Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that.
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfulleThe Media Campaigns That Promote Dubious Science Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that. But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfullerr
rbateman says:
September 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
Nobody has an infinite war-treasure chest, and neither do these piggy-backers have infinite money supply
While you pay your taxes they will. No doubt.
The only difference between consensus and conspiracy is ensus and piracy.
The rest is con.
What you have just described is a bunch of like minded organisations diliberately cooperating and planning support for each others policies and campaigns with their diaries and informal get togethers.
So there is planning, cooperation and presumably a lot of contact and meetings between these organisations to present a number of united policies and actions, sort of a conspiracy then, just not for central government but rather for policies and actions that often need central control..
Thomas Fuller,
You write a very persuasive article, but, to be blunt, you are absolutely WRONG.
All I have to do is point you to the issues that the alledgedly pure environmental organisations are espousing and it is obvious. Here in California, just a couple of years ago, there was a battle over the direction of the Sierra Club and what faction would run it. Some of the old line environmentalists were trying to take back control of the organization to refocus it back on …… ENVIRONMENTALISM!!! They lost. Those who wanted to back leftist issues, such as illegal immigration which is diametrically opposed to careful use of our resources, won.
What you describe DOES happen and I do not disagree with it. The fact that many of the environmental organisations, if not all of them, have been captured by hard left ideology types is also not in question. All you have to do is LOOK AT THE POLICIES THEY PUSH!!! They promote centralised control and in many cases, like the so-called renewable energy push, cause more damage than they prevent.
Men and organizations should be known for their actions, not their propaganda.
Keith Battye says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:33 am
That having been said is all true and accurate. There is probably no concerted desire by the AGW advocates to rule the world but it does play the role of “useful idiots” to the gang who do want to rule the world. Politicians.
———————————————————
Keith, with respect, there are layers above the politicians.
And, having said that, does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Are we simply to believe that our democratic institutions guarantee us ‘conspiracy-free’ development of world affairs?
I use the words ‘world affairs’, rather than ‘government’ because I don’t believe the government is a conspiracy: of course I don’t. But when it comes to world affairs, well that’s a different matter.
The struggle continues.
Keith Battye says: September 13, 2010 at 5:33 am
They do more. Those who reply to articles these days understand the science to a remarkable degree, usually a lot more than the writer of the article.
[Jack Jennings (5:16 am) quotes Andrew Bolt on Greenpeace’s video using an angry child.] This is the foullest video I’ve ever seen. Behind this child are his parents, Greenpeace, and Al Gore with his wretched film that I once believed. It’s like we have neo-Nazi indoctrinators running free, acting like child molesters. I think of Jesus’ words, heavily condemning those who lead children astray. Yet Greenpeace started with good intentions, and Al Gore too AFAICT.
James Sexton says: September 13, 2010 at 5:05 am
Yes.
Tom
Richard Courtney saw, before it even happened, the “vicious circle” of media, funding and politics causing Climate Science’s integrity to be thrown overboard. He predicted right, and was ignored.
I would add, the integrity and character of Climate Scientists has changed as a result of pressure from this infernal media-funding-politics triangle. I think Phil Jones fell prey to temptations that have only arisen in the last few decades. It’s sad that his predecessor Hubert Lamb wrote a really good book before the corruption started. But Mike Mann is surely the product of the infernal triangle, the character they wanted.
Tom, the science is suspect; it’s now overseen by weak characters and opportunists who play to the infernal triangle. What can we do. Raising the science awareness is crucial, you might say such self-education is an act of patriotism. Read the primer under my name. Or encourage others to do so. Only then can we grow the political willpower to amend legislation so as to break the power of the infernal triangle.
‘But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.’
Well, I suggest that you look at the development of the EC and for that matter the UN – then think again.
Doug
This propoganda has crucial impacts. The current Britsh government is continuing the agenda of the previous bunch of incompetents in carbon reduction policies. It is planning to spend over 20 billion dollars a year over the next 20 years to save the planet and at the same time cutting the Trident defence upgrade ( cost $2obillion one off), its defence upgrade programme ($10billion one off) and a host of social, transport, energy investments etc. It’s a politian’s dream to save the planet and, perhaps rightly, believe that’s what their voter’s want. They won’t be around to ask the voters in 20 years time – mind you maybe the voters won’t be either.
About 2 or 3 weeks ago I wrote an article for another site where I argued that what we see is a conspiracy theory is really just human nature. When you look at the climategate scandal it certainly has all the smackings of a genuine conspiracy and in the case of the “Hockey Team” this may even be the case. The other side then rightly counters that it is ludicrous to think that literally thousands of “climate scientists” from all over the world are engaging in collusion or conspiracy. They are probably right. You don’t need a conspiracy to explain some things when a simple understanding of human nature will suffice.
Climate scientists are paid to study the “problem of global warming”. If there’s no “problem” there will be no funds to study it. Most climate scientists from all over the world are essentially paid to believe in the problem they’re studying. Enlightened self-interest kicks in. The pro-AGW path is the path of least resistance. It assures you receive grant funding, eases publication, provides a better avenue for academic advancement, etc. Going against the AGW activist meme is likely to result in less recognition, loss of funding, scorn from one’s peers and reduced standing in one’s field. A conspiracy isn’t necessary…human nature is all you need.
Nearly 100% of climate research is funded by governments. I can’t think of any government (except perhaps the Czech Republic) that wants AGW to go away as a political issue. It’s the ultimate scam and a perfect avenue for greater centralized authority and tax revenue. It’s not in any government’s best interest to fund research that may reveal that AGW is a fraud. Governments fund climate research to there is a human nature symbiotic relationship for researchers and governments to pursue what is in their own best interests…human nature.
You can extend this logic all across the food chain for those who stand to gain by promoting the AGW polemic – NGOs, banks, businesses, commodity traders, politicians, etc. They don’t have to “conspire”. Given the right set of circumstances, human nature will do it for you.
If you remove fame and fortune from the equation, interest in AGW would nearly evaporate overnight. In the US entitlement programs like Social Security are almost certainly going to implode into insolvency within a decade or so. Yet our politicians pretend this is a non-issue and feign concern for planetary temperatures after their own grandchildren of died of old age. In truth all this nonsense is about money, power and control in the here and now and damn little to do “saving the planet” 90 years from now.
Dr.Dave:
You don’t need a conspiracy to explain some things when a simple understanding of human nature will suffice.
Human nature, or the nature of those who do not have neither values nor principles?
There are a lot of people who actually can not go against their principles, you know them: they are the poor professionals, the jobless, those who do not get even the look behind the shoulder of their “peers”. As the old adage reads: “God rears them but the devil unites them”. It is not “human nature” but the “nature of evil”.
James Atwell says:
September 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Think somebody wrongly understood things: The purpose was to reduce carbon, not to elect reduced brains.
“Doug says:
September 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm
‘But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.’
Well, I suggest that you look at the development of the EC and for that matter the UN – then think again.
Doug”
Don’t say that. Thomas Fuller, ex Green Technology consultant to the UK government has business interests with the EC!
I googled him and this testimonial came up.
‘Bill understands how business happens in the governmental sector, especially the European Commission. He’s a hard worker and next time I need a big proposal for an E.C. tender, there’s no doubt that he’s the guy to go to.
Tom Fuller, Managing Director, nQuire Services Ltd’
http://www.pep-partnership.co.uk/testimonials.asp
Not making an ad-hominem, just putting the cards on the table.
Mark S (6:48 am): “…are you saying that the Website RealClimate is part of a media campaign…?”
Environmental Media Services (EMS) provide web hosting and support for RealClimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
Since the world is completely upside-down at the moment it makes sense to wonder why.
There are a lot of good points made in this thread, let me summarize the one that matters most (IMO): some say there is no “conspiracy” simply because the whole entire thing is not under central control, while others say it IS a “conspiracy” because there is a central guiding control. Both are correct. Of course not every individual involved in “climate science” is on board with whatever endgame is being pushed, but enough are in the most critical positions to guide things. All of human endeavor has been this way throughout history.
In fact, we can name names (soros, manbearpig, etc) but they are mostly just opportunists enriching themselves on the currently fashionable meme. What I see as the opponent is 60s radicalism, anti-Vietnam protestors, an entire generation that wanted to change the world at any cost. I also believe that almost every one of these people have the best intentions, but are completely wrong in almost every thought process.
