I always have to chuckle when somebody uses the phrase denier/delayer to label somebody for even the slightest transgression on climate /action/justice/activism/alarmism/pick a word.
Briefly, this appeared on Google News:
That was the original title of the piece. Somebody must have complained, because it didn’t last long: Look what The Guardian changed the title to:
Whether the hopes are fading or in “tatters”, it seems that the hope and climate change movement is falling apart.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And from sunny Australia, with PM Rudd in Singapore promising who-knows-what, 16 Nov 09
“SINGAPORE: Any last chance of the Copenhagen climate change conference producing a binding target for the world to cut greenhouse gases has evaporated following a lack of collective resolve by the members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit.
The Prime Minister and Copenhagen deal broker Kevin Rudd convened a breakfast meeting of 20 world leaders in Singapore yesterday, but the APEC nations refused to commit to halve emissions by 2050.
The 50 per cent target was contained in the draft communique but removed from the final statement, largely because of hostility from China on behalf of developing nations.
It was replaced by a statement in which nations reaffirmed their ”commitment to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen”.
Mr Rudd said APEC was one step along the road and did not diminish the need for Parliament to pass the Government’s emissions trading scheme legislation in the next two weeks.
”As Copenhagen draws closer, we must remember the devastating consequences of climate change,” he said.
”There are only two choices here – action or inaction.”
With the Government and the Opposition still locked in talks, Mr Rudd said the weekend offer to exclude agriculture permanently from the scheme was an act of goodwill by the Government. END of my QUOTE
Eve,
You write “However Greenpeace and the SIerra Club have big pockets and that is where the funding for green lobbiests is coming from. I doubt we can stop the oil and electrical companies from funding them but we can stop the average citizen from donating.”
There’s not much evidence that there are the funders. Look more in the sectors of people who get rich by taking money from other people, by fair means or foul. Bankers, financiers, newspaper moguls, that “soft hands” type of sector.
Tor Hansson (14:20:02),
0bama recently reprimanded a member of his Administration for daring to speak to the ‘enemy’: Fox News.
And your remark: “Stop it already with your communist nonsense” probably indicates that you don’t follow the U.S. political situation very closely.
0bama appointed a self-designated Communist, Van Jones, to his administration. And he surrounds himself with similar anti-Americans. In fact, I’d like you to name even one 0bama centrist.
Why is political slanging being allowed on this forum.
IMO maobama comments should be snipped.
When i try to influence my left wing friends and inform them I cannot direct them to this site if we decend into political insults.
Lets raise the standards to what have in the past been more reflective of this site.
Van Jones was a communist for five minutes. He did not have a Cabinet post, and was well qualified for the job he held.
Obama centrists, let’s see: Robert Gates (R), Secretary of Defense, Ray LaHood (R), Secretary Of Transportation, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner.
Those are the ones that come to mind first.
And thank you, I do follow the U.S. political situation very closely.
Matt,
I couldn’t agree more. Hyperbole renders the reflected views on this site powerless.
May 30 2008:
The Bush Administration today released a court-ordered assessment on climate. The report — titled “Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States” — says human-driven climate change will damage ecosystems and pose challenges to key sectors of the U.S. economy including agriculture and energy.
Based largely on recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Scientific Assessment says that climate change is “very likely” due to human activities — a conclusion seemingly at odds with the administration’s long-standing position on the issue.”
Can we stop it now?
Matt (14:51:10) “When i try to influence my left wing friends and inform them I cannot direct them to this site if we decend into political insults.”
Matt, if it helps your cause in however-small a way, I have no problem being clear that while I am no right-wing extremist, I would find it difficult to justify making the effort to go out and vote for a party that not only misrepresents truth, but additionally does so in a scandalous manner which undermines both science & the environmental movement. I will list 4 Canadian political parties that presently fit this description: New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, Green Party, Bloc Quebecois. That leaves only one major alternative – and to date I’ve never voted for them (Conservative Party) because of some of their other (very distasteful) policies — abstinence (from voting) will be a serious option for many (in Canada, at least, since that is legal here) since climate “issues” DO NOT split along party lines. Of course political parties might change (perhaps slowly) to more sensible positions to recruit support — I hope at least one of the above-listed parties is on the verge of being more sensible, as I couldn’t justify lifting a finger to help any of them as things are at present.
I agree with Matt. Certainly everywhere except the US it is everyone from the Right to the Left who need to be convinced that AGW is rubbish. In the UK for example ALL the major parties are warmist and that goes for most other developed countries.
With some of the comments on here and on other sceptical sites it is far too easy for warmists to mis-characterise scepticism as being only a Far Right movement, perversely ignoring science for political ends, rather than a rational reaction to the facts – and that alienates virtually everyone of most political persuasions in the rest of the world. To the rest of the world to call Obama a communist is laughable and only weakens the anti-AGW case.
If we stick to the facts and cut down on the political grandstanding then this nightmare will be over all the sooner.
I am a liberal Democrat. I do not buy AGW. Most of my friends do, and WUWT has been a great site to help their understanding.
it works best when politics are kept to a minimum.
I don’t see a problem with calling out the Administration on its errors as long as we stay away from the name-calling.
I live in Australia and just wish I could find calling Obama a communist laughable. Unfortunately, the truth is seldom laughable.
I hope this site does not give in to censorship by the thought police.
Richard deSousa (10:42:13) :
I wouldn’t be too happy yet. The unelected bureaucrats at the EPA can still cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions (or more) dollars with their CO2 endangerment program.
