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 ...]

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 # ? 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....

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.

Thank you Spartacus, that perfectly proves my point..

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


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

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

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


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.         

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


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. 

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

Should be charged with fraud!

Gizmo says wtf??? 

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



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..

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


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

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


nope, not 'pwned' in any way..

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


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

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

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