I’ll leave this one in the hands of Australian Climate Madness who gets credit for spotting this unbelievable quote from a supposed journalistic enterprise of integrity known as “The Age”. – Anthony
Astonishing quote from “The Age”
The Age reports on another “yoof” climate campaign wittily entitled “Youth Decide” (“you decide,” geddit? Link here.) in which the kids of today vote on which world they wish to inherit. Here are the three options:
Even The Age pokes fun at the poll, wondering why we should pay attention to the opinion of 12 year olds (brainwashed at school by endless showings of An Inconvenient Truth in science class, rather than in politics class). But it also includes an almost unbelievable quote, revealing a great deal about The Age‘s view on the campaign to save the planet from climate change:
There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it’s wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right.
In other words, give up trying to argue that the science is wrong. We’ve successfully pulled the wool over the public’s eyes now, mostly thanks to the misrepresentations in the media, and primarily thanks to the alarmist Fairfax (which includes The Age itself and The Sydney Morning Herald), and so who cares if it complete BS? We will achieve our political goals whatever happens now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It should always be kept in mind that 50% of all people have IQs of less than 100.
I don’t know if it is in Alinsky’s book, but one thing I have noticed a lot from the Left is that they say something is true that they hope to make true. Kind of like dressing for the job you want, not the job you have.
About 150 years ago, a fellow named Karl wrote that to control a country you need only control the press and the schools. Not that the AGW crowd follow all his ideas, they do employ his methods.
As for the folks in Oz: no need to apologize. You don’t have a corner on the stupidity market. I suspect us ugly Yanks can outdo you any day.
We are watching a train wreck in slow motion. From inside the train. The people making the most noise about it aren’t trying to stop the train, they want it to go faster. Add a terrorist attack or two, and it will surpass anything Cecil B Demille ever imagined.
Hey, did we just cross 2005 on the Arctic ice extent graph?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
And the ‘adults’ are next:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/20/united-nations-summit-climate-change
Get ready for ‘turbo’ mode.
“Pared-down summit will force heads of rich states to listen to those of third world in hope of kickstarting radical action”
‘Pared-down’. Hmmmmm. I guess all the ‘Fence sitters’ got dis-invited.
I already know what happened to all the skeptics.
Nah, Mark. CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are up 0.36 ppm Month on Month, and 1.76 ppm, Year on Year.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
UN plans ‘shock therapy’ for world leaders on environment…from Drudge Report:
Shock therapy based on spin and lies that is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/20/united-nations-summit-climate-change
95 % emission reduction by 2050? Piece of cake!
BTW: Keynote Address By José Manuel Barroso to the World Business Summit on Climate Change
http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/keynote-address-by-jose-manuel-barroso-to-the-world-business-summit-on-climate-change.html
Bruce Cobb (05:03:59) :
ralph (00:42:12) :
>>>Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
“”Wasn’t it Goebbels who said, “if you say something often enough, people will believe it”?
I don’t know if he said that, but he did perfect the propaganda technique of “the Big Lie”, or “a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Hitler originally coined the phrase “Big Lie”, accusing the Jews of using it, in his “Mein Kampf.””
It was our old friend Lenin who said about telling a lie often enough it becomes truth. But definitely our charming, intelligent, witty, caring, concerned, considerate, thoughtful, (& quite mad), friend Herr Hitler who said the big lie thing. (I understand those were some of the adjectives actually attributed to him by many who met him during the pre-war charm offensive – rather a contradcition in terms I think!).
Vincent (05:48:13) :
I can see it in the playground in 10 years time:-
The scene, back og the bike sheds where they are not overlooked………..
First boy, “I stole a packet of cigarettes from my Dad’s draw, & I am going to smoke them!”
Second boy, sneeringly, “That’s nothing, I stole a half-bottle of scotch from my uncles drinks cabinet, & I am going to drink it!”
Third boy, gleefully outshining the others, “That’s nothing, I stole a packet of weed from my big sisters bedroom, & I am going to smoke that”!
Fourth boy, cool & calculatingly rebellious, “That’s nothing, you’re all lame brain scaredy cats. I’ve got some lumps of coal in my pocket, & I am going to set light to them, now that’s real scary stuff!!!!!”.
The first three in unison, “You can’t do that, all that will happen to us if we got caught would be automatic expulsion, but you’d get extra after-school environmental lessons 5 days a week for what you’re about to do, that’s crazy!!!!!!”
Ron de Haan
Sure we can decrease emissions 95% — we can starve or kill 95% of the world’s population!
NOT ACCEPTABLE.
But I think that’s what a large # of the AGW-ers want…
Nogw
Someone needs to ask these Copenhagen politicos where is the science of AGW. Why have not the temperatures zoomed as the models predicted. The engineering required to keep our standard of living afloat with an increasing population is significant. The engineering to keep our standard of living afloat with rules based on bad science is impossible. Very easy to make grand pronouncements based on how important they are and how important it is to save mankind from the evil CO2 while gaining power to regulate the masses. These new cardinals are taking control.
As a minor aside what is wrong with warmer temperatures we may want them in the near future.
I’ve seen proof of unrelenting propaganda, and it’s not all aimed at children. This may sound off topic, but it’s not: we’re discussing propaganda.
How many of you reading this believe all war is bad? How many know better, but still are very uneasy in the very thought of you or your country participating in a war, even a brief military liberation of an extremely oppressed country… say, Iraq?
How many times have we heard that Iraq and Afghanistan are pointless, incorrect meddling in local affairs… how often are we told some ridiculously fantastic number of poor innocent civilians, especially children, “murdered” by allied forces?
Just recently I read an article in the local paper explaining that WW2 was already over when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit, in fact, Nagasaki was the center of anti-war sentiment in Japan and might have somehow stopped the war anyway! Although the writer was attempting to demonstrate allied propaganda, he instead demonstrated anti-war propaganda.
I was born in 1963. From the very moment of my first awareness I was the target of anti-war idealistic propaganda because of Vietnam. I, too, believed that war was horrible, evil, and to be avoided at all costs. Now that I am an adult, I understand that as the naive ignorance it is. It is insane to avoid war at all costs. It is self-destructive. It is cultural suicide. By that standard, we should all have welcomed the Nazi overlords, who would have taken over from our communist rulers anyway.
Civilized countries do not start wars. They do, however, respond to aggressive opponents with the threat of war, and FOLLOW THROUGH if required. Lately, our civilization has been lax on following through, allowing things to get so bad that a massive blow-out has been the inevitable result.
Anyway, the quote of the week is a masterful display of absolute ignorance. As most of us here know, science has little to do with “belief”, the two are almost opposites. I mean, no matter how much I believed as a child, sprinkling some fairy dust on someone does not give them the power to fly.
It is most frustrating, however until the ‘curve ball’ can be batted out of the field we are facing an on-rushing surge. We argue till we’re blue in the face but we cannot say with total alacrity, unequivocally and backed up with empirical scientific evidence, that the basic premise, IE Anthropogenic produced CO2 causes uncontrolled warming – what alarmists BELIEVE (and what I believe is specious) is (completely) wrong. Therefore, the ante must be raised, but by pure science. Nature not Anthropogenic hot air,
‘L’Homme fait ce qu’il peut, et Dieu, ce qu’il veut.’
-Man does what he can, but God what he will.
There are many people who feel that we are not responsible for warming the planet, but the people who ‘count’ do.
It is the case of the Emperor’s clothes all over again, where is the child to see the obvious? There will be no children to speak the truth – all will have had their opinions ‘formed’ for them.
This is not about science any longer but about power and vested interest. If the alarmists where to lose the argument, the whole ‘alarmist industry’ is gone over night. Hence ‘climate change’, ‘green technology’, saving the planet has taken a new form and an ‘ethical’ dimension( the ethics of force feeding children quasi science and the irony, is lost on these people).
If one looks at my country Britain, there are now so many jobs and jobsworths even government departments wholly devoted to the environment and ‘climate change’, its all money, kudos and political power.
The Met office and Climate Research Unit, are all totally on-message, but if evidence came to light, that CO2 is no longer the bug-bear, what then? (would they tell? Mr. Steve McIntyre has all sorts of problems gaining correct information). The university of East Anglia always had a reputation for marxist and left leaning tendencies, how apt then, that the CRU is based there, their reputation for humanities not science was perfect, most red-brick universities have far superior pure science faculties but then again it is not about ‘pure science’.
The Uk is no longer fighting a major world war but battling the forces of ‘malign mankind’ in the form of ‘climate change’ and how us mere mortals got it wrong again. Ergo, we must be helped to save ourselves and by extension Government knows best.
So now the pragmatists, industrialists, naysayers, real scientists and the most ordinary folk – anybody who does not tow the line are ‘infidels’ ( AGW -it became a religion).
And there’s not a thing we can do about it?!?! (or so ‘they’ think!).
You couldn’t make it up! – oh! -they just did! What we need but don’t really want is a severe, prolonged winter (as Joe mentioned above).
We are being suckered.
You can see on this chart that the only significant hiccup on CO2’s relentless rise came during the 2008 La Nina.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
world 3 and 1 are the same. Only thing missing is the economic redistribution that’s not illustrated by non-treaty nations.
A simple question: What are the legal, political, economic, social or other remedies that are available to the skeptic community to counter the alarmist push? Marches, blogs, and general complaining are obviously not sufficient. Opposing scientific opinions have not prevailed. And so on.
Has anyone filed a class action claiming damages as a result of alarmist actions? Have there been any significant political or economic consequences visited on the alarmist community? What is being DONE that has some practical effect? Or is everyone simply wringing their hands and hoping reason prevails?
Roger Carr (22:27:55) :
Phil’s Dad (17:35:03) : “… Was it not King Canute who held back the wave of lemmings?”
Please, Dad, do not help to promote this error. King Canute was a wise and humble king who was wholly aware of the frailty of man. He took his pleace Canute, a wise king and astute politician, used the exercise to illustrate that though the deeds of kings may seem great to the minds of men, they were nothing in the face of God’s power.
And to prove that rising tides result from natural variation and the effects of gravity – not man’s interventions.
Curiousgeorge (10:35:59) :
What are the legal, political, economic, social or other remedies that are available to the skeptic community to counter the alarmist push?
Just Landscheidt’s Minimum and its graceful consequences…
Barry Foster (04:43:17) :
We’re getting reports here in England (on the BBC news) that the level of global CO2 has fallen – they say due to the worldwide recession. Anyone heard any news on this? Cannot find it on the BBC’s web site.
——
I thought CO2 had a dwell time of a zillion years in the atmosphere. How could it drop so soon?
@ur momisugly Nogw (13:40:15) :
Curiousgeorge (10:35:59) :
What are the legal, political, economic, social or other remedies that are available to the skeptic community to counter the alarmist push?
Just Landscheidt’s Minimum and its graceful consequences… ”
So we just sit back and let the universe fix it? Sorry, but I doubt that carries much weight with the big money guys and politicos pushing the agw agenda.
Kum Dollison (09:44:56) : “You can see on this chart that the only significant hiccup on CO2’s relentless rise came during the 2008 La Nina.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/”
If you want proof that temperature affects CO2 then here is a graph of the 12-mth change in CO2 (Mauna Loa) vs temperature (Hadcrut3). [Not my original idea to do this – Fred Lansner’s]
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/deltaco2vstemp.jpg
The 1998 spike in both is the El Nino. Unless you want to argue that the El Nino was caused by CO2, then this shows conclusively that temperature affects CO2.
NB. It does not prove that CO2 does not affect temperature.
PS. The temperature is scaled (ax+b where a=2.95.., b=1.64..).
PPS. Frank Lansner, not Fred. Many apologies.