Here was me thinking the monotony of climate science denial rhetoric was coincidental.

Tue, 2014-01-14 22:27  Graham Readfearn
Exclusive: Mont Pelerin Society Revealed As Home To Leading Pushers Of Climate Science Denial

THERE’S a popular talking point coming from climate change denialists that all people who accept the science and the need to act on it are somehow blinded by faith.

In Australia, climate science contrarian columnists can barely touch their keyboards without typing out the words "global warming faith" or explaining how human-caused global warming is some sort of "new religion".

This “climate religion” narrative often goes hand-in-hand with another favourite denialist talking point where climate scientists are only doing what they do because there’s a dollar in it.

Presumably the laws of physics, the melting ice sheets, the increasing risk of bushfires, the hottest decades on record and the acidifying oceans are also waiting for their cash.

Maurice Newman, the man hand-picked by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to be the government’s top business advisor, loves both of these debating points.

Newman has described climate scientists as being a “global warming priesthood” and belonging to a new “religion”. In a second opinion column in two weeks in The Australian, Newman repeats his cynicism over the IPCC and climate scientists, describing them as a "cartel" that "will deny all contrary evidence".  Newman even repeats the myth that in the 1970s scientists were certain the world was heading for global cooling, when in fact, as this study shows, a healthy majority of scientific papers were predicting the opposite.

Yet Newman has a deep belief system of his own, having long been associated with a form of “classic liberalism” – a particular world view which advocates small government and low regulation of the activities of businesses.

Not only that, but he is a member of a global society of influential business people, academics and think tank associates known as the Mont Pelerin Society who share the same broad ideology.

The Mont Pelerin Society

The Mont Pelerin Society was established in 1947 by free market economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek.

Maurice Newman, a Mont Pelerin member since 1976, has long been an admirer of the work of Hayek and fellow free market economist Milton Friedman, a past president of the Mont Pelerin Society.

Newman was responsible for bringing Friedman to Australia in the mid-1970s, at a time when Newman was helping to set up the Centre for Independent Studies – a Sydney-based free market think tank.

Mont Pelerin’s website explains that while all members don’t agree on everything, “they see danger in the expansion of government, not least in state welfare, in the power of trade unions and business monopoly, and in the continuing threat and reality of inflation.”

The Society, which holds a meeting annually in different parts of the world, also explains how its members see their society “as an effort to interpret in modern terms the fundamental principles of economic society as expressed by those classical economists, political scientists, and philosophers who have inspired many in Europe, America and throughout the Western World.”

To become a member, individuals have to be nominated by a current member and then seek endorsement by the membership committee before being endorsed.

DeSmogBlog has obtained a full list of the society’s members that includes senior representatives of many of the world’s foremost “free market” think tanks actively pushing back on proposed policy solutions to tackle climate change.

The list, from 2010, includes almost 500 people from 52 countries, with the bulk of members coming from the United States and the United Kingdom. The 70-page list includes private contact details. DeSmogBlog has decided to publish only extracts with contact details redacted.

Among the notable members is Charles Koch (list excerpt here), the US oil billionaire who has been a Mont Pelerin Society member since 1970.

Charles and his brother David have used their charitable foundations to funnel tens of millions of dollars into free market think tanks which fight environmental protection and deny the dangers of human-caused climate change.

In Australia, Mont Pelerin Society members include John Roskam (list excerpt here), executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs; Greg Lindsay (list excerpt here) , executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies; and mining magnate Ron Manners, executive director of the pro-mining think tank the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

All three organisations have actively pushed climate science scepticism and denial or heavily understated the risks of continuing to burn record amounts of fossil fuels.

Lindsay is a former president of the Mont Pelerin Society. In his 2008 “Presidential Address,” published in a Mont Pelerin newsletter, Lindsay claimed that climate change research had become an “industry” which lacked integrity.

