climate change, New York Times headlines, Teach tank

To beat false alarmists, expose the patterns

The best disinfectant for persistent greenwash is sunlight.

All too often though, thanks to our typically-socialist scientists, politicians and media, the Left are left free to operate under cover of darkness.

Ads like this would blow their cover.

(It works best horizontally as one long, wildly bucking graph.)

The way to neutralise the false alarmists is to graphically present their patterns of deception. 

Shine the light on the various beatups, so people can see how they’re being conned time and again.

Such a ‘teach tank’ campaign of daily factoids like this would educate the public about the real world, and allow them to rest easier in their beds.

It could also be employed right now to get the Nats to dump their mad ETS.

Funding anyone?

As a famous lefty president didn’t quite say, the only thing we have to fear is unbalanced fearmongering.


5 thoughts on “To beat false alarmists, expose the patterns

  1. Funding? Start on organisation, elect a board, and distribute PayPal buttons all over willing blogs.

    Good idea about PayPal, Berend. Would like one reasonably serious funder to kick things off though.

    It’s not cheap maintaining a flow of top ads and putting them where The Convertible are watching.

    Be good if online is all we need, but I doubt it.

  2. I feel uncomfortable with your politicisation of science. It’s the political parties which make an issue of their findings, not the scientists themselves.

    By conflating scientists, politicans, and the media together, you seem to be saying that their interests are similar, and in mutual support.

    Just because leftwing politicians benefit from the ‘consensus’ on AGW doesn’t mean they are in cohoots with the scientists. That is illogic.

    Nick, you’re probably a reasonable person, and I don’t blame you for thinking my conflation is a tad shrill.

    But sadly for science in general, there’s now a ton of evidence that the UN IPCC gang are working to the same agenda as the left-wing politicians and media.

    (I presume you don’t doubt the media’s bias, just the scientists’. Sunday Star-Times journalists have told me quite proudly that they’re a lefty paper, not that I hadn’t worked that out :-))

    The University of East Anglia emails and the many subsequently-revealed shonky statements in the IPCC report are evidence of massive fraud by the small coterie of climate scientists running the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change.

    The “consensus of 2500” was a lie designed to hide the fact that the whole global warming beatup was the work of a few zealots like Jones, Mann and Hansen.

    (If consensus was important – and it’s never been the way science is settled, new discoveries almost by definition flying in the face of the consensus – then the 31,000 scientists who oppose AGW is a much bigger one.)

    But we shouldn’t believe any consensus. We should believe only facts.

    And the greenies’ favourite comeback line to the East Anglia email revelations is that the facts – “the underlying science” – haven’t changed.

    Well, how can that be when the underlying science was done by the same scientists who’ve been doing the lying?

    It really is time we joined the dots…

    The UN is an organisation dominated by socialists, many of whom are corrupt dictators from the so-called developing world.

    It’s very much in their interests to pretend to believe in global warming. That way they can blame the rich countries for causing the problem and demand trillions of dollars in compensation.

    Will these corrupt dictators then spend that money reducing their carbon footprints?

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    Socialist politicians have been looking for a religion to exploit ever since the collapse of communism.

    And they can’t quite believe their luck at the way Al Gore’s error-riddled science fiction movie has become the new green Bible.

    (An Inconvenient Truth turned out to contain 35 inconvenient untruths. A sample of 9 of these were tested in court, where a judge made Gore correct them before the movie could be shown in schools.)

    What’s been most disappointing in all this has been the corruption of climate scientists. Nowhere is this more obvious than in their debasement of the word ‘sceptic’.

    Sceptics used to be what all scientists were. They were certainly not believers. Belief was the stuff of religion, not science.

    Scientists aren’t meant to believe anything. Not at least until they’ve got solid proof.

    And a bunch of computer models that keep turning out to be wrong when compared with the actual data, is hardly solid proof.

    As a result of the global warming scam, more and more people simply don’t believe scientists – any scientists – any more. That’s sad, but they’ve brought it on themselves.

    Why have these climate scientists stopped behaving like scientists?

    Because they’ve been paid to.

    Guys like Phil Jones have received millions of dollars in research grants with the expressed aim of supporting the global warming theory.

    If their studies did not support global warming theory, they wouldn’t get the money.

    So Michael Mann invented his hockey stick graph, conveniently leaving out the Medieval Warming Period. Why?

    Because that would show us dummies that our planet can warm without any help from us. And if we dug deeper, we might notice that mankind tends to flourish in a warmer climate (as do polar bears, but that’s another story).

    So better to lie than explode the myth and turn off the funding tap.

    I hope all this isn’t too shocking for you, Nick. There’s plenty of evidence for all of the above.

    Lord Christopher Monckton’s St Paul speech draws it together brilliantly, but for some reason I can’t make the link work in Comments. Just google Monckton and prepare to be amazed.

  3. Good work John. However you are wasting your time trying to talk to the truffle farmer, his D-grade media commentator toadie and their small tight knit, eas­ily led, eas­ily conned yet, galac­ti­cally stu­pid brigade, who basically talk amongst themselves. What they exhibit is symp­to­matic of depen­dency dis­or­der. Or “a need to believe, defend and or depend on a boxed cause in order to exist in a world of con­trol, or the pro­po­nent of control.”

    And to top it off, one of THEM has the cheek to say this about YOU: “All one can take from your rant is that everyone is discredited, except people you believe, because that’s what you believe, and it fits your world view”.

    I’m not really talking to them, I’m talking to any of The Convertible who may be reading.

    (Readers: this comment relates to a discussion on the Hot Topic site:

    Certainly when people use abuse instead of facts, you know you’re winning. I’m quite open to facts that support their view, and would change my mind in a heartbeat if I could see the sense in them, but facts don’t include pronouncements from UN-sponsored scientists that everything’s just fine.

  4. Nice try but you can’t win John. As I have read the AGW alarmists group has taken on a religious fervour. That’s not science. The most fanatical proponents of it are described as “true believers.” They seek out heretics and try to shout them down.

    However they are getting worried as the truffle farmer says ‘What’s at stake is not science itself — that great endeavour is quite safe from the intellectually and morally bankrupt attacks of the sort launched by [the deniers] — but the public perception of science and its value to society. At a time when we will need all our reason to steer a path through a rocky and uncertain future, scientists cannot afford to sit on their hands. Time to hit back, to show the community at large that the age of reason is not dead.”

    If I learned one thing from the advertising industry, it’s that perception is reality.

    In other words, what the public think is real, is, to all intents and purposes, real.

    Because it’s what the public thinks that the politicians act on.

    Take John Key. He knows global warming is a hoax – he’s said so.

    But perception being reality, he’s happy to act as though it’s real because that’s what he thinks the voters will vote for.

    But the new perception that the science is shonky is going to give him and the rest of the world’s politicians a problem.

    His Aussie ally Malcolm Turnbull has already paid the price for being out of step with the new reality.

    Much as they like to moan about the big money behind the sceptics, the Climate Scientologists conveniently forget they had the benefit of a huge tailwind thanks to Gore’s movie – the greatest propaganda tool since Goebbels.

    For years they were supported by a compliant media, Hollywood, Greenpeace and even the Nobel committee – together more than a match for Big Oil.

    Only since the Climategate revelations have the sceptics been able to get the public to take them seriously.

    And the revelations have come as such a shock to the public that they’re not about to change their minds back without a lot of convincing.

    And the scientists simply have not been able to convince the public that the sceptics’ accusations are wrong.

    Part of that is their inability to speak the public’s language.

    The public no longer trust scientists to be straight with them, and they don’t buy complicated arguments – like “Go and read our 3000 page report.”

    They prefer their facts distilled.

    Christopher Monckton has been able to distill the arguments into neat little packets that the public can understand and enjoy.

    All the scientists seem to offer is the Sledge Hammer defence: “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.”

    And we don’t trust them. Not any more.

    The perception that they’ve been less than honest with us has become the new reality.

  5. Wow, I’ve just found this post is being talked about in Finland at

    Trouble is, the only word in the Finnish blog post that looks vaguely familiar is ‘alarmisteja’.

    Any of you Finns care to enlighten me?

    Oh, and while you’re there…

    Is there any truth to the claim by Bill Bryson in his book The Mother Tongue that the rudest thing you can say to a Finn translates as ‘in the restaurant’ (I think the word is ‘ravintolasse’)?

    It sounds implausible to me – and Bill does make other mistakes in the same book – but if true, I’m sorry if I offended you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s