Controversy and scandal

This page is for discussion of controversy and scandals concerning global warming.


233 Thoughts on “Controversy and scandal

  1. The “topic banning” of William Connelley from Wikipedia caught my eye on WUWT.
    Connelly is a Green party activist and prolific Wikipedia contributor on climate change issues, and runs a blog called Stoat

    According to Delingpole, Connelly rewrote 5,428 climate articles on Wikipedia.

    His skewing of public information on climate has been extraordinary, going so far as to delete the resignation letter from Hal Lewis’s Wikipedia page.

    From an NZ perspective, it has been interesting to see Connelly pop up on Hot Topic and admonish Gareth (see Ian Wishart’s commentary here

    It is ironic then that When Connelly does re-emerge on HT to comment on sea ice, his comments frequently get voted out of sight.

  2. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 6:53 am said:

    Climate: Controversies News MMCC Scepticism Climategate and the Main Stream Media

  3. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 7:14 am said:

    Organisations: Societies, Universities, Companies, Greenpeace, WWF, ET AL

  4. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 7:16 am said:

    Ideology: Green, Guardian, Totalitarian and Leftism

  5. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 7:17 am said:

    Troublesome Trolls

  6. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 7:25 am said:

    Climate Change Propaganda

  7. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 7:14 pm said:

    The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
    of Weather Events and their Effect upon the
    Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
    Climate Change

    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf

  8. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 9:02 pm said:

    Guardian scribe can’t cope with complex scientific arguments unseating his cognitive faculties:

    “How fear of bias dominates the climate change debate”

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/news/#comment-25885

  9. val majkus on October 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm said:

    I’m a bit confused as to whether ‘Thread’ is a poster or new threads which I can’t pick up from the drop down menu because it’s too long for my screen
    Whichever, in my view if you have too many subcategories it’s confusing for posters
    I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth in which I objected to assumptions which he had made
    No matter; but if Thread could be a little less energetic might be easier for the rest of us
    Or I’m a simpleton as Samoth with his assertion of ‘preconceived ideas’ considers me to be

  10. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 9:26 pm said:

    NIWA – Tyndall – Science Media Centre – Royal Society (NZ) – Gluckman – Smith – IPCC – Media etc

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/global-warming-general-001/#comment-25877

  11. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 9:27 pm said:

    Connections

    NIWA – Tyndall – Science Media Centre – Royal Society (NZ) – Gluckman – Smith – IPCC – Media etc

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/global-warming-general-001/#comment-25877

  12. “THREAD is Richard C organising things into threads…Yes?

    If you wait a day for Google to index this site, you should be able to find Samoth through the search box.

    I wouldn’t take stuff too personally though Val. It is a characteristic of the warmist mindset to assume every non-believer is stupid. You get used to it after a while.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2010 at 10:06 pm said:

    ‘Thread’ is me – Richard C.

    “I can’t pick up from the drop down menu”

    Yes, I have the same problem, RT knows – you have to zoom out to see the entire menu and eventually RT will mimic the drop down on the Open Thread page. It takes time and RT is VERY busy at the moment.

    “I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth”

    Get the RSS feed and also go to Admin

    Admin

    * Log in
    * Entries RSS
    * Comments RSS (click on this)

    Tip -open CCG in more than 1 tab (I work with 5 -9 tabs, 3 of which will be CCG)

    “too many subcategories” – Val, there is a bigger picture here, you have to understand that. (basically all the categories of “New List V2.0 in “Open Threads” have been incorporated so that the entire AGW Proponent – AGW Sceptic debate is framed (plus a few other issues).

    Already the new set up has an international cooperative advantage. There is cross linking and referencing going to JoNova and overseas players of note (with cred) for example

    “if Thread could be a little less energetic” – will be finished soon.

    Relax Val, I know what I’m doing and so does RT, he was a NZ Herald catalogue Guy , I ‘ve been a corporate intel administrator and energy sector researcher, dealing with ship loads of info. This is a doddle by comparison – you’ll crack it in time (remember to use the Reply button).

    The THREAD’s are de facto categories (Headers) providing places to put stuff, cross-link, reference, stimulate discussion, cover the bases and so forth.

    {BTW, I was up from 3AM Sunday morning setting it up – it has taken HOURS and a lot of work for RT too]]

  14. val majkus on October 18, 2010 at 10:06 pm said:

    thanks Andy – wise words; but I still think that there are going to be too many threads

  15. val majkus on October 18, 2010 at 10:10 pm said:

    thanks Richard; I know there’s stuff going on behind the scenes; FROM 3 AM!!!! ARE YOU A HERO OR WHAT???

  16. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2010 at 10:36 pm said:

    “I’m still plowing around trying to find my last post to Samoth”

    Val, as an example of how the system works go here

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26256

    You will find Samodt, filed and linked under “Troublesome Trolls” – see, remember our discussion about that, and now you want to access your troublesome troll, there’s a way to do it.

    I will also be linking the same spot on the page via “Debating” under “Disproving AGW”. we need this resource for future reference.

    There is much more going on than you realise remember, we are up against a collective opponent and as Andy says “know your enemy’.

    Also, if you have gone through a session with a troll like we did with Samodt, there is a lot of material that we can re-use, so we need to get back to it for future reference.

    I employ this tactic all the time ( no point in re-inventing the wheel) and did so on a raid into Hot Topic. Now I can re-use what I hit them with.

    BIG TIP – after a raid, save the page to your local drive, so that if the blogger takes down the page, you have not lost you material. I think this may have happened with the Hot Topic 10:10 page but can’t be bothered checking (and haven’t got the time) because no matter, I’ve got that page saved to my local disk.

    [BTW – this comment will be linked under “Debating” or “Debating Strategies” or something when I set it up (possibly in “Disproving AGW”) so we can easily go back to it]

    We now have a HUGE resource in a very short time and it a competitive advantage. I ‘m already using it as an extension to my own Bookmarks system which is MASSIVE.but very difficult to retrieve a key piece of material when I need it quickly in a debate – Open Threads solves that.

  17. Debating Strategies

  18. “FROM 3 AM!!!! ARE YOU A HERO OR WHAT???” – Nope, but I can get a lot done at that hour when there’s no distractions (Trolls) and also it pays to remember the the world goes on 24/7 so there’s always someone to talk to.

    I’m all for engaging with Trolls, it keeps you sharp and you’ve got to know your stuff. But the Key is to pick the right Troll – some are a complete waste of time so let them go. Samodt was brilliant, so now we have built up a resource and don’t forget there are other eyes taking it in (Lurkers).

    There are some very knowledgeable Trolls and a lot can be learned from them (I have) and a skillful Troll will bury you if you are not careful.

    It’s all about strategies and not wasting time. You’ll be getting off lightly here (RT runs a tight ship) but you would not believe the ad-homs that have come my way in other places (some scary threats – remember, they like blowing up kids.

    [BTW – was payed the ultimate complement by RedLogix at Hot Topic – he thought I was a professional sceptic – Ha!]

    [This will also be X-ref’d under “Debating Strategies”, see how it works]

  19. See – Disproving AGW

  20. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2010 at 9:09 am said:

    Mike Jowsey says:
    October 19, 2010 at 6:13 am

    Christopher Monkton talking about world government (and taxation), communism and climate fraud. Very eloquent, informative and disturbing.

    http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-interview-lord-monckton-talks-about-nwo-master-plan/

  21. Do we really need a thread entitled “troublesome trolls”?

    Does it actually add anything to the discussion?

    Ideas welcomed (as long as they are not of a troll nature 🙂 )

  22. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2010 at 10:22 am said:

    Yes, we do. This is a resource, you need to read Debating Strategies – Tips.

    To illustrate, there’s a huge stoush at JoNova http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments

    Scan from about # 100 on (Richard S, Courtney is on fire!).

    Tip – put in a short innocuous or supportive comment – check the box:

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

    And watch the debate vie email (get gmailer if you have not already got it)

  23. val majkus on October 19, 2010 at 2:03 pm said:

    Here’s a good article for us lay people written by a lay person
    http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/
    He describes the contents of the article as ‘a necessarily brief summary of the skeptic’s case.’
    The comments are interesting too for those who have time

  24. This article is a reasonable high-level summary, imo.

    A good book to read is “Chill” by Peter Taylor. It goes into some quite detailed technical background into the water vapour arguments.

    (Interestingly, Taylor has many years as an environmental consultant to governments and NGO’s, including Greenpeace)

    Richard Lindzen’s talk at the ICCC conference in Chicago this year explains in fairly intelligible language some of the problems with the science. It is an hours video, well worth watching.
    (Will try to find a URL later)

  25. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2010 at 5:27 pm said:

    The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research

    http://www.cawcr.gov.au/

  26. It’s interesting sometimes just to randomly wander around the East Anglia Emails

    This one shows the CRU looking for funding from Shell International:

    Mike and Tim
    Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
    Sorry about the delay.
    I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
    the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
    including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
    levels.
    Mick

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt

  27. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2010 at 10:28 pm said:

    Author: Richard S Courtney
    Comment:
    Twikler:

    Your post at #148 is completely daft. [SNIP ad hominem remarks.]

    My post at #141 I correctly said and referenced:

    And, as Kiehl reports, the models use a variety of climate sensitivities from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2 to get this large range of assumed anthropogenic forcings. But there is good reason to consider that the real climate sensitivity is much lower. For example, Idso snr. reports his 8 natural experiments that indicate a “best estimate” of climate sensitivity of 0.10 C/W/m2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.

    And on the basis of that I stated the only reasonable conclusion;

    So, nobody knows what climate sensitivity really is.
    The models use a wide range of assumed climate sensitivities.
    The lowest assumed climate sensitivity used by a model is probably too large by about an order of magnitude.
    And on the basis of that, the modellers assert that climate sensitivity is large.
    .

    Your silly response to that is to assert of me:

    Then contradict yourself by stating that the “unknown” figure is now too large. Not only that, you can quantify the magnitude of the error in the unknown value.

    There is no contradiction of any kind in what I said.
    [SNIP ad hominem remarks.]

    Richard

    See all comments on this post here:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments

  28. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm said:

    BobC:
    October 19th, 2010 at 12:19 am

    oh dear @129,130:

    I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I’ll try to clarify some of the statements that you seem to have trouble with:

    Let’s start with #130:

    oh dear:
    October 18th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    You need to find dispassionate evidence of fraud, and you have so far failed.

    Spoken so authoritatively! One might suppose you were a lawyer [SNIP ad hominem remarks]. OK, kindly produce some precedents on how freely written confessions of criminal behavior, acknowledged by the authors, is not admissible evidence. Make it easy on yourself: Start by explaining why the Miranda Warning is meaningless (and where the US Supreme Court went wrong in requiring it).

    [SNIP ad hominem remarks]

    Now to #129:

    Point 3: I think you meant “cannot”? [predict the climate] Please clarify.

    I clearly said that climate alarmists must show evidence that they can predict the future course of the climate — else their dire predictions amount to the same as a crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is about to end. How you got this exactly backward is baffling.

    Then you say:

    Obviously we cannot predict exactly what will happen in 50 or 100 years

    Good that you agree with me. So what’s the (unpredictable) problem we need to take drastic action to avoid?

    My contention is that climate models are useful for giving us information about what is likely to happen, even if the[y] are “wrong”.

    Partially right. As with the example of thunderstorms — models of chaotic events, when “correct”, can help elucidate the mechanics of the phenomenon. They cannot tell us what is “likely to happen” in the sense of predicting a specific future path in any detailed sense. The way the CAGW alarmist crowd tries to use them is bogus – if they (or you) don’t know that, they (you) are ignorant.

    (BTY: One result of the thunderstorm modeling is that an enormous amount of heat is removed from the Earth by the combination of convection to near the top of the atmosphere and subsequent IR radiation to space. Nobody can say exactly how thunderstorm activity — or convective strength in general — will respond to an increase in temperature: But if it were to increase by 3%, the resulting heat loss would completely cancel a doubling of CO2, even given the high estimates of sensitivity by the IPCC. This is just one of the many unknowns “parameterized” in GCMs which is tweaked to produce the desired results.)

    Point 4: the attribution of global warming to human produced greenhouse gases is scientific

    A requirement for human produced CO2 to build up to any significant level is that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 must be on the order of > 100 years, and indeed, AGWers produce scores of papers with CO2 cycle models showing this level of lifetime. The problem with these theoretical papers is that the 36 published, peer-reviewed (since 1950), empirical measurements of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere have all shown lifetimes < 15 years, with an average of ~ 7 years. These observations have not been shown to be in error, and are mostly ignored.

    In science, when theory and observation disagree, theory changes. The AGW hypothesis ignores observations and is not science.

    The problem of working out the implications of these projections is generally tackled by people who are not climate scientists.

    The problem here is that the people who are pushing the “solutions” are the same people who decide who gets the funding for research. Perhaps you don’t see the conflict of interest here (after all, you think that freely given admissions of illegal behavior is not “evidence”), but most rational people do.

    See all comments on this post here:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/#comments

  29. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 9:08 am said:

    Author: Joanne Nova
    Comment:
    Oh Dear. You’re really pushing the bounds to the max. No more ad homs, no more argument from authority. No more indulgent, patronizing, over-long effusions from a stone age anonymous thinker. Catch up with the reformation, we’re 400 years ahead of you.

    Name yourself Oh dear. You speak for the dominant paradigm. What on earth could you be afraid of? That we might google you like you did to Courtney?

  30. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 9:57 am said:

    Andy says:
    October 19, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    I think we owe our friend “samoth” an apology.

    At least he walks the walk, and built his own electric car:

    http://www.evalbum.com/1772

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    October 20, 2010 at 9:00 am

    “apology” !

    I want to offer him my heart-felt and deepest thanks for turning up and providing us with such a fortuitous opportunity – that’s if the Sarc Police will allow me, of course.

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    October 20, 2010 at 9:02 am

    “At least he walks the walk, and built his own electric car”

    I wonder if it’s coal-fired?

    Andy says:
    October 20, 2010 at 9:35 am

    I expect it’s powered by a mixture of coal, gas, wind and hydro. Like everything else in this country

    Apology? Just my wry sense of humour. And “Samoth” appears to have one to, given he spells his name backwards when appearing in this supposed parallel universe to the “real one” of Hot Topic, where he posts as Thomas.

    The plot thickens…

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    October 20, 2010 at 9:50 am

    “Just my wry sense of humour. And “Samoth” appears to have one to”

    Yes, I was “warming” to the guy – I miss him.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 10:07 am said:

    “but I still think that there are going to be too many threads”

    You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Val.

  32. Is it worth putting in some tags (keywords) or some brief content on each thread header?

    It makes it easier for search engines to index, and therefore a more useful resource.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 11:22 am said:

    Is it worth putting in some tags (keywords) or some brief content on each thread header?

    Very good point Andy (but I think the content comes afterwords i.e sub-sub-sub categories – as in a database hierarchy ),

    That had not crossed my mind and to be honest, I don’t know how to do that (knowledge gap).

    Seeing your heads in that zone and mine isn’t (and I don’t think I’ve got the time), See if you can set up a demo example somewhere to show us how to do it – you’re right, we need “hooks”.

    Just call yourself THREAD or HEADER or something appropriate and go for it.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 11:28 am said:

    You can always Reply to thread headers with no hooks (all of em at present) with a header containing hooks.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 11:35 am said:

    RT may have a contrary opinion on this to mine, of course (i.e. a better idea in concert with his Blog aims – he might already have an idea in mind from NZ Herald days)

  36. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 11:36 am said:

    I’ve missed a BIG trick here – sorry everyone.

  37. Here’s an example:

    A paper by David Hand et al

    (Note with interest that David Hand was on the panel of the Oxburgh enquiry into the CRU emails )

    “How to lie with bad data”

    http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?verb=Display&version=1.0&service=UI&handle=euclid.ss/1124891289&page=record

    Richard D. De Veaux and David J. Hand
    ying with statistics can be accomplished in many ways. Distorting graphics, manipulating data or using biased samples are just a few of the tried and true methods. Failing to use the correct statistical procedure or failing to check the conditions for when the selected method is appropriate can distort results as well

    Keywords:
    Statistics, data mining, climategate, david hand

    The above keywords might trigger a search result for “climategate”, but it depends to some extent on the spam algorithms of the search engine.

    In other words, though the paper has no direct relevance to climategate, it might be of interest to someone interested in the topic.

    You can apply this to topic headers:
    e.g
    GCMs:
    Keywords : General circulation Models, climate change, computer modelling, Hadley Centre,

  38. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 11:58 am said:

    Okay.

    I had better get onto this.

    FYI,

    I have Hierarchical and Relational Database programming skills in the forgotten recesses of my mind.

    e.g. COBOL with embedded SQL, BASIC, ACCESS, System Design and Analysis and such like.

  39. That’s good to hear.
    I used to work for a search engine company (Globalbrain, ChCh) so have a bit of useful background there.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 12:32 pm said:

    I’ve just realized that the Keywords are set in the Blog post.

    So. RT drives it – it’s his job, yaaaaaay!

    The Keywords therefore, are the titles of all the headers plus whatever.

    I might get around to compiling a list of Keywords, life expectancy permitting – that would be useful

  41. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm said:

    There are obviously some header titles we don’t want in Keywords as Val has pointed out previously.

    e.g. Troublesome Trolls

    That would be cute in the Blogosphere, but it might go viral and create such a storm that it would distract us from the real missions and clutter up our resource (and RT’s Blog).

    It might go viral anyway – Yoiks! and Youza!

  42. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 12:49 pm said:

    RT – bad news (for you), please see:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26518

    But I guess you would be very aware of that at your end and I think you’ve already alerted us to that.

    When there’s a lot of stuff going on, details like that get forgotten.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm said:

    Useful Quotes

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
    – Joseph Goebbels

    From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):

    “Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

    * The environmental movement has been hijacked by Malthusian Eugenicists and these Quotes from the mouths of the Elite are why I know that AGW is a False Conclusion and now through the Climategate emails are proven to be based on Junk Science…Science Magazine should be Ashamed for running this Whitewash of an article

    Read these …put them in context for yourself then think again about what these Globalist Criminals are setting up In Copenhagen

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
    economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
    – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
    – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    – Professor Maurice King

    “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
    – David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
    discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
    – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
    – Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    “Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
    of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
    – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

    “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
    – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

    “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
    -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
    use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
    – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

    “All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
    behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
    – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

    “Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
    – Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

    “Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
    – Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

    “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
    – Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

    “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
    – Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

    “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
    – United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
    – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

    “One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
    – Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

    “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
    – Christopher Manes, Earth First!

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
    – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
    – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
    – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    -Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
    – Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
    – David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

    “Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
    – Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

    “By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
    – Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

    “Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
    – Greenpeace International

    “Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon – the man-made natural disaster.”
    – Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate

    “We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”
    – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

    “In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.”
    – Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

    “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
    – UN Commission on Global Governance report

    “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
    – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

    “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
    – Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

    “Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
    – Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

    “A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”
    – Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

    “Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”
    – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

    “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
    – UN Agenda 21

    “The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”
    – Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens
    Dante Mudd Dante Mudd
    Dec. 12, 2009 at 7:48pm

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    * Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

    * Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

    * Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”

    * Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    * Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    Now on to the Club of Rome.

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

    * Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    * Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

    * Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    “[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”

    “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

    * Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore’s mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

    * Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world’s central carbon trading body.

    Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.

    Back before he became U.S. President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

    Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered steered through Congress.

    “We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

    “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

    * Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

    * David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994

    “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

    * David Rockefeller, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

    “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ‘one world’, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

    * David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

    Other Club of Rome members include Tony Blair, George Soros Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Solana, Kofi Annan, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Hassan bin Talal, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Gro Harlem Bruntland, Robert Muller, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more people that include wealthy elites, ‘new age spiritualists’, former or current world political figures and former or current U.N. figures.

    See this link for much more! – http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

    Additional Information

    Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4aD3_tJNsc

    Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.1/2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuDes2bb1Y

    Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.2/2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lz7KZdK3Q

    Watch Lord Christopher Monckton (Former Adviser to Margaret Thatcher) Speaking in St. Paul on the real purpose of the Copenhagen Treaty – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

    Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745

    One World Government The Real Aim of Environmentalism – http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16694

    The Marxist roots of the global warming scare – http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/080616

    Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

    Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story – http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

    This site has indisputable evidence providing references of their own admission to what the real agenda is – http://green-agenda.com/

    Club of Rome’s Depopulation Agenda

    “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”

    * Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974

    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

    * Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.

    “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

    * Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb. Paul Ehrlich is a member of the Club of Rome.

    “I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today”

    “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

    * Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First! and member of the Club of Rome.

    “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”

    * Henry Kissinger, , Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State, chairman of Kissinger Associates, member of the Club of Rome.

    “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

    * Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome

    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

    * Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, member of the Club of Rome.

    In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.

    * Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer. Member of the Club of Rome.

    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

    * Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of the Club of Rome.

    Post a comment

    As for the Ice Age in the 1970s
    In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977 p 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:

    “Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction – that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”

    Science News, March 1, 1975

    “Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age”.

    Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976

    “Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”.

    Science Digest, February 1973
    “As a result of ominous signs that the Earth’s climate is cooling down, meteorologists are unanimous in predicting that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century, triggering catastrophic famines.”
    What Happen?

    What the computer doesn’t take into account is water vapor.

    Greenhouses Gas
    Water Vapor Contributes 36 – 72%
    Carbon Dioxide Contributes 9 – 26%
    Methane Contributes 4 – 9%
    Nitrous Oxide
    Ozone Contributes 3 -7%
    CFCs

    gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies
    total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas

    The main driver of the Climate is water vapor which 99% is natural
    Co2 is next which is 95% natural and 5% man-made

    Tell me this 95% of Co2 is natural and 5% is man-made and I believe that this from the IPCC. So it is only the 5% that is man-made that is causing the problem.

    Well answer me this before man was no earth depending on what religious faith you are we had higher and lower amounts of Co2 changes without man being there?

    I have listed the amounts Co2 in previous periods of time for you to look at and give me an answer. For you I do know at period of time what lowered it. But what drove it up?

    And whatever drove Co2 back then maybe the cause that is driving Co2 up now.

    (Cambrian Period) 496.0 to 542 million Years ago Co2 20 to 35 times higher than present – day 6000ppmv.

    (Jurassic Period) 150.8 to 199.6 million Years ago Co2 4 to 5 times Higher than present – day 1200 – 1500ppmv.

    (Cretaceous Period) 70.6 to 145.5 million Years ago Co2 close to present – day 385ppmv.

    (Paleogene (Tertiary) Period) 28.4 to 55.8 million Years ago Co2 lowering from 3800ppmv to 650ppmv.

    (Negene (Tertiary) Period) 7.246 to 23.03 million Years 650ppmv to 100ppmv.

    (Quaternary Period) (Gelasian Age) 1.806 to 2.588 million Years 100ppmv to 300ppmv.

    Please people go and learn Co2 is colourless and at low concentrations, the gas is odourless these are facts but everytime on the NEWS we see steam coming from cooling towels when the MSM runs a story on climate change which is mainly water Vapour.

    Now they want to Tax us because some has called Co2 pollution. If it is pollution then why do we use it in soft drinks, why do we use it in food? The funny thing is that Co2 is 1.5 times heavier then air.
    Co2 has many uses with our way of life.

    Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development.
    Co2 is simply not pollution it is in fact a build block of all life on earth.

    To say different is madness I understand that 100% Co2 will kill you in fact 1% Co2 will kill you over time. For you information 1% is the same as (10,000ppmv) the highest that we are able to prove is 6500ppmv 500 million years ago. I understand that O2 can be a poison too while Scuba Driving below a certain depth due to the pressure.

    But let’s put this in some sort of order Earth air is 79% N 20%O2 and 0.38% Co2 of which only 5% is man-made the IPCC agrees

    They also agree that Water Vapour is the major driver of the Climate so why are we being lied too.

    Co2 is a major component of the carbon cycle.

    CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppmv)
    Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

    As far as we know the highest level of Co2 on earth that we can prove was some 542 to 496.0 million Years ago Co2 20 to 35 times higher than present – day 6000ppmv.
    In the (Cambrian Period) there was no humans back then

    Move forward 199.6 to 150.8 million Years ago Co2 4 to 5 times Higher than present – day 1200 – 1500ppmv in the (Jurassic Period) there was no humans back then.

    Moving forward 145.5 to 70.6 million Years ago Co2 close to present – day 385ppmv in the (Cretaceous Period) Still no humans.

    Moving forward 55.8 to 28.4 million Years ago Co2 lowering from 3800ppmv to 650ppmv in the (Paleogene (Tertiary) Period) still no humans but the Co2 went up from 385 in the(Cretaceous Period) to 3800p but dropped back to 650ppmv scratch your head.

    Moving forward again 23.30 to 7.246 million Years Co2 was 650ppmv to 100ppmv in the (Negene (Tertiary) Period) still no humans.

    Moving forward again 2.588 to 1.806 million Years Co2 100ppmv to 300ppmv and went backwards and forwards between the two in the (Quaternary Period) (Gelasian Age) but mate still no humans.

    It has got me mate this higher and lower levels of Co2 with no mankind to make it who can they blame.

    But even when Co2 was at it highest that we know 6000ppmv 542 to 496.0 million Years ago it was still not at a toxic level. Given amounts above 5,000 ppmv are considered very unhealthy but not toxic.

    The next highest level that we know was 55.8 to 28.4 million Years ago 3600ppmv dropping to 650ppmv not toxic if fact 2/3 the level of what is considered toxic.

    The funny thing is that please some here tell me what goes on in deserts with the warming and very cold nights or what goes on at the South Pole the driest place on earth which is the coldest.

    I think that there is still Co2 there maybe water vapour or the lack of it might have something to do with it.
    But the cooling and the computer models just don’t see eye to eye what the hell we will change the name.

    Without Co2 the earth would be a very cold place indeed.
    Air is
    nitrogen 78% to 79%
    Oxygen is 21% to 20%
    The other 1% are trace gases
    These trace gases include Noble gases that are very inert or unreactive gases
    Noble gases
    Argon
    Helium
    Krypton
    Xenon
    Hydrogen is also present in trace quantities in the atmosphere but because it is so light much of it over time has escaped Earth’s Gravitational Pull
    The remaining trace gases are greenhouse gases.
    Carbon dioxide
    Methane
    Nitrous Oxide
    Water Vapour
    Ozone
    These greenhouse gases are what keep the planet warmer than it would be without them.

    Co2 or Carbon Dioxide is 0.38% of the 1% the other 99% being the Nitrogen and Oxygen.
    95% of the 0.38% of Co2 is natural leaving only 5% of the 0.38% being man-made and the problem that was 1st said to cause Global Warming and now called Climate Change.
    And they want Australia to pay millions to billions a year to a world Government go Away.

    The funny thing is that in terms of Co2 and it heating effect at a certain point it doesn’t matter what percentage of Co2 there is in the atmosphere because it doesn’t cause any more warming due to it reaching a limit to do so with its ability to absoulbe the IR .

    We would have to start going into physics to explain it. But the IPCC knows that.

    Climate Change is real but Climate Change that is caused by man-made Co2 hasn’t been proven at all.
    There is NO direct link to the rising in Co2 to the Increase in temperature other then in a computer model of the world’s enco systems.

    The trouble is that we have had cooling for the last 10 years even know Co2 has still been going up. So this alone tells you that while Co2 is going up temperatures have fell that there is not direct link.
    99.99999999999999999.% if not all of the changes on earth has been a result of evolution driven by past climates coupled together with major events (comets and what not and all other forms of NATURAL DISASTERS which in Human time have always been said to be an ACT of GOD. LOL otherwise we can sue them Insurance Companies for not paying us.

    The ability of the eco-systems has evolved and ways and how the eco-systems changes co2 levels has changed due to different life forms now. We don’t have the same plants life now as what we had in the past due to the changes Co2 levels because of what I have said above and the fact that we have had lower Co2 levels.

    Due to the differences of Co2 Level the plants we have now against the past plant life that took the carbon out of the air and put it under the ground and with pressure with time gave us the Oil, Gas, Coal & Diamonds. The amount of Co2 that a tree takes out is nothing and they need to be a certain age before they are any good.

    There was also no human life from back then on earth too we ourselves are a result of past climates and now we think we can change the world and stop evolution to key to survival for mankind is adaptation not mitigation. Mitigation no matter what is only buying us time until we are forced to adaptation no matter what we do. Human mankind is mortal and we should learn from the failure of past civilizations.
    Do you think that mitigation is going to work it has never worked before in evolution the only thing that has worked time and time again has been adaptation?

    They say that the earth is 4.5 billion years of age how long has man-kind been on earth they say that 1 day that the sun will grow and eat the earth. How are we going to mitigate that?

    We have even had our country’s leader saying in parliament that Climate Change will cause more bushfires. With no written history or records how can anyone prove in a court that we haven’t had times when we had more bushfires in a period before.

    Australia as a European settlement is only 221 years old.
    Industrial Revolution is 300 years old.

    Please Australia as a continent has always had bushfires the Australian aboriginals use fire to control their environment. It has been said that 30,000 to 80,000 years ago that the aboriginals arrived from Asia by way of a land bridges does that mean that the current water level was lower then today’s.

    What with no Oil and Gas and its Co2 used back then.

    Australia has always had bushfires to the point that some Australian Flora (plants) cannot exist without fire.

    Adaptation is one of the hallmarks of Australian native flora their ability to handle fire sets them apart from flora of other regions in the world. This adaptation of Australian flora didn’t happen overnight it took 1,000’s of years to adapt.

    There are two main strategies by plants to survive fire. The first is the ability to sprout new growth from protected parts of the plant, and the second is the use of chemicals from bush-fire smoke to initiate germination of seed.

    Fire has shaped the bush in Australia in a way which has happened nowhere else in the world.

    We have only had said man-made Climate Change from the Industrial Revolution is 300 years old.

    How do we know what the rate of Climate Change was before we had temperature instrument reading? They use Tree Ring data which is not a perfect science and Ice Core data which is a bit better. But the truth of the matter is that the reconstruction of past Climate Change History and the rate of change is rubbish.

    The said history of how the Aboriginals walking down land bridges is better than Ice Core Data and Tree Ring Date. The way how Australian native flora has adapted to bushfire has take 1000’s of years because since European settlement 221 years ago the introduced species of flora has yet to adapt to bushfire.

    In the Australian parliament our leaders said as a result of this said man-made Climate Change that Australia would have more droughts which will in turn cause more bushfires. Australia has always had droughts proven by the prominent features of the Australian flora are adaptations to aridity and fire.

    Australia native flora whose diversity was shaped by the effects of continental drift and climate change.

    This Man Made Climate Change Is Bull Shit

    How about answering some questions.
    These are the thing that you need to research because the science has been mixed up with politics and Vested interest.

    The Club of Rome and what their think and the people involved, they were started in 1970.

    The Trilateral Commission and the people behind them they were started in 1970’s

    The Group of 30 and the people behind them they were started in the 1970’s

    The IMF and the World Bank the people and Families that control it and links to the groups.

    Now we come to 1992 and the UN’s Agenda 21 Program have a look at The Club of Rome thinking and what they said and believe and what is in the UN Agenda 21 program of which Climate Change is only a part of.

    Once you have researched then Groups and the people in them and then inter connection of these groups to each other then this will give you some sort of an idea that is driving all this rubbish about man-made Co2.

    Certain big bank are going to make Billions and Trillions off carbon trading that is going to do nothing to stop Climate Change. The Climate has changed from the beginning of time on earth. And as a result of Climate Change over thing these are the things that drove evolution and as a result species either adapted or migrated of simple died out. Mitigation goes against the whole thing that has brought about man – kind to this earth.

    It is always good not to simply believe what you are told it is good to question it. I have children of my own a 14, 12 and 9 year old they are being taught that Co2 is pollution we use Co2 in many application we have it in our soft drinks. So if Co2 was bad then why is it in our drink?

    I had 1 of our country’s politicians tell me that what is of that stuff of Sydney I told him it is not Co2 because Co2 Colourless and Odourless. That is the real pollution that we need to lower and get rid of. That is the pollution that is harming out health and causing the cancers of our time.

    This is about form a new world order that was once never spoken about. This is about forming a Government that will be unelected and will take the power off our own Governments. It has been a dream of certain people for their life time. It is about control.

    It is very hard to divide to conquer to form a World Government. It is far easier to feed the masses rubbish that most don’t understand or is above their heads and to get them to unite to stop something that is not real and to give to promise the developing countries money from the developed country to get them on side but the developing counties have to sell their souls for that money.

    It has been reports in the newspaper that INVESTING in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a UN report.

    It also said in the newspaper report that in the report Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing two million giant wind turbines.

    The newspaper reports that the UN Population Fund report predicts the global population could reach 10.5 billion by 2050, up from 6.8 billion today, unless urgent action is taken to reduce fertility rates.

    It says even its medium-growth forecast of 2.3 billion more people by 2050, which assumes a fall in average fertility from 2.56 to 2.02 children per woman, would make it much harder to achieve the cuts in carbon emissions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

    Go and read this it is a report from the UN on populations. It is written in a form that makes it hard to read.

    UN Population Fund
    state of world population 2009
    Facing a changing world:
    women, population and climate

    http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/overview.shtml

    But here is a quote.
    WE ARE NOT SOME ONE’S FARM ANIMALS

    “SUSTAINABLE WORLD POPULATION”
    “The long-term effort to maintain population-wide human well-being in balance with atmosphere and climate will ultimately require sustainable patterns of consumption and production that can only be achieved and maintained in the context of a sustainable world population. ”

    OUTMODED REPLACED “MORE HOLISTIC”
    “Outmoded attitudes about “population control” have been replaced by more holistic, rights- and health-based views about population dynamics and their relationship to climate change.”

    WHAT RESEARCH WHERE IS IT
    “Research has shown for more than 15 years that merely satisfying unmet demand for family planning services would enable developing countries to meet their targets for lower fertility rates”

    Ask yourself WHAT RESEARCH AND WHAT AND WHO SET THE TARGETS FOR LOWER FERTILITY RATES.
    Please tell me about China’s 1 child policy

    Here is some information for you to start with.

    China’s 1 child policy China’s one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China’s population growth. Although designated a “temporary measure,” it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization.

    Fact

    Simple 2 people have 1 child normal a married western couple have children between 20 years of age to 45 years of age at the latest so every 20 to 25 years you are reducing the population br a ratio 2 to 1 person. So they are not even replacing their own population. Go and read the reports then go and read the newspapers. And that will give you a balance.

    What is happening in china is a plan for the rest of the world I am a father i have 3 children no one has the right to tell them how many children they can have. That is their right and their right alone.

    And if think that this sort of thing hasn’t happen before then Go & Research Eugenics
    and find pass history of government involvement and laws and programs that they have set up in the past.

    Please keep an open mind do you own research and then tell you friends.
    Don’t trust anyone not even yourself check check and triple check it is in your own best interest.
    This whole talk fest has to do with Energy Security and Energy Security alone it has to do with for filling long held dreams of a few powerful people to form a world government together with enabling a few to make money and big money on a trading system that will push up prices to force people and government to move away Carbon Base Energy mainly Oil and Gas and the vehicle that they are using to bring about the change was first called Global Warning now Called Climate Change.
    THE SMARTEST PERSON IS NOT THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THEY KNOW EVERTHING BUT IT IS THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS THEY HAVE MORE TO LEARN.
    THE MORE YOU KNOW THE MORE YOU DON’T KNOW!
    Please just research it all for yourself.
    Research the whole picture.
    Tools

  44. THREAD on October 20, 2010 at 2:11 pm said:

    “The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

    David Rockefeller

  45. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm said:

    See also: this thread

  46. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2010 at 7:12 pm said:

    Not-Richo – passing Troll, raiding JoNova from # 103

    Aka

    Not Richard:
    Still not Richard:
    So Richard was wrong:
    Richard still confused:
    I’m not Richard:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/#comments

    Thanks for passing by, Not-Richo, I’m forever in your debt.

    You buried me.

    Well played.

    But do your CLOUDS still have a silver lining?

  47. THREAD on October 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm said:

    THE CITIZEN AUDIT REPORT

    UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 “F”s on Report Card

  48. Richard C (NZ) on October 23, 2010 at 10:46 am said:

    CSIRO and BOM in cahoots here

  49. Richard C (NZ) on October 23, 2010 at 10:55 am said:

    Andy, please continue this conversation in “Open threads as promised’ here

  50. Global Warming’s Corrupt Science

    By Patrick J. Michaels

  51. THREAD on October 24, 2010 at 1:11 pm said:

    Climategate Google Suggest – Google Search

  52. THREAD on October 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm said:

    Google

  53. Richard C (NZ) on October 24, 2010 at 1:20 pm said:

    See See “Organisations: Societies, Universities, Companies, Greenpeace, WWF, ET AL”

    Google

  54. Richard C (NZ) on October 24, 2010 at 1:24 pm said:

    See “Controversies and Scandals”

    Climategate Google Suggest

  55. THREAD on October 24, 2010 at 2:08 pm said:

    RealClimate: Funding and Activism, Richard S. Courtney

  56. UN chief uses climate hoax to promote global governance

    Saturday, October 16, 2010

    UN Secretary-General Arrives in Morocco

    He will identify three main challenges for global governance: ensuring that the global economy works for all people; combating climate change; and addressing new challenges, such as migration and organized crime.

  57. When You Control The Forecast And The Data – Magic Happens

    “Antarctic cooling, global warming? …. the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly …… we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.

    Wow! the predictive skills of climate scientists is uncanny. Somewhere between 2006 and 2007, Antarctica did exactly what Gavin predicted. It switched from a long term cooling trend to a long term warming trend – in just one year!

  58. Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

    George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

    Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

    If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

  59. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 1:43 pm said:

    Global Warming’s Corrupt Science

    By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010

  60. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 1:53 pm said:

    Wind power reduces the value of homes

    Swedish Wind Energy appears in a new increase in the deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that properties near wind turbines drop significantly in value, among others, writes Elisabeth von Brömsen, Föreningen Svenskt Landskapsskydd. Confederation of Swedish Landscape Protection.

    [Wait 10 secs – Google Translate]

  61. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 4:45 pm said:

    More Lies About CO2

    Written by Doug L. Hoffman, Resilient Earth | 24 October 2010

    A new paper, penned by a group of known warmist scare mongers, claims to have proof that CO2 is the control knob that regulates Earth’s temperature. Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, and Reto A. Ruedy, all from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, are boasting they have experimental proof that “carbon dioxide is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s

  62. THREAD on October 28, 2010 at 8:35 am said:

    Futuristic climate schemes to get U.N. hearing

    By Alister Doyle, OSLO | Wed Oct 27, 2010

    (Reuters) – Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.

  63. val majkus on October 29, 2010 at 10:21 am said:

    James Delingpole has a good article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100060540/happy-climate-fools-day/
    quoting selectively
    I know what you’re thinking and I’ve heard about the “consensus” too. But when you can actually prove something you don’t need a consensus. That’s why you never hear about the consensus on gravity, or the consensus on evolution. Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is an awful lot like saying that 97% of priests believe in God. If they didn’t at least pretend to believe in global warming climate change climate disruption they wouldn’t be climate scientists – not of the sort that get public funding, anyway. And when those “scientists” have to delete their own source data to prevent it from being released under freedom of information laws they deserve the scare quotes because at that point they have stopped being a credible science and have become just another bunch of religious extremists.

    Simply put, the shoddy and disreputable field of climate “science” still has an awfully long way yet to go to actually prove that our six and a half pints of co2 are a problem of sufficient magnitude to justify such an obscene amount of public cash. Not when we are the only nation currently prepared to eviscerate our economy in such a way, making the entire exercise a futile gesture from the outset.

    and what does he say about the precautionary principle?

    Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail? A bit Nongqawuse? But surprisingly few of the politicians, bankers, civil servants, trans-national bureaucrats, academics, activists and energy companies who stand to receive a slice of this funding bonanza seem to see it that way. And who can blame them? Remarkably few of those pallets would be enough to turn most of us into true believers.

  64. THREAD on October 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm said:

    Chinese firms blamed in huge greenhouse gas scam
    Damian Carrington – smh
    October 28, 2010

    BRUSSELS: The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.

    The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ”total lack of environmental integrity”.

    Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.

    The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.

    The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.

  65. Andy says:
    October 30, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Chirk factory workers protest over ’subsidy threat’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11649996

    Mike McKenna, director of Kronospan’s Chirk factory, said the subsidies for electricity generators which use biomass encouraged them to take “the easy option” of burning freshly felled timber.

    He told BBC Radio Wales: “The easy option for them is cutting down trees and burning them for electricity generation.

    “That’s because the subsidies are worth more than twice the value of the wood.

    h/t Bishop Hill
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

  66. The Precautionary Principle

  67. The Consensus

  68. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2010 at 8:49 pm said:

    Solar flare-up will burn a hole in every pocket (NSW)

    Brian Robins and Tim Barlass October 31, 2010 – smh

    INVESTIGATION

    HOUSEHOLDS will pay an extra $600 on their electricity bill over six years to cover the $2 billion cost of the failure of the state government’s overly generous solar power scheme.

    If elected in March, the opposition will have the scheme, which runs to the end of 2016, reviewed by the auditor-general so that it can decide on its future.

    From midnight last Wednesday, the government slashed from 60¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt hour the tariff paid to households installing solar panel systems because the surging number of applications has blown out the scheme’s cost.

    In reports tabled in Parliament last week, the government disclosed that it had been advised that even after slashing the tariff for solar panels, it anticipated 777 megawatts of solar panels would be installed by the time the scheme closed.

    Already, 200 megawatts of capacity has either been installed or ordered.

    The reports detailed the total cost to households is forecast to reach $1975 million by 2017, placing a burden on homes at a time when power prices are rising sharply already

  69. val majkus on October 31, 2010 at 9:14 pm said:

    Richard your site is wonderful from a reference point of view but I do miss talking to people; is there something that can be done about that? Or should I just go to Jo Nova or WUWT for that aspect?

  70. I have to agree here. The threads have been great work (particularly by Richard C), but I think many would prefer some more opportunity to follow a conversation thread.

    I don’t know an easy solution other than to spawn off a separate reference site. Is this feasible?

    I’d be happy to chip in for any hosting if that was required.

  71. val majkus on October 31, 2010 at 10:27 pm said:

    Thanks Andy; Richard C is doing great work but a conversation thread would be a wonderful idea

    I mentioned this once before and I think someone mentioned a thread ‘talk now’ but I can’t find it or it may have disappeared in the deritus

    I suggest a thread called something like ‘conversation’; I like this site particularly because its frequenters are local (I think) and although we are not all scientists or computer modellers we can all learn off each other

    And so far we seem to have avoided the trolls which Jo Nova’s site has recently attracted

  72. val majkus on October 31, 2010 at 10:29 pm said:

    a better name ‘talk fest’

  73. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2010 at 11:13 pm said:

    The forum for talk fests is:

    “Open threads as promised”

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/

    I’ve used it to get feedback from Jo Nova and that worked well, see:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27133

    Just start a new thread with anything you want to talk about. I left some pointers around but they seem to have got lost.

    Remember that this was why Richard T provided “Open threads as promised”

  74. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2010 at 11:20 pm said:

    The forum for talk fests is:

    “Open threads as promised”

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/

    Just start a new thread with anything you want to talk about. I left some pointers around and I was hoping you would turn up here but no show:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-26757

    I’ve been talking to myself – I was was looking for some input re keywords as I’ve been using Rank Tracker to analyze CCG keywords..

    Remember that this was why Richard T provided “Open threads as promised”

  75. Val,

    The main point of this site is to provide a vehicle for conversation. You’ve probably noticed that the word conversation features in the name of the site! :>) I have been deeply pleased at the contributions that have been coming in over the last few months. So, no, please don’t go away! Go to all the sites, by all means, but you’re welcome to have conversations here.

    There are the “Open threads”, as you know, but the main vehicle is to discuss the individual posts. We need more of those, and so anybody is welcome to write one and submit it to me for publication. I encourage you to do so.

    For myself, I could happily sit here and read and write about global warming all the time. However, I must earn a living and I cannot indulge this fascinating (and necessary!) pastime. You may notice that I almost never contribute here in the morning; that’s because I have a major customer for editing who uses me most days for between 4 and 8 hours. I start early in the morning so I have time to service other customers during office hours if required. Rising at 4:45 am requires me to retire sometime between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm, so you won’t often see contributions from me later in the evening.

    Why am I telling you this? Because sometimes a message to me goes unanswered for hours; if you know when I’m likely to be on deck you know when to be patient. Also you might forgive me for not posting more stories. And finally, somebody might be inspired to lend a hand by writing stories, summarising items of news or passing on information.

    You all do a sterling job and I’m happy to report that October’s web traffic was a WordShine world record: 541,000 hits from 46,000 web sites. By country: 14% were from NZ, 60% from .net, .com and unknown, 1.3% (over 9000 hits) from the UK, down to 540 hits from South Africa.

    Now, last month was special because we were featured twice on WUWT and other blogs, however normal traffic isn’t too shabby either. September came to just over 202,000 hits from around the world (NZ hits were 47%). So a lot of people are wanting to read about global warming in a calm, rational tone. Perhaps I sometimes get too excited, but my aim is to remain rational! And many people are interested in our stoush with NIWA over the temp record. It’s great to be a source of inspiration for others. Barry Brill, Chairman of the NZCSC, is the moving force in that.

    Thanks for all your help; let’s keep going as we’re doing.

  76. Andy,
    See my reply to Val. Another site would involve twice the admin time and I think we can do both things here. As I said to Val, we just need more posts to stimulate a little more conversation.

    Thanks for your offer to help with costs, that’s tremendous. The October traffic spike took us from a normal 3 GB to 4 GB to just over 10 GB! Normally, that means an extra $60 for the month but I hope to negotiate something more reasonable. The site must not go down! There were several days last month when that almost happened, and without prompt action by the Kiwi Web Host Company to add free bandwidth (just for the one month) the great Climate Conversation would have been terminated until today!

    I should look into putting a Donate feature on the site… more research!!

    Thanks, Andy.

  77. Richard C,

    I want to echo what Val said, that you’re doing a wonderful job in adding the reference feature and a tremendous heap of references to the site! I only have time to quickly scan the messages as they cross my inbox, but I see them all and I’m learning a great deal. The best thing about it is that I know, when I have some time to peruse a particular topic, that I’ll find the references right here! All I need to do is follow a few of the obvious threads or just use the Google search feature that’s built right in to the site!

    So thank you, Richard C!

  78. val majkus on November 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm said:

    Thanks Richard for your message; yes, let’s keep going as we’re doing and I look forward to seeing a ‘donate’ button in the near future; I think with links that people offer on the various threads if each of us posters puts a brief summary of what the link is about that might stimulate more conversation and for me that would be great
    Also each of us should pass links to the site with our comments on other blogs we might visit such as on WUWT – that would increase traffic more over time; I’ve been doing my bit and I’m sure others have been doing the same

  79. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2010 at 4:44 pm said:

    Richard T, thanks for the up-date.

    I have been trying to shepherd the guys to “Open Threads as promised” for O/T conversations.

    Have been using it to talk to myself but did get some feedback from Jo Nova https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27133.

    I am very interested in the stats for CCG and have been doing some analysis myself with Rank Tracker and placed them in Open Threads as promised here https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27150

    I note that CCG wins hands down with the search engines over HT JoNova WUWT in search % using Alexa. I have registered CCG with Google to enable better cataloging but as you will see in Jo Novas feedback there is a fine line in gaming Google i.e quality content in posts is better than pushing Open Threads as a list site (easy to do but Google unhappy).

    BTW, I save EVERY Open Threads page to my local drive after significant contributions, so there is always a back-up for me and for you if you need it. The bulk of the structure is in place now so I don’t see me putting the in a lot more and will be going for targeted quality contributions from now on especially with the new science findings that are coming in (a bewildering amount this year – mostly ignored by warmists.

    I would also be interested in sponsoring “Open Threads” one day as I have probably put in the most data and it is a fantastic resource for me and I am sure others will find it eventually (including trolls). I’m not flush with cash at the moment though – some big bills coming up including hospital.

  80. Climate change game launched

    Published: 7:00AM GMT 01 Nov 2010 – Telegraph UK

    An educational computer game in which users have to save the world from climate change offers an interesting solution – decide the problem is overpopulation and design a virus to kill millions.

    Fate of the World goes on sale on Tuesday and has been praised by gaming experts and climate campaigners as a way of reaching new audiences in the fight against carbon emissions.

    However, climate change sceptics may be surprised and angered by some of the strategies on offer in the game which is being released on PCs and Apple Macs.

    As the head of a fictional international body the user must save the world from soaring temperatures, increasing floods and deadly droughts.

    The game, developed by Red Redemption, an Oxford-based design company, uses real data and input from scientists and has best been described as a Football Manager for eco-enthusiasts.

    Users are presented with a budget, environmental data, and a series of energy policies which range from emissions caps and investment in biofuels to continue investing in fossil fuels.

    Other more extreme policies are also available such as creating a disease to reduce the world’s population or geoengineering, such as cloud seeding from planes.

    The game, described on its website as a “dramatic global strategy game”, takes you forward 200 years to see the outcome of your decisions, including whether major species such as the polar bear have been condemned to extinction.

    The blurb reads: “You must manage a balancing act of protecting the Earth. Resources and climate versus the needs of an ever-growing world population, who are demanding ever more food, power, and living space. Will you help the whole planet or will you be an agent of destruction?”

    H/T Andy

  81. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2010 at 7:10 pm said:

    ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’

    Judith Curry
    Climate etc
    Oct 26, 2010

    November 19, 2009: bucket of cold water #2. When I first saw the climategate emails, I knew these were real, they confirmed concerns and suspicions that I already had. After my first essay “On the credibility . . .” posted at climateaudit, I got some emails that asked me to be sensitive to the feelings of the scientists involved. I said I was a whole lot more worried about the IPCC, in terms of whether it could be saved and whether it should be saved. I had been willing to substitute the IPCC for my own personal judgment [in public statements], but after reading those emails, the IPCC lost the moral high ground in my opinion. Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment.

  82. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2010 at 7:14 pm said:

    East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – Searchable

  83. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 11:31 am said:

    James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is “Criminal”

    Steve Watson
    Prisonplanet.com
    Friday, Oct 29th, 2010

    Lock up the dissenters?

    James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is Criminal 291010CameronGoogle CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, “criminal”.

    The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.

    “If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.

    During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”

    “I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.

    “People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.

    “We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”

  84. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 11:35 am said:

    See – James Cameron and Google CEO: Questioning Warming Science is “Criminal”

  85. Funny how Google are quite happy to serve up the “sceptic” ads, even for arcane programming sites that having nothing to do with climate

    Let’s take a look at some of the vested interests in the Silicon Valley “club”:

    (Note: Prop 23 is the proposed bill to delay the climate legislation in CA)

    The last stand for climate change has brought John Doerr, a leading green tech investor with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, to the table. Doerr has given $500,000 to defeat Prop 23. And he’s not alone.

    Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google CEO Eric Schmidt and founder of the 11th Hour Project, a Silicon Valley environmental grant-making nonprofit, donated $500,000 to NRDC’s No Prop 23 Committee

    To date, the heaviest hitter on Team No is Thomas Steyer, the press-shy founder of San Francisco hedge fund Farallon Capital Management. Steyer, a big donor to Democratic candidates, has pledged $5 million and stepped forward to co-chair the No on 23 Committee with George Schulz, the Republican former secretary of state.

    http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-17-texas-oil-v.-california-clean-tech-the-battle-over-Prop-23/P1

    Not only do these guys have vested interests in “green” technology and truck loads of money, they also effectively control the internet.

    I’m not so worried about Cameron, but Schmidt gives me the creeps.

  86. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 12:39 pm said:

    “I’m not so worried about Cameron”

    Cameron had massive reach with Avatar and the sequel will be filmed in NZ.

    He gets into kids minds (and grown-ups) so I think he’s every bit as dangerous as Schmidt – just a different medium.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 12:44 pm said:

    10:10 spin til it hurts

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/1010-spin-til-it-hurts/

    After the marketing disaster of the century, 10:10 desperately needed to save some face. They had accidentally showed us their totalitarian desires and lost at least 20,000 members in a week. How embarrassing.

    How do you hide that? In true PR form, you frame your membership numbers and “save” the members you lost: keep the thousands of people (or fakers) who have joined and then left your group on your tally. (Just don’t call it “current members”.)

    On their new redesigned home page they say they have 110,340 worldwide …wait for it…”sign ups”.

  88. The 10-10 event page that Jo links to is hilarious:

    e.g

    In Germany there will be a low carbon speed dating event.
    (Breeding is low carbon?)

    There will be a zero carbon music festival in Portugal.
    (No food, no amps, sounds like fun)

    British schools will have Fuel Free Fridays and students will compete to design the best eco school.
    (British schools better get used to being fuel-free – it will become the norm)

  89. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm said:

    I missed this – can’t think why:

    “Who’s doing what to mark the Global Day Of Doing on Oct 10?”

    All that wild eco partying sounds like fun (to disparage).

    Oh well, perhaps there will be a “Global Day Of Doing” next year.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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