The EPA can be tied up in court for years, as their regulations can be challenged on the science.
Thermageddon legislation; Kerry-Boxer, Waxman-Markey, cannot be blocked merely because AGW is an absolute hoax.
Iren, I am going to try to explain this as clearly as I can:
It is obvious that people who comment on this site have differing opinions on the Obama Administration. You have an opinion too, and that’s fine. Let me just say that it is not an opinion that finds favor with most people around the world, and it is not supported by the facts.
This site is doing a very good job of debunking AGW. If we mix the findings of fact we see on this site with politics, the findings are tainted.
We are all better off if they are not. We are fighting a battle for science and for facts. Once we bring political views into the picture the findings can be attacked as politically motivated.
That’s why it is better to leave the politics out of it.
From the point of view of a US citizen, Obama is not a moderate. Look at Cap and Trade, EPA, health care reform, his alignment with ACORN and SEIU (socialist/Marxist groups), government ownership of GM and AIG, the sale of Chrysler, the $780B + stimulus bill, $1.4T budget deficit, TARP, TALP, cars for clunkers, etc… The list goes on and on. His views on redistribution of wealth are nowhere close to mainstream in this country. This country was founded on the concept of a very limited federal government. A majority of people here believe in that despite the monster that it is now the federal government.
Obama is at about 50% approval now. It will go much lower if he continues with these radical policies.
Is he a communist at heart? I think so. Time will tell how far he can carry out his vision.
I give up.
One more thing — I don’t think Obama likes Cap and Trade for how it addresses CO2. it doesn’t address CO2 in any meaningful way. He likes it as mechanism to extract an almost unlimited amount of money out of the private sector. It would be the biggest taxation gold mine ever. All under the guise of saving the world. The perfect statist scam.
Tor Hansson,
I enjoy reading your take on the climate issues. But really, even though you say everyone should stay away from politics, you continue to comment on U.S. politics — and then you get upset when others disagree with you.
Stick to the climate discussion and you’ll have no reason to be upset.
A big shout-out to Mother Earth and Father Sun!
Even the best laid plans of mice and men…
The EPA has stepped in it on multiple times and has been given a pass…
We really need to demand they prove… a reduction in CO2 will cause no HARM to plant life and the people of the world… and to also prove why the current temperature is ideal or stable…
They can not justify any of their positions with science and we should be prepared to re-educate the US Supreme Court…
We could then begin to deal with some of the REAL ISSUES of the day…
smokey,
I reacted to irresponsible comments. But you are right, I ended up fueling the fire. I’ll be more circumspect in the future.
He just remembered, the only think he is capable of doing is to vote “present”. In this case it is fortunate.
John Adams:
The EPA will follow the Administration. The Administration will follow the polls. The voters will follow their pocketbooks. Once there is enough evidence that AGW is bunk, or even simply overblown, they will move to shelve the whole issue, as it will come across as nothing but a costly exercise towards a pointless end.
Re: Tor Hansson (16:42:35)
It’s a multi-front war.
On one front: climate alarmists.
On another: opportunistically-divisive partisans.
Personally, I find the suggestions that the climate “issue” divides along party lines not only laughable, but additionally goofy.
Who could take such a person seriously?
When I see such comments, I always pause to consider the possibility that they have been posted by subversive alarmists trying to undermine the credibility of this site [by posing as irrational “deniers”, to water down the contributions from sensible non-alarmists].
Not Amused Said:
Well, if anything, this will give us more time to stuff our mattresses with cash before the politicians rape our wallets and bank accounts.
E.M.Smith replied
Um, that won’t work anymore. I used to work when “cash” was silver and gold. Now the politicians can “tax away the value” of the “fiat money” in your mattresses via inflation….
…. Heck, even the Mexican Peso rose more than 1% on Friday relative to the dollar…
The US dollar is in a world of hurt and the foreign bankers know it. That is why the US dollar’s value is dropping in relation to the other world currencies. First they doubled the money supply the first Quarter of 2009. From $831 billion in 2008 to $1663 billion in the first quarter of 2009. (This halved the value of your savings in the long run) To give you an idea of what is happening, in 2006 an oz of gold was $636.30 and the money supply was $808 billion. In the first quarter of 2009 gold was already $1,020.28/oz and it is still climbing.
The second nasty change was a bit of sleight of hand by the Federal Reserve. When a bank lends you $100,000 for a mortgage they are supposed to have at least $10,000 in “reserve” the other $90,000 is “created” on the spot by a computer (Ledger) entry. Seems now the “reserve” is 0 to 3% so banks are just “printing money” at will to lend to people. see *****US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements***** http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html
So can anyone tell me how the banks managed to get themselves into “trouble” and now we have to “bail them out” with taxpayer wealth (our labor)? After all the money they lent out as mortgages is nothing but bank created “fairy dust” They got land and houses (real wealth) in exchange for that “fairy dust” . I guess the bankers are ticked because the supply of suckers has dropped off so they are going straight for the jugular instead of creating the illusion they are lending us real money.
The Global Warming hoax and the Banking hoax are run by the same set of crooks by the way. The Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans, Warburgs…..
Paul:
There is a partisan divide too. If you are liberal you are expected to be an alarmist. If you are a conservative Republican you are expected to be a skeptic.
I agree that the lines are blurred. I for one am on the “wrong” side of the debate. I am a liberal Democrat, and I agree that AGW alarmism is a classic example of media-driven hysteria. I am also doing what I can to educate people on the facts.