borrowers who will never be able to repay their debts to limp on, BIS said, encouraging “wasteful support of effectively insolvent borrowers and banks”.

      …. kicking the can down the road.

  13. Alexander K on 24/06/2012 at 6:11 pm said:

    ‘Having a bit of fun’ by teasing the faithful over at Hot Air is okay if you have the time to waste: I’ve had a bit more than the allotted three-score-and-ten and I still think life is too short for some activities – arguing with the scientifically-and-logically-challenged is one of those activities.
    I have been going through old family photographs and documents recently and the gaps in the albums caused by World Wars I & II really do give one pause. The moral aspects of the latest ‘Denier’ study are truly shocking, but having spent half of my working life attempting to instruct teenagers in various scholarly disciplines, nothing that comes out of any current Post-modern university department surprises me.

    • Andy on 24/06/2012 at 6:42 pm said:

      Alexander, I always enjoy your comments here and at Bishop Hill. There’s nothing like a bit of wisdom of age to temper this postmodernism.

      I do hope we can all catch up sometime in “the flesh” so to speak.

  14. Andy on 24/06/2012 at 7:03 pm said:

    This is O/T but worthy of note

    Climate Change Response (Low
    Carbon Economic Development)
    Amendment Bill
    Member’s Bill (Gareth Hughes – NZ Green Party)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation