Climate change mafia moves to suppress "Great Global Warming Swindle"

Looks like Google and youtube blocked the accounts of the great ‘Global Worming’ scam.

Those who demand you believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace also demand you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Aussie News & Views Jan 1 2009

For, as this documentary shows, many thousands of people are on this “gravy train” and have no intention of letting the tax-generated funding (and their jobs) be taken away from them.

The Global Warming agenda is part of a neo-marxist strategy to halt world progress (particularly in the developing countries) and to bring about more and more regulation of society – as if we didn’t have enough already!

See if you can get these links to work, good luck!


Burger King Calls Global Warming ‘Baloney’ reports the Memphis Flyer on his website Photograph:

A row between the fast food giant Burger King and one of its major franchise owners has erupted over roadside signs proclaiming “global warming is baloney”. Source>>


Greatest polluters are uninterested: China has already indicated its opposition to carbon cuts. India joins in:

India said it will reject any new treaty to limit global warming that makes the country reduce greenhouse-gas emissions because that will undermine its energy consumption, transportation and food security.

“India will not accept any emission-reduction target – period,” [Environment Minister Jairam] Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.” 

Look on the bright side, envirodinks. Think of all the emissions saved by not going to Copenhagen. 


Doing to ourselves what warming won’t

Andrew Bolt – Friday, July 03, 

The most bizarre example so far of how fear of global warming causes more damage than global warming itself:

MILLIONS of dollars worth of luxury waterfront homes at Byron Bay will be demolished in the name of climate change following a council decision to enshrine “planned retreat” in law.

Global warming shrinks sheep

Andrew Bolt – Friday, July 03, 


Top this:

Sheep living on a remote island off the coast of Scotland have been shrinking for 20 years. Now it seems shorter winters caused by climate change are responsible.

Amazingly enough, global warming is blamed even though it’s cooled over the past eight of those 20 years:


Koran: ‘This book must not be doubted”- Climate Changers: “this theory must not be doubted”

  • Who misleads?  who benefits most?

The ABC’s Emma Alberici yesterday tried to smear Senator Steve Fielding as the dupe of corrupt scientists, paid by Big Oil to deny global warming.

ALBERICI: Bob Ward (above) – a policy director at the London School of Economics – first wrote to ExxonMobil in 2006. He was concerned about the financial support the company provided to climate change deniers

WARD: They have stopped funding for a number of the groups that have been denying climate change but they haven’t stopped funding them all. Yet they have been telling people that they have stopped all that funding. So I think they should either own up that they are continuing funding for some of these groups or they should keep their promise.

ALBERICI: How many groups and what are the kinds of figures we are talking about as far as sums of money?

WARD: Several hundred thousand dollars a year… These organisations are not informing public debate on climate change, they are trying to mislead people…

Already a couple of things scream out from this report. First, if Fielding’s facts are wrong, then why not simply show why, rather than smear? But if they are right, then what does it matter if Big Oil helped to fund some of the groups publicising the science? All I see here are red herrings.

Second, why does Alberici – who is better than this – stoop to use the term “denier”, which is not only false but a deliberate and disgraceful attempt to align sceptical scientists and politicians with Holocaust deniers?

But here is the most astonishing thing about Alberici’s report. Not only is the money ExxonMobil gives an insigificant fraction of the billions handed out to global warming scientists and spruikers, but it’s also a fraction of the money that Ward’s own Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE got from a global warming evangelist to preach the doomsday gospel:

Jeremy Grantham has given British universities £24m in a bid to save the planet… The British financier, who founded the Boston-based investment fund GMO, which has £55 billion under its management, gave the money to the London School of Economics (LSE) to fund an institute for researching the economics of climate change. A similar amount went to Imperial College London to study climate science.

Altogether, the £24m is one of the largest donations ever made to climate research… So why did Yorkshire-born Grantham do it?

“Because climate change is turning into the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. I wanted to invest my money in places where it might actually help tackle that problem,” said the financier last week…

Which makes Ward a monumental hypocrite.He complains that a few hundred thousand dollars from Big Oil corrupts debate, but says nothing about the more than $20 million his own university gets from Big Warming.

Why did Alberici not mention this?

So here’s the deal for the ABC. Debate the science, but if you must claim that the funding corrupts, at least admit which side gets the most of it.

23 thoughts on “Climate change mafia moves to suppress "Great Global Warming Swindle"”

  1. The global warming scam ranks right up there in the top as far as the biggest deceptions going on the world. [Islam is no.1 with a bullet] The concept that “greenhouse gases” would either cause the earth to over heat, or even cool down is contradicted by the basis of the theory to begin with…which makes the whole hysteria movement even more absurd. If you block more of the sun’s rays, by the same action you will trap more heat from escaping into outer space & vice versa for a cooling theory.

    These sites are the two best I give to people to follow the truth concerning this global lie.

    Great sites exposing the pathetic lies.

  2. This the usual, we know better crowd looking after their own myopic interests. Load it up with scare tactics and guilt and the herd will follow.

  3. This ‘Inconvenient Truth’ for the Global Warming LIAR Al ‘I invented the internet’ Gore has yet to percolate in to the brain of the extreme left wing, incompetent, inexperienced, narcissistic, LIAR Messiah and first Mohammedan President of the USA the BOGUS POTUS , Laughing Jackass, Teleprompter Kid , ‘you can call me HUSSEIN now’, Barrack O-BOW-ma. He will STILL go ahead with his ‘cap and trade’, taxation and all the other Green NAZI things he has already got planned. You know left wing ‘neolib’ Moonbats wont let a simple thing like the truth stop them from taking control of your life and the sheeple who love him so much will follow like well SHEEP.

  4. Hi,
    Actually the truth is that we simply do not yet understand our climate engine fully. This means that GW could be more significant or less significant. Climate models represent our best guess, and until an analytic treatment is available ( 🙂 smile as we wait for another few centuries) it should be regarded as an indicator only. The real questions are not that climate change will happen or even over what time scale (though that is highly relevant), but how to best deal with what happens socially and politically. These are questions we can answer – the others are beyond our present levels of technology and science. We need to decide how we should react to a worst case situation – and it is not necessary that we predict correctly what exactly the worst case situation will be.
    best regards

  5. There can be no doubt that global warming and cooling is real. 2000 years ago, what is now the north African desert was the breadbasket of the Roman empire. Israel was the land of milk and honey, when the Jews got it back 2000 years later it too was a desert.Since global warming is man-made, this change can only be attributed to Islam. When an entire continent knocks its head on the ground whilst sticking its arse in the air the only result can be a massive amount of flatulence and it is well known that methane is worse than CO 2.

    At the same time the middle east was drying up, in the year 1000 the Vikings started their voyages of exploration. They discovered Canada, known as Vineland because of the grapes growing in Newfoundland. They discovered Greenland and set up flourishing colonies there. They mysteriously disappeared a few 100 years later when it got too cold to survive and grow crops. A major motive power for the Viking long boats was rowing. Those Danes and Swedes and Norwegians rowing across the Atlantic all those times must have exhaled so much CO2 en route that be the time they arrived the place had frozen over.

    My points is that there is global warming and cooling, there has always been, any changes now put mankind into a critical position which no one dares to address. Fourty years ago there was a severe drought in Ethiopia, the world was bombarded with pitiful images of the 5 million starving children. There was another severe drought ten years ago, this time there were 20 million starving. Changes in climate will be catastrophic only because in the last century the population has quadrupled. 100 years ago a lower rainfall caused inconvenience. When you have 4 people fighting for the water that may have done for one you have trouble. In another 50 years you will have 6 people fighting for that same drop of water. Coastlines have been eroding for centuries, when that happened you moved inland a bit, now there is nowhere to move to. The solution is very simple, if the poor and underdeveloped countries of the world do not learn to limit their populations to survive on what the land can support global warming will do the job for them.

  6. Thanks Kaw, there’s some sound reasoning there in the idea of preparing for a worst case scenario. As a research scientist I will say that while we have some unanswered questions about the climate, the scientific approach is to allow scope for the various possibilities. This has been done, and the AGW forecasts specifically allow for these uncertainties.

    Our understanding of AGW is an interesting story because it has come to us via grass-roots scientists that have observed, measured and made predictions for over a century now. Until the last few years they have received very little funding and have been actively opposed and censored by one government after another. Scientists from every political persuasion have independently found that their predictions all line up, but the big oil producing & dependent nations who have a lot to lose – the US, the Arab OPEC nations and China have done everything in their power to silence the message. The “Great Global Warming Swindle” is a great example. Unless you’re up with the science you wouldn’t recognise that the “science” it raises are ideas that were disproven many years ago.

    Contrary to the Sheik’s misinformation above, real action on Global Warming will greatly accelerate world progress particularly in developing coutries by moving us on from the 18th century technology of fossil fuels. Why should that one industry have such a stranglehold on us? What do we owe them?

  7. Cool it:

    “When it comes to global warming,” declares the Beaver County Times, “every little bit helps.” So paint your roof white and drive a hybrid. Meanwhile, this is happening:

    I let you go and sort out the carbs, go ahead, Mr ‘scientist’.