His conspiracy theory was that scientists “have a vested interest in supporting the theory, so that the funding drip becomes a torrent.”

Lindsay also used the popular denial talking point that people who accepted the science of climate change were blinded by belief.

He said: “As many critics have pointed out, their belief in the theory, in too many instances, borders on the superstitious and mystical. The fact that so many minds are closed to any doubt strongly suggests that we are dealing with a new species of the kind of religious dogma which the Enlightenment developed to counter.”

The argument put by Lindsay back in 2008 is identical to that put by Tony Abbott’s chief business advisor Maurice Newman in recent columns, the latest only a few weeks ago.

Mont Pelerin in the United States

The US cohort of Mont Pelerin members includes many senior staff associated with "free market" think tanks that have manufactured doubt about the science of human-caused climate change or the need to act quickly.

Alongside Charles Koch, DeSmogBlog’s document shows that Mont Pelerin Society members include senior staff, directors and associates from groups his family foundations have helped to fund. These include the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, the Acton Institute, the Reason Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

Other members include Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Mary O’Grady and John O’Sullivan, a columnist with the conservative National Review.

The UK and Mont Pelerin

Members of UK free market think tanks including The Adam Smith Institute, CIVITAS and the Institute of Economic Affairs have also gained membership with the Mont Pelerin Society.

Long-standing climate science sceptic Julian Morris is also listed as a member.

Another UK member is Linda Whetstone, the daughter of Antony Fisher who founded the influential UK neo-liberal think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Antony Fisher established the Atlas Economic Research Foundation – a vast network of about 400 think tanks around the world that share the ideals of limiting the power of government. Alejandro Chafuen, the current president of Atlas, is also listed as a 2010 Mont Pelerin Society member.

Global network

The Mont Pelerin Society got its name from the location of the very first meeting in Switzerland, and members continue to have ample chance to network in their annual meetings.

In recent years, members have travelled to the Galapagos Islands, Prague (former Czech president Vaclav Klaus is a member), New York, Morocco, Tokyo, Sydney, Buenos Aires and Stockholm.

The opportunity for this powerful and influential group to share ideas is obvious.

In 2010, when members held a meeting in Australia, Perth-based mining magnate and member Ron Manners extended an invitation to those making the long trip down under.

A 2010 Mont Pelerin Society newsletter obtained by DeSmogBlog explained how Manners, whose think tank has hosted climate science denier Christopher Monckton, had organised a “fascinating tour” of mining and energy sites including a day tour of the remote Pilbara region described as the “ground zero” of the mining boom.

It should come as no surprise that the Mont Pelerin Society has more than its fair share of climate science deniers within its ranks.

Research has shown that belief in free market ideology is a predictor of the rejection of climate change science. This link was also revealed in Merchants of Doubt, a book by science historians Erik Conway and Naomi Oreskes.

About four out of every five climate denial books ever published, according to one study, have links to conservative and free market think tanks either through the authors or the publishers.

When it comes to efforts to block meaningful policy to tackle climate change, it seems free market groups and societies extolling their version of “freedom” are in fact a "ground zero" for climate science denial.

I was in Brisbane when Monckton mopped the floor with this Readfern grub.

Readfern's never recovered really, tail between his legs his only forum is third rate alarmist blogs like desmogcrap and maybe even ruineconomy and trying to sling mud and pathetic distractions.

Are you Readfern incognito # ?  ;D ;D

'DeSmogBlog has obtained a full list of the society’s members'

Wow - Desmogblog? Was it a SECRET list?

Is that the same Koch Bros who fund Penn State uni in the states along with over a hundred others? The Penn State that is home to Michael Mann? You just can't trust 'evil' oil; they play both sides of the street. :D

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....

Wow, yeh im a member. You got me. You are good. lol pathetic.

It's really funny to watch the warmists run around madly, trying to find excuses or explanations for the lose of public opinion while ignoring the 'elephant in the room'...The fact that the belief of the public is being lost due to the actions of the AGW faithful themselves.