They constantly run into the LAW of unintended consequences. Thanks to these people we’re removing BPA from plastic and replacing it with… what? We removed R-12 from A/C units and replaced it with… what? I can no longer eat at KFC because the fat they deep-fry with is nauseatingly putrid, same with fries from McDonalds and Wendys. Yuck. It seems the gullible are always going to believe junk science.
And it is an unfortunate fact that the majority of “science” I hear people spouting is of the “junk” variety. I know one teen girl whose teacher told the class that the majority of points of light we see in the night sky aren’t even stars, but satellites. Majority! Almost everyone I know “knows” something that is just plain wrong.
If you were unscrupulous and wealthy, and had an idealistic goal, wouldn’t you exploit the ignorance of the masses too? The biggest problem is that the people doing this REALLY BELIEVE that they are doing the Right Thing. That is downright frightening.
In Australia the level of noise has increased since Copenhagen. During our recent federal elections the CC brigade were putting out articles every second day and the pathetic bunch of us non believers are totally overwhelmed with it.
Australia has reinstalled a Labour (socialist) govt and they will put in an ETS (cap and trade) with the help of the Greens Party. There seems to be little that we can do to slow this down.
So goodbye America we are going down the toilet of taxes.
Still on the bright side Australia is going to single handedly save the planet from global warming.
Comforting isn’t it?
CodeTech says:
September 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“If you were unscrupulous and wealthy, and had an idealistic goal, wouldn’t you exploit the ignorance of the masses too? The biggest problem is that the people doing this REALLY BELIEVE that they are doing the Right Thing. That is downright frightening.”
I think you may have a point here but I think it may be unique to climate science. About 15-20 years ago medical (or more specifically pharmaceutical) science became pretty polluted. Unlike climate science, drug research is generally funded by pharmaceutical concerns. The little trick they pulled was to provide grant funding for research and then back away…except for one little hitch. They reserved the right to determine if the study they funded would be published. So results that didn’t turn out in favor of their commercial interests were never published. Well…as you might expect, the ship hit the sand. This little proviso quickly vanished from grants. Now medical researchers proudly publish negative results (e.g. drug A is no better than drug B).
This is not the case with climate research which is almost 100% funded by government. If you dare to present negative results you’re SOL for funding. This situation if rife for plunder and exploitation by a wealthy, ideologically driven few. They can almost bank on getting the results they desire and then market it to a largely ill-informed public. Pharmaceutical companies had to market their propaganda to a much better informed group of physicians (not impossible, just a much harder sell).
If you have a chorus of voices screaming that we’re heating up the planet and destroying our ecosystem the public takes notice. The promoters of drugs are not innocent of using hyperbole, they’re just slightly more cunning. One of my favorite examples is the much touted study that showed daily use of clopidogrel (at $3/day) reduced the risk of subsequent stroke by 50% compared to aspirin. Factually this correct. It doesn’t mean much when you look at the numbers (risk reduced from 1.3% to 0.6%). You would have to treat literally hundreds of patients with the expensive drug rather than dirt cheap aspirin for a number of years to MAYBE prevent a single instance of fatal outcome. But they still continue to dazzle a number of physicians. The same company has consumer ads on TV for this drug but I’m sure the eyes of most consumers glaze over when they see it. There is never any mention of the cost relative to the marginal benefit. There are strict limitations by the FDA concerning any claims that a drug manufacturer can make.
Not so with climate science. AGW proponents can make any outlandish claims they want. The only similarity is that they, too, avoid any mention of cost for the plans they propose nor do they offer up realistic scenarios of expected, statistically proven outcomes. Climatology is the wild west of science.
All these eco-scares provide fertile ground for exploitation by the ideologically driven. Facts and proof don’t matter. Worse still, our tax dollars are funding it.
Media campaigns are wars of rhetoric. As such, all presentations of evidence are done to support the argument. I don’t have any problem with this activity as long as it is understood that scientific evidence is being used to support a rhetorical position. However, I have a big problem when any campaign appeals to the authority of their scientific evidence and leaps to the conclusion that their rhetorical position is therefore the truth. It’s a rather unpersuasive way to sell an argument to me because they are corrupting the value of the scientific evidence and to a