    Here’s more:

    “Global Warming” caused by CO2 emmissions has been proved completely, finally, and by multiple sources to be false. Make no mistake, the US is driving this bus and nearly the entire world is on board. We have put some Al Gore-loving environmentalist scoundrels in office and I don’t know how this will end, other than badly. Here’s what Robert Heinlein said about them –

    There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring ‘artificialities’ with which “Man has spoiled Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of ‘Nature’ but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the ‘Naturist’ reveals his hatred for his own race – i.e., his own self-hatred.
    In the case of ‘Naturists’ such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
    As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women – it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly ‘natural.’
    Believe it or not, there were ‘Naturists’ who opposed the first flight to the Moon as being ‘unnatural’ and a ‘despoiling of Nature.’
    – Robert Heinlein

    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting education to seize early the minds of the young, and killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Unfortunately, that’s what we’re looking at here, and the suppression via the US media, with the exception of Fox, has been unusually brutal.

    Navy Chief of Utah USA (Reply)

  8. I don’t know if you realise Sheik that your source Robert Heinlein was a science fiction writer who died 21 years ago before we learnt the majority of what we know about Global Warming. His authority to discredit Global Warming should be taken as seriously as JRR Tolkien would be if he prophesied that Australia will be overrun by orcs and trolls in 2010.

    To believe in AGW doesn’t mean we think that humans are bad – quite the opposite. It means that we think that humans are intelligent enough to learn. But fair enough, not all are. When we learn that certain actions are causing sea levels to rise so that capital cities and 3rd world nations like Bangladesh will be flooded, when we learn that our actions are heating the oceans and causing increased intensity in hurricanes and when we learn that melting glaciers in the himalayas are jeopardising the water supplies to 1 billion people, intelligent people decide to change their behaviour.

    You’ll find that not only has AGW been accepted enough to influence laws and education, so have other areas of science such as gravity and the idea that the earth is not flat. In fact I suspect that if you wanted to set up a school that taught a flat earth and that cars are powered by tiny little men in frilly skirts, you would probably be suppressed. Do you really think you’re onto something there Sheik? If you do want to debate me that’s great, but try not to rely on Robert Heinlein, Douglas Adams or AA Milne. Come back with some facts or else leave Global Warming alone.

    Of course, you could just block me again if you can’t think of anything to say and still want to make people believe rubbish.

    1. I don’t want to debate you, Christian, because you are an unapologetic crackpot and distractor. You are wasting my time.

      Fact is, “Climate Change” is big business. Fact is, there has never been a climate change debate in Australia. Only dogma.

      Fact is, the Goracle made himself over hundred million dollars with his ‘climate change’ scare, and jets around the world in his private guzzler to turn halfwits into climate change zealots. A lot of people jumped on the bandwagon of this false religion to fill their pockets, and when you take a closer look, its almost entirely the lefty loony professors in the universities who are hoping for more handouts for some obscure “research programs”.

      Another fact is, that it is the worlds biggest fraud. The biggest fraud in that it will transfer huge amounts of wealth from the first world to the third world, where it will be squandered.

      Making us all poor by destroying our industry, our society, culture and civilization by importing large numbers of hostile and fast breeding Mohammedans will certainly change the climate. But in other ways than what is commonly known as ‘global worming’. I spit on this pseudo ‘science’ and more and more people are realizing that we are taken for a ride. (By the government btw, not by your “grass roots researchers”)
      If Robert Heinlein, Douglas Adams or AA Milne are no good to you, check this out: Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?

      Here’s another one: If a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a sound?

      The climate change e-mails EPA doesn’t want you to see/ Michelle Malkin

      According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

      Take a deep breather, let it sink in, and don’t believe the government propaganda. You are a grown man now, or are you not?

      Btw, this little mushroom affects the earths atmosphere more than all the emissions of Australia…

  9. Explain how discussing Global Warming is a distraction from your article on Global Warming or else stop trying to mislead people.

    To call something a fact, you need to be able to back that up with evidence. Simply stating a whole lot of ideas that you would like to believe and calling them facts doesn’t qualify. Neither does the fact that a journalist and a politician are now skeptical about the science. The issue is what the science says.

    Now I appreciate that it is difficult for people in other fields to get their heads around the 100’s or 1000’s of facts that come into play in a complex system like the climate, you will naturally take someone’s advice along the way. The difficulty is that because this stuff is way over most people’s heads, it’s too easy to just pick what you want to believe. Especially when believing differently might cause you some inconvenience. A writer like Plimer stands to do quite well out of his book. The great majority of readers like the journalist in your story are not aware that he is simply rehashing old arguments that have been completely disproven, that he presents ‘data’ with no sources so that we just have to take his word for it and that he deliberately changes data to make his points.

    This is the real issue with people complaining that there hasn’t been any debate on the matter. It’s complete rubbish. Science is nothing but debate. Every single paper published on climate change has been debated by other experts in the field in a process called peer review ( I explained this process to you once before – The real issue is the question of who is going to debate it? Do we keep the current system where experts in the field debate the work, or do we do what the oil companies tell us and put all of the statistical anayses out there for bricklayers, school teachers, hairdressers, soccer mums, journalists, politicians and sheiks to tell us whether they like them or not?

    This is the “2 sides to the story” that we have. One one hand we have the worlds scientists continuing what they have done all of their careers – meeting strict standards and being debated time and again by other scientists before they publish their final refined papers. On the other hand we have Exxon Mobil contributing US$29,000,000 for commercials that discredit Climate Change and lobbyists that will make deals with politicians to make them ignore the data. We have Ian Plimer publishing his non peer-reviewed book where he claims that the thousands of peer reviewed scientists are all wrong and he is right even if he has to make up the facts to prove it. And we have the Heartland Institute and others happily taking the petro dollars and running conferences with financial incentives for anyone who can produce a non peer-reviewed paper that will cast doubt on the science. It’s as dodgy as the fact that the Bush Government ordered details in EPA studies to be changed and joined with Saudi Arabia to stop the IPCC producing their last report on climate change until they changed the wording. You’re stuck between science on one hand and big money on the other.

    1. Christian: I told you before, you are wasting my time and you are wasting yours.

      Your belief-based zealotry is gibberish and devoid of any facts. You have not even made an attempt to answer my writing above. You are unable to debate but you childishly insist I should accommodate your beliefs. I don’t. Provide evidence. Provide facts. Prove me wrong instead of accusing me of “misleading” people. I don’t.

      Name your ‘scientists’ and your ‘experts’ who are not to be doubted (like the Koran, that dirty book.)

      The economy is in a recession and the globe hasn’t warmed a bit in a decade. In fact it’s cooled a bit. Australia is even getting ready to dump their own C&P program. Prove me wrong!

      The Debate is Over When You Won’t Debate

      Here’s the latest:
      To riff off of PG’s post:

      Last night Henry Waxman tacked another 300 pages onto the Cap and Trade bill under debate in the House today. That brings this 1000+ page document to 1300 or so – wonder if it’s even going to be read by many of the reps who are to vote on it? Support is still a bit tottery but they are forecasting it’ll squeak by.

      Part of the reason the vote will be close is because even some Dems wonder at the wisdom of foisting an energy tax onto the backs of consumers at a time when gas is creeping back up towards $3 a gallon, the economy is in a recession and the globe hasn’t warmed a bit in a decade. In fact it’s cooled a bit. Australia is even getting ready to dump their own C&P program.

      Kimberly Strassel sums up the “warmist’s” dilemma quite well in today’s Wall Street Journal:

      The Constitution Club
      A Group Blog
      The World Cooling On Global Warming

      Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

      She’s referring to that clampdown we saw a year or more ago when Al Gore and the Warmists annouced the debate was over and then tried to get dissenters fired. Lefty rags denounced Skeptics as “Deniers” and tried to set them on a moral par with those who refuse to believe the Holocaust ever happened. This was a big red flag to many. When you’re in the right on an issue you don’t squelch debate – you pursue it. Debate gives you a chance to prove you’re, well, right! Strassel shows us why:

      The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

      The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

      Gore et al saw this coming. They understood that it’s impossible to push an agenda based on the Globe Warming when the globe ain’t. Hence the switcheroo from warming as a science issue to a moral one. You have a right to debate facts, but you don’t have a right to be immoral. Disagreement with the warmist orthodoxy now makes you a bad person.

      Hence the current rush to get as much pushed through as soon as possible. Warmists have to make hay while the sun shines. Strassel sums it up:

      Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That’s made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won’t be alone.

      The future’s not bright for Al Gore & Company.

      How climate change, historic legislation, tax loopholes, wealth transfer and million dollar green jobs are all related!


      Over the years, the anti-growth lobby has used the global warming issue very effectively. They have received even more significant levels of funding. One estimate puts the U.S. contribution to climate research today at $10 billion per year and climbing.

      * How does that compare with your paltry 29 advertising millions from the oil-companies?

      Unfortunately, the alarmists have effectively captured the funding allocation process.

      An important question to ask now is: What have we gotten for that investment? In my opinion, surprisingly little. Of course, the computing capacity has been increased, and the models have become bigger and more complex, and they have been able to include better detail in some of the air-ocean interactions, but they still are a long way from modeling detailed phenomena very well. And of course, many of the most critical phenomena are still represented in the computer models by an assumed interaction or feedback process. And thus, the models are still susceptible to the same predestination of results as was the “Club of Rome” model….

      Read the whole thing, here…

  10. Hello Sheikyermami:
    I have been following the present debate with great interest, and am very grateful to your most valuable forum for allowing me the opportunity to stick my oar in.
    I am a lifelong skeptic (I’m 69), completely devoid of any patience for pseudoscience, (especially psychoanalysis, but that’s another story), and warm fuzzy new age ecobabble. Still, I am persuaded that global warming is in fact a demonstrable phenomenon, with highly disturbing implications. I believe that you are perfectly correct when you argue
    that the issue has been hijacked by professional alarmists, and that the consequences will be neither so immediate nor so catastrophic as proposed in all the doomsday scenarios. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the issue needs to be carefully monitored on an ongoing basis, and that strategies to counteract any consequent harmful manifestations must be researched and preemptive contingency plans devised and put into place.
    Although I am myself a scientist, I can lay no claim to any specialized knowledge of climatology. I do feel, however, that my lifelong committment to analytical thought and the scientific method enables me to assess research in fields apart from my own with a degree of sophistication. May I recommend the two-part feature in the May/Jun
    and July/August, 2007 editions, vol. 31, #s 3 & 4, of “The Skeptical Inquirer?” A concise summary of the most compelling arguments may be found in the May/Jun edition, pp 5-7.
    In fact, my primary purpose in submitting this present is not to argue the pros and cons of climate change, but rather to place the issue in the proper perspective with regard to the goals of this marvelous forum; to my mind, global warming is one issue, and the pressing threat of a world caliphate is another, and we must not be distracted from the principal threat, which as far as I am concerned is the latter, by allowing ourselves to clash with each other over a peripheral concern.
    Even if we accept the most bloated predictions of doom, those proposed by the most radical of the global warming alarmists, we have at least another fifty to one hundred years before we are all drowned in the encroaching oceans, but we will enjoy no such luxury when confronting the terrifying advance of the religion of peace. We must surely discipline ourselves, and put first things first; every day we need to remind ourselves that Western Europe and North America are not having enough children to replace the parents, while the bad guys are averaging between five and six children per breeding pair. I was severely discouraged just the other day to learn that the USA, thought to be the one western country replacing the parents at the rock bottom rate of 2.3 children per couple, would in fact be reproducing at a rate of only 1.9 per couple if the Latino population were excluded from the equation.
    A far as I can see, developing alternative sources of energy is a win-win situation whether the fear of global warming is justified or not; every wind turbine, every electric car and every gram of biofuel will reduce our reliance upon the very people who are sworn to destroy our democratic, tolerant and inclusive way of life. Eventually, we would be spared the humiliation of watching Barak Hussein (as well as his predecessor) groveling before their saudi masters.
    Please, brothers and sisters, let us address ourselves to the task at hand, and to no other. Once we have preserved democracy and freedom from a cruel, vicious, stultifying and misogynic ninth century theocracy we’ll be able to relax over a few beer and leisurely debate global warming, socialized medicine, welfare reform, illegal immigration, etc., etc., to our hearts’ content.

    1. Thanks, suprkufr.

      Here’s where I concur:

      Even if we accept the most bloated predictions of doom, those proposed by the most radical of the global warming alarmists, we have at least another fifty to one hundred years before we are all drowned in the encroaching oceans, but we will enjoy no such luxury when confronting the terrifying advance of the religion of peace. We must surely discipline ourselves, and put first things first; every day we need to remind ourselves that Western Europe and North America are not having enough children to replace the parents, while the bad guys are averaging between five and six children per breeding pair.

      My argument about the ‘global worming’ scare is that everything about it is dodgy, especially the people and the motive behind it. Transfer of wealth from the first world to non-developing nations will not change their behavior, but it will make us all poorer. I’m all for cleaning up our environment, but our countries are already environmentally conscious, over the last 30 years we have cleaned up most of our rivers, reduced pollution and our factories have moved to China, India and elsewhere.

      Our impact on climate, (by our I mean America, Australia, Europe) is insignificant compared with the damage China, India-Pakistan and all those ‘developing nations’ cause. The idea that cows, sheep or our farts are causing ‘global warming’ is just too idiotic to contemplate. One volcano eruption can cause more global warming (or cooling) than all the flatulence of the world combined. If China doesn’t sign up, why should we bankrupt our countries to follow some bizarre ideas which are not only unproven, but distract from the real problems?

      Overfishing the oceans, deforestation, pollution, those are real problems, but these are problems we can do something about, at least in our own backyard.

      Muslim invasion is an immediate problem and an ongoing nightmare. This is the most important problem in the world today, and only a complete reversal of Mohammedan migration to the dar-al Harb will keep our countries safe for future generations. We have to treat the Mohammedans as what they are: our implacable enemies, just like we saw the Communists during the cold war, and not assist them in subversion, propaganda and proselytizing. This is where our politicians, those who are sworn to protect us, are failing us miserably. This will need to change, priorities first. I don’t have a need for pontificating KRudd and his Socialist pipe-dreams, cronyism that puts him and his mates in charge of overpaid ‘climate-change’ jobs, while everything else goes down the tube.

      A plea from Hugh Fitzgerald:

      Stop, for god’s sake stop, importing trouble—and Muslim immigrants, as a whole, necessarily mean trouble, in all lands where the political and legal institutions, and social arrangements, are flatly contradicted by the Shari’a. Muslims are obligated to change or tear down those institutions, in order to remove all “obstacles to Islam.” It is not special or individual malice that prompts that attitude. That is their duty, a central duty. Why not come to fully and soberly understand that duty, and out of a minimal sense of self-preservation, cease to import those into our lands (America, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and every other place that has so generously admitted, under a twisted definitiion of “refugees,” people who do not, and can not, wish our ways or institutions or constitutions well.

  11. As far as I can see, your argument is basically that public support for action on climate change is falling due to the economic downturn and the rising price of fuel, therefore the climate isn’t warming. Have I missed anything?

    You raised two points that can be debated on a factual level – the claim that temperatures have not warmed in the past decade, and the idea that volcanoes contribute more greenhouse gases than people.

    On the first issue, you need to understand that natural systems don’t move in straight lines. A warming trend doesn’t mean that every year will be warmer than those before it, but that the average temperature over time will increase. Changes in solar activity or the El Nino Southern Oscillation Index can have significant influences and cause a run of years slightly under the trend as the temperature record indicates, but time has demonstrated a net increase in the long run. In order to find out whether the increase is genuine or not, we don’t look just at the average but at the standard deviation so that we can determine whether the change is ‘statistically significant’ or not. If there are large changes between years (a lot of up and down), we have a large standard deviation and there needs to be more data points to work out significance. Now have a look at the temperature record and see whether it looks like the last decade has cooled or not. It’s pretty obvious that it hasn’t, so why are some saying that it has? You’ve heard of lies, damned lies and statistics – if you don’t count all the years in the decade and you “cherry pick” which one you start with (eg start on a warmer than trend year and finish on a cooler one), you can say that there is no statistical significance. It’s not that things haven’t warmed on average, it’s just that you’ve unscrupulously manipulated the statistics to fit the argument you wanted to make. It works as long as people are gullible enough to just believe them rather than looking at the trend for themselves.

    Sorry to break it to you, but volcanoes are not a new thing to science. They form part of the global carbon cycle – releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which are taken up by natural processes such as forest growth and formation of calcareous shells in sea life which settle to the ocean floor and form limestone. The system finds a natural balance unless it’s pushed to it’s limits. Too much CO2 acidifies the oceans to the point that calcium dissolves and the carbon sink is lost. This is where we come in. By digging up all of the underground carbon sinks and cutting down the forests we break the natural balance and tip it in favour of the volcanoes. They have always been there and been balanced out by the working system, but there’s nothing to balance out our contributions as well. A long time ago scientists were examining what the temperature would be if only volcanoes etc were adding greenhouse gases, and then comparing it to what it would be factoring in our contributions. Your volcano idea is one of those long ago disproven fallacies I mentioned in my last post, but fair enough – you’re not a scientist and you wouldn’t know that. That’s why the idea of debating complex science in the media is such a con; crooks can say whatever they like and you wouldn’t know.

    Just briefly on the consensus idea – I understand your confusion there. Yes, there are scientists and those who claim to be scientists that disagree with the consensus, but I bring you back again to what I said about evidence and peer review. Reality is not decided by a vote, we learn about it through evidence. The consensus idea dates back to 2004 when a random sample of 928 peer reviewed articles on climate change were examined in a transparent, peer-reviewed study and it was found that every single article agreed that the climate was warming and that humans had caused it. Now as with any other area of science there will always be scientists that disagree – I was one for a long time; but the point is whether they have based their position on evidence or not. I am 100% free to use government funding for climate studies to publish a peer-reviewed article that shoots a hole in our current thinking. Every person, yourself included, is free to do that and they will not be stopped. Since 2004 there have been a couple of peer-reviewed articles that disagree with the consensus but their findings have no bearing on the overall picture except to add a tiny biy of ‘noise’ to the stats. If Plimer or anyone else could produce any real evidence that things aren’t as bad as we think I can tell you honestly that there would be a lot of very happy scientists that I work with. But the problem is that they can’t get rubbish through peer review because they bodgy up the stats and they make up claims that can’t be supported. So to get their work published they have to get money from the oil companies. That’s the difference between Government funding and oil money – Government funding lets you find whatever answer the data tells you, oil funding says that they will only publish you if you can make things look good for their industry. Hence we have the Heartland Institute and their buddies.

    So, you have raised 2 good examples where we have scientists producing peer-reviewed science on one hand using funding that is accessible by anyone, and on the other hand we have pseudo scientists being paid to twist data to give a specific outcome. Sorry mate, you’ve been had.

    Now if you’d like to explain to me how any of that is belief-based zealotry and that you’re not just projecting your issues onto me then go for your life. But please don’t just cut and paste from someone else’s website, put your own grey matter to work and think through the issue a bit more.

  12. Wilful ignorance is that great characteristic where some people have all of the information laid out for them simply, yet they choose to stay stupid rather than grow up. While you choose to avoid the dumbed-down science I have given you on this Sheik, you’re being wilfully ignorant. I agree with suprkufrB that you should avoid the subject, but you’ve raised it now and I disagree with your ignorant stance.

    I challenge you to back the idea that warming will not have any bad effects for a long time. Demonstrate that you know better than all of the world’s experts.

    I challenge you to back your ridiculous claim that action means taking resources from the developing world into our own hands.

    As I mentioned once before, the World Health organisation estimates that 150,000 people die annually already from the effects of AGW. How does that compare to the death toll from jihad? And guess what – jihad is only going to be on the rise as people lose their land and want someone else’s.

    It’s time to stop the games and grow up Sheik.

  13. Christian,

    “I challenge you to back your ridiculous claim that action means taking resources from the developing world into our own hands.”

    I never made such a claim. How did you get that idea?

    Name your ’scientists’ and your ‘experts’ who are not to be doubted , Mr “challenger”. Or be gone!

    I don’t care for any UN organization. The UN is the most discredited, corrupt bunch of parasites on the face of the earth.

    “How does that compare to the death toll from jihad? And guess what – jihad is only going to be on the rise as people lose their land and want someone else’s.”

    Mate, if I ever seen ignorance and stupidity on display, you’re it! This is just about the dumbest statement I’ve seen on this blog. Tell that to the Christians and Jews who had to run from Muslim countries, tell that to the Kashmir pandits, tell it to the Copts in Egypt! Tell it to those who had to live under Muslim rule as dhimmies.

    But of course “jihad is only going to be on the rise as people lose their land and want someone else’s”- in your book that means Jews bad, Pali-Arabs good. Does it not?

    “Global Worming” and Jew-hatred: cheaper when you buy the whole bag!

    And you are telling me to “grow up?”


    Sure you don’t have more than a dog in this fight, Phil?

    Since you’re working for the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) its no wonder you are upset, Phil. Because your ass is on the line when this whole fraud is exposed.

    You might even have to go out and get a real job. No wonder!

    Since you are a direct beneficiary of this ‘global worming’ scare, why wouldn’t you defend your cushy little job?

    Tim Blair – Saturday, June 27, 09 (01:31 am)

    Climate change is stomping West Timor, according to a review of all available data:
    Oxfam’s West Timor program manager Aloysius Suratin said there was evidence the problem was growing worse, as farmers were at the mercy of more unpredictable weather patterns.
    About that evidence; how many years were reviewed, exactly?
    Mr Suratin said a review of the area’s rainfall records for the past 13 years – the limits of available data – showed only 46 per cent fell in the expected rainy season.

    Irrefutable “science”, eh?

  15. My apologies Sheik, I read your claim back to front: “The biggest fraud in that it will transfer huge amounts of wealth from the first world to the third world, where it will be squandered.” I’d be interested to see how the third world have pulled that off though.

    As for the rest of your post, why have you completely avoided the subject? You challenged me to answer your claims and I have shot them down in flames. Your argument was that there has been no warming in the past 10 years but you can see for yourself how false that is if you look at the data yourself instead of trusting to your money-grubbing mates. You’re suddenly strangely silent on that aren’t you? Demonstrate why you think climate scientists are not aware of volcanoes.

    Quote for me where I have said that any scientist is not to be doubted. Quite the opposite. The whole time I’ve explained to you that science is about debate. But to debate something you need facts. Produce some.