Thanks #.  Good post
I see it didn’t take long for the Koch sock puppets (Rider, lee, namnugenot, progressiveslol, gizmo) to come out in force.   Fortunately fewer and fewer are falling for their lies (the constant extreme weather events are just too difficult for people to deny) and one day soon when people realise how they were deliberately mislead by these liars, they will be punished severely for what they have done.  Fortunately the internet will remain as a permanent record of their deceit.   

Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point..

I'm sure you think it does

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does

And so does an ever increasing section of society... ;D ;D ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ;

As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:

... one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.

I've often pondered that, if worst comes to worst*, then the end will not come quickly. At some point, some of the survivors will begin eating others. If there's any justice, then those who got in the way of action on Global Warming will be the eaten.

*
Quote:

Carl Sagan: "... Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our planet will always be so hospitable." Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..."

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 3:30pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ; As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.

Nope, believe in ACC is at an all time low, even the main stream media is starting to soften their rhetoric on the subject.

Look at the coverage of the ill fated Antarctic expedition lead by Chris Turney.

The problem is, while the idea of telling scary stories to make people listen and act was a logical one at the start, it was still necessary to dial it down a little AFTER the action began which is what you forgot.
Otherwise (as is now starting to happen) people begin to realise that the wild predictions haven't come to pass, and start to question why?

Inventing shadowy groups who are the source of ALL skepticism doesn't work very well either, because it insults the public by implying that they are not capable of looking around and seeing exactly how far off the mark some of the sillier AGW predictions and models have been.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 8:07pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 4:00pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 3:30pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ; As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.  Nope, believe in ACC is at an all time low, even the main stream media is starting to soften their rhetoric on the subject. Look at the coverage of the ill fated Antarctic expedition lead by Chris Turney. The problem is, while the idea of telling scary stories to make people listen and act was a logical one at the start, it was still necessary to dial it down a little AFTER the action began which is what you forgot. Otherwise (as is now starting to happen) people begin to realise that the wild predictions haven't come to pass, and start to question why? Inventing shadowy groups who are the source of ALL skepticism doesn't work very well either, because it insults the public by implying that they are not capable of looking around and seeing exactly how far off the mark some of the sillier AGW predictions and models have been.

Just wild conjecture, desperate to convince us that black is white.  For the time being people will tolerate your lies because they're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuine.  But as things get worse and particularly after a telling disaster occurs, they will ask themselves the obvious question; how could an adult with no relevant science qualifications or expertise (let alone any relevant climate science qualifications or expertise) have been so sure to insist that 97% of the worlds most qualified climate scientists (who spent every working day of their lives examining the issue), were wrong.  Indeed when that time comes, this will be your problem.  What are you, an accountant, a farmer, a process worker, a lawyer?  Which means you know sh!t about the subject and apart from a passing interest, even today spend very little time actually examining the issue.  And yet you scream from the highest roof tops with utmost assurance that the experts are wrong and you are right. At the very least this is gross negligence. Its like telling a cancer patient that he shouldn't listen to his cancer specialist but should do what you (the accountant) say instead.  No rational human being does that unless he/she is lying or is grossly negligent.  Believe me, when the time comes, even if you are adjudged not to have mislead people deliberately, there will be those who will want to see you punished for your gross negligence. After all, what you're risking and what you're asking us to bet on you instead of the experts, is the only environment in the universe accessible to us that can sustain life. How severely do you think a person like that should be punished when it turns out he is wrong but it is too late to fix things.         

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 8:07pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 4:00pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 3:30pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ; As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.  Nope, believe in ACC is at an all time low, even the main stream media is starting to soften their rhetoric on the subject. Look at the coverage of the ill fated Antarctic expedition lead by Chris Turney. The problem is, while the idea of telling scary stories to make people listen and act was a logical one at the start, it was still necessary to dial it down a little AFTER the action began which is what you forgot. Otherwise (as is now starting to happen) people begin to realise that the wild predictions haven't come to pass, and start to question why? Inventing shadowy groups who are the source of ALL skepticism doesn't work very well either, because it insults the public by implying that they are not capable of looking around and seeing exactly how far off the mark some of the sillier AGW predictions and models have been. Just wild conjecture, desperate to convince us that black is white.  For the time being people will tolerate your lies because they're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuine.  But as things get worse and particularly after a telling disaster occurs, they will ask themselves the obvious question; how could an adult with no relevant science qualifications or expertise (let alone any relevant climate science qualifications or expertise) have been so sure to insist that 97% of the worlds most qualified climate scientists (who spent every working day of their lives examining the issue), were wrong.  Indeed when that time comes, this will be your problem.  What are you, an accountant, a farmer, a process worker, a lawyer?  Which means you know sh!t about the subject and apart from a passing interest, even today spend very little time actually examining the issue.  And yet you scream from the highest roof tops with utmost assurance that the experts are wrong and you are right. At the very least this is gross negligence. Its like telling a cancer patient that he shouldn't listen to his cancer specialist but should do what you (the accountant) say instead.  No rational human being does that unless he/she is lying or is grossly negligent.  Believe me, when the time comes, even if you are adjudged not to have mislead people deliberately, there will be those who will want to see you punished for your gross negligence. After all, what you're risking and what you're asking us to bet on you instead of the experts, is the only environment in the universe accessible to us that can sustain life. How severely do you think a person like that should be punished when it turns out he is wrong but it is too late to fix things.

" particularly after a telling disaster occurs,"...but there have been dozens, haven't there??....Oh sorry...that's right, none of the predicted ones have actually occurred, have they??

Hint: Polar bears, no more snow in European winters, all Australian dams empty etc etc.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 11:32pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 8:07pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 4:00pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 3:30pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ; As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.  Nope, believe in ACC is at an all time low, even the main stream media is starting to soften their rhetoric on the subject. Look at the coverage of the ill fated Antarctic expedition lead by Chris Turney. The problem is, while the idea of telling scary stories to make people listen and act was a logical one at the start, it was still necessary to dial it down a little AFTER the action began which is what you forgot. Otherwise (as is now starting to happen) people begin to realise that the wild predictions haven't come to pass, and start to question why? Inventing shadowy groups who are the source of ALL skepticism doesn't work very well either, because it insults the public by implying that they are not capable of looking around and seeing exactly how far off the mark some of the sillier AGW predictions and models have been. Just wild conjecture, desperate to convince us that black is white.  For the time being people will tolerate your lies because they're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuine.  But as things get worse and particularly after a telling disaster occurs, they will ask themselves the obvious question; how could an adult with no relevant science qualifications or expertise (let alone any relevant climate science qualifications or expertise) have been so sure to insist that 97% of the worlds most qualified climate scientists (who spent every working day of their lives examining the issue), were wrong.  Indeed when that time comes, this will be your problem.  What are you, an accountant, a farmer, a process worker, a lawyer?  Which means you know sh!t about the subject and apart from a passing interest, even today spend very little time actually examining the issue.  And yet you scream from the highest roof tops with utmost assurance that the experts are wrong and you are right. At the very least this is gross negligence. Its like telling a cancer patient that he shouldn't listen to his cancer specialist but should do what you (the accountant) say instead.  No rational human being does that unless he/she is lying or is grossly negligent.  Believe me, when the time comes, even if you are adjudged not to have mislead people deliberately, there will be those who will want to see you punished for your gross negligence. After all, what you're risking and what you're asking us to bet on you instead of the experts, is the only environment in the universe accessible to us that can sustain life. How severely do you think a person like that should be punished when it turns out he is wrong but it is too late to fix things.          " particularly after a telling disaster occurs,"...but there have been dozens, haven't there??....Oh sorry...that's right, none of the predicted ones have actually occurred, have they?? Hint: Polar bears, no more snow in European winters, all Australian dams empty etc etc.

So that's it??? You say someone made a prediction about Polar bears that didn't pan out and you've concluded that the experts are wrong.  Even a child can see how transparently desperate you are to convince us (and yourself) that global warming is wrong.  Who made a prediction about Polar bears? What did they predict and how, when and by whom were they proved to be wrong? Who predicted that there would be no more snow in European winters; when did they predict that this would happen by and when and by whom whom were they proved to be wrong.  And who on earth said that ALL Australian dams would be empty and by when?  If you have made up your mind on these spurious absurd assertions (against the overwhelming expert advice) then you will have detailed answers to support each of these assertions otherwise  your criminal gross negligence will be on display for all to see. Of course criminal negligence is the least of it.  I think there will be those who will say that to base your denialism on so spurious an excuse demonstrates that you are a bold-faced liar nothing less. 

What do you get for fraud usually? When will they start charging some of these people with fraud?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 11:32pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 8:07pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 4:00pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 3:30pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ; As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.  Nope, believe in ACC is at an all time low, even the main stream media is starting to soften their rhetoric on the subject. Look at the coverage of the ill fated Antarctic expedition lead by Chris Turney. The problem is, while the idea of telling scary stories to make people listen and act was a logical one at the start, it was still necessary to dial it down a little AFTER the action began which is what you forgot. Otherwise (as is now starting to happen) people begin to realise that the wild predictions haven't come to pass, and start to question why? Inventing shadowy groups who are the source of ALL skepticism doesn't work very well either, because it insults the public by implying that they are not capable of looking around and seeing exactly how far off the mark some of the sillier AGW predictions and models have been. Just wild conjecture, desperate to convince us that black is white.  For the time being people will tolerate your lies because they're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuine.  But as things get worse and particularly after a telling disaster occurs, they will ask themselves the obvious question; how could an adult with no relevant science qualifications or expertise (let alone any relevant climate science qualifications or expertise) have been so sure to insist that 97% of the worlds most qualified climate scientists (who spent every working day of their lives examining the issue), were wrong.  Indeed when that time comes, this will be your problem.  What are you, an accountant, a farmer, a process worker, a lawyer?  Which means you know sh!t about the subject and apart from a passing interest, even today spend very little time actually examining the issue.  And yet you scream from the highest roof tops with utmost assurance that the experts are wrong and you are right. At the very least this is gross negligence. Its like telling a cancer patient that he shouldn't listen to his cancer specialist but should do what you (the accountant) say instead.  No rational human being does that unless he/she is lying or is grossly negligent.  Believe me, when the time comes, even if you are adjudged not to have mislead people deliberately, there will be those who will want to see you punished for your gross negligence. After all, what you're risking and what you're asking us to bet on you instead of the experts, is the only environment in the universe accessible to us that can sustain life. How severely do you think a person like that should be punished when it turns out he is wrong but it is too late to fix things.          " particularly after a telling disaster occurs,"...but there have been dozens, haven't there??....Oh sorry...that's right, none of the predicted ones have actually occurred, have they?? Hint: Polar bears, no more snow in European winters, all Australian dams empty etc etc. So that's it??? You say someone made a prediction about Polar bears that didn't pan out and you've concluded that the experts are wrong.  Even a child can see how transparently desperate you are to convince us (and yourself) that global warming is wrong.  Who made a prediction about Polar bears? What did they predict and how, when and by whom were they proved to be wrong? Who predicted that there would be no more snow in European winters; when did they predict that this would happen by and when and by whom whom were they proved to be wrong.  And who on earth said that ALL Australian dams would be empty and by when?  If you have made up your mind on these spurious absurd assertions (against the overwhelming expert advice) then you will have detailed answers to support each of these assertions otherwise  your criminal gross negligence will be on display for all to see. Of course criminal negligence is the least of it.  I think there will be those who will say that to base your denialism on so spurious an excuse demonstrates that you are a bold-faced liar nothing less.

Should be charged with fraud!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 11:32pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:29pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 8:07pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 4:00pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 3:30pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 2:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point.. I'm sure you think it does And so does an ever increasing section of society... ; As always you make up your own "facts" and one day I expect people will want to punish those who sought to mislead them for their own self interest and lost us valuable time to deal with the problem.  Nope, believe in ACC is at an all time low, even the main stream media is starting to soften their rhetoric on the subject. Look at the coverage of the ill fated Antarctic expedition lead by Chris Turney. The problem is, while the idea of telling scary stories to make people listen and act was a logical one at the start, it was still necessary to dial it down a little AFTER the action began which is what you forgot. Otherwise (as is now starting to happen) people begin to realise that the wild predictions haven't come to pass, and start to question why? Inventing shadowy groups who are the source of ALL skepticism doesn't work very well either, because it insults the public by implying that they are not capable of looking around and seeing exactly how far off the mark some of the sillier AGW predictions and models have been. Just wild conjecture, desperate to convince us that black is white.  For the time being people will tolerate your lies because they're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuine.  But as things get worse and particularly after a telling disaster occurs, they will ask themselves the obvious question; how could an adult with no relevant science qualifications or expertise (let alone any relevant climate science qualifications or expertise) have been so sure to insist that 97% of the worlds most qualified climate scientists (who spent every working day of their lives examining the issue), were wrong.  Indeed when that time comes, this will be your problem.  What are you, an accountant, a farmer, a process worker, a lawyer?  Which means you know sh!t about the subject and apart from a passing interest, even today spend very little time actually examining the issue.  And yet you scream from the highest roof tops with utmost assurance that the experts are wrong and you are right. At the very least this is gross negligence. Its like telling a cancer patient that he shouldn't listen to his cancer specialist but should do what you (the accountant) say instead.  No rational human being does that unless he/she is lying or is grossly negligent.  Believe me, when the time comes, even if you are adjudged not to have mislead people deliberately, there will be those who will want to see you punished for your gross negligence. After all, what you're risking and what you're asking us to bet on you instead of the experts, is the only environment in the universe accessible to us that can sustain life. How severely do you think a person like that should be punished when it turns out he is wrong but it is too late to fix things.          " particularly after a telling disaster occurs,"...but there have been dozens, haven't there??....Oh sorry...that's right, none of the predicted ones have actually occurred, have they?? Hint: Polar bears, no more snow in European winters, all Australian dams empty etc etc. So that's it??? You say someone made a prediction about Polar bears that didn't pan out and you've concluded that the experts are wrong.  Even a child can see how transparently desperate you are to convince us (and yourself) that global warming is wrong.  Who made a prediction about Polar bears? What did they predict and how, when and by whom were they proved to be wrong? Who predicted that there would be no more snow in European winters; when did they predict that this would happen by and when and by whom whom were they proved to be wrong.  And who on earth said that ALL Australian dams would be empty and by when?  If you have made up your mind on these spurious absurd assertions (against the overwhelming expert advice) then you will have detailed answers to support each of these assertions otherwise  your criminal gross negligence will be on display for all to see. Of course criminal negligence is the least of it.  I think there will be those who will say that to base your denialism on so spurious an excuse demonstrates that you are a bold-faced liar nothing less.

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting to 'be charged for denialism'...

In fact, it's quite likely that the opposite may happen, the pro-warming crowd are likely to be the ones in court (although, incredibly gullible isn't actually a criminal offence in any jurisdiction).

If (or more likely when) climate change is shown to be mostly natural, the IPCC and its followers would be the ones to cop any punishment, since they will have wasted 30+ years commanding the tide to turn back, rather than working out adaption strategies to deal with a warmer Earth ( like they should be now)

Gizmo says wtf???  http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/dancing/mario-jackson-dance-smiley-emoticon.gif

I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 10:04am:

I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.

Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension???

It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony???

Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile..

Got any kids mate?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. Got any kids mate?

Yes, I do actually..And I don't have any problem with them (my kids) existing in a 'not AGW' universe..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 1:52pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. Got any kids mate? Yes, I do actually..And I don't have any problem with them (my kids) existing in a 'not AGW' universe..

Defensive much  :o  :-? :-?  :-[

You, sir, are not democracy! You will never pwn anyone ever because you love being pwned too much  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 1:52pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. Got any kids mate? Yes, I do actually..And I don't have any problem with them (my kids) existing in a 'not AGW' universe.. Defensive much  :o  :-? :-?  :-[ You, sir, are not democracy! You will never pwn anyone ever because you love being pwned too much  ;D

nope, not 'pwned' in any way..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 2:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 1:52pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. Got any kids mate? Yes, I do actually..And I don't have any problem with them (my kids) existing in a 'not AGW' universe.. Defensive much  :o  :-? :-?  :-[ You, sir, are not democracy! You will never pwn anyone ever because you love being pwned too much  ;D nope, not 'pwned' in any way..

You pwn your kids tears  :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 6:56pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 3:23pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 2:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 1:52pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. Got any kids mate? Yes, I do actually..And I don't have any problem with them (my kids) existing in a 'not AGW' universe.. Defensive much  :o  :-? :-?  :-[ You, sir, are not democracy! You will never pwn anyone ever because you love being pwned too much  ;D nope, not 'pwned' in any way.. You pwn your kids tears  :o

Nope, they aren't crying...my kids are far too intelligent to fall for the AGW horseshit...

Their financial future depends on it does it!???!  ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile..

still being evasive, refusing to answer the questions because you know there's no substance to your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of expert climate scientists. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. still being evasive, refusing to answer the questions because you know there's no substance to your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of expert climate scientists.

Nope, not evasive, my position has always been the same. I haven't yet seen enough evidence to conclusively show that mankind is the 'main cause' of climate change, and warmists idea of a 'secret, shadow group' behind ALL anthropogenic climate change skepticism is over reaching and stupid.. Basically, it's not necessary since there is enough dispute on the causes of climate change and enough dispute on the amount of temperature increase for it to be entirely natural.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 2:24pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 9:39pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 12:21pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 20th, 2014 at 10:04am: I see gizmo you have moved on to defcon 2 of the denialist handbook. Just pretend you weren't asked to substantiate your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field.  These word games won't help you when the world starts clamoring to punish those whose grossly negligent denialism caused such destruction.  Yeah, but there is NO 'denialist handbook'.If you want to use the conspiracy theory skepticism idea, why not just go with the 'usual suspect' idea, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Reptiolds or the Black Lectorids from the 8th dimension??? It's actually funny to watch people like # accuse skeptics of believing in a 'conspiracy of scientists' and then post about a 'conspiracy of skeptics'...do you even SEE the irony??? Honestly, it's s bad as Wharfy's stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a shape shifting alien reptile.. still being evasive, refusing to answer the questions because you know there's no substance to your spurious claims for rejecting the finding of the overwhelming majority of expert climate scientists.  Nope, not evasive, my position has always been the same. I haven't yet seen enough evidence to conclusively show that mankind is the 'main cause' of climate change, and warmists idea of a 'secret, shadow group' behind ALL anthropogenic climate change skepticism is over reaching and stupid.. Basically, it's not necessary since there is enough dispute on the causes of climate change and enough dispute on the amount of temperature increase for it to be entirely natural.

So says someone who knows absolutely sh!t about the science involved and therefor is not in a position to even assess the evidence but when pressed for evidence of his denialist position digs up some stupid claim about polar bears, no water in Australian dams and no snow in Europe.  You're a liar pure and simple.