    Quote for me where I have said that Christians and Jews are not being persecuted in some Muslim countries. What I asked for were numbers; not because I don’t think it’s an issue but because I’d like you to see by comparison that Climate Change is an issue as well.

    Quote for me where I have said anything whatsoever about Jews being bad and Palestinians good. Quote where I have shown hate for Jews. That was childish and you bring shame to those people who legitimately campaign for justice and protection.

    And as for your great revelation of my alleged snout in the trough – N.B: I’ve had my weblink up for every comment I’ve made so that anyone can see that for themselves Sherlock. You may be interested to know that I’m currently working on a project that shows the impacts of climate change on one environmental variable may not be as bad as we thought. Guess what – no one is out to fire me, demote me or cause me any trouble whatsoever. I am a scientist. I pass on what the facts tell me. There is no pressure whatsoever for me to tow the line, I get a baseline public servant’s wage when I could be earning far more working for private enterprise. I spend months out of some years away from my family fighting fires. I spend my spare evenings and weekends attempting to nut through the issues that we in the real world are already facing from AGW. What do you think is a “real job”? Bludging money over the net? Get off your computer for 10 minutes and have a look at the real world!

    Now see if you can write a post just providing evidence (note: evidence) that the climate is not warming, that humans haven’t accelerated the warming or that it won’t have any effect. Providing an example of a bad study is not evidence, it just means that we should discount the study. Try not to change the subject, to avoid calling me a muslim or communist, and try to use peer-reviewed science instead of politicians, Frank Zappa, science fiction writers or Noddy. This is how people talk when we are serious about reality.

    You said that my “belief-based zealotry is gibberish and devoid of any facts”. I’ve provided the facts, now stop avoiding them and demonstrate that you are not the belief-based zealot. You can’t. You can’t back off on your own misinformation because it will put you out of favour with your extreme right readers and your donations will go down. You are paid to be ignorant.

  16. Parasite:

    1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
    2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
    3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

    1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
    2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

    Tim Flannery:

    1. Pondscum.

    But of course you are entirely driven by noble, honorable principles, right Christian?

    Andrew Bolt
    Tuesday, June 30, 2009

    Tim Flannery, undaunted by the failure of his predictions that global warming would cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to now be out of water, went on Lateline last night to bang once more that doomsday drum that’s made him so rich.

    And why wouldn’t he, when Lateline host Tony Jones is a fellow warming alarmist who is guaranteed not to ask him any awkward questions?

    So last night Jones did not do to Flannery as he did to sceptic Professor Ian Plimer, for instance, and precede his interview with a report on three critics calling his guest an idiot. Nor did he ask a single aggressive question. Nor did he ask Flannery to defend his hypocrisy in demanding cuts to our gases while endorsing (for cash) Sir Richard Brazen’s joy-rides to space, or travelling to Copenhagen, blowing yet again more of the gases out the back of his jet that he claims are heating the world to hell.

    Instead there was this exchange, in which Flannery demanded green extremists be allowed to illegally shut down out power supplies without being charged either with crimes or with the bill for the damage: Read it all...

  17. .
    Excellent post on one of the biggest group-think scams in history.
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    humans’ breath is poison

    just one child hurts the world
    worse than a jet engine

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    keep people all worked up

    about global warming
    despite inconvenient facts

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    NO MORE oil for you

    rarely may you drill for it
    limit refining of it

  18. The Beast just came across your link to his “World Cooling On Global Warming” post (it was not PG’s, but he does fine work on the topic as well) and thought he’d drop by for a look. The Beast had forgotten even writing this piece (they all blur together over time) and got to read it as if it had been written by somebody else (and damn, is that guy good!), which was fun.

    What makes reading these past debates so particularly savory is you get to do it with the foreknowledge that the ClimateGate leaks and the Copenhagen fiasco are only a few months away. And those who argue the cause of this “Science” and throw about the Alarmist links with abandon don’t realize they’re about to be blown out of the water by a huge scandal. Heh. We had a similar debate raging in the cooments section of the beast’s post with a PC Clone exactly like yours making essentially the same demands on our faith (in AGW Science). Our troll eventually stopped posting comments and went away. Wonder what your Mr. A Christian has to say on the topic now?

  19. We are all wise with hindsight!

    I believe the climate is changing through normal 100,000, 40,000, 20,000 and 10,000 year cycles that interact with each other. BUT….
    I was not aware of the corruption behind the IPCC Panel or the jizzya that was planned for us to pay the Third World or the First World’s plan not to.

    We can be wise in hindsight!
    That is why it is smarter to stick to the facts.

Comments are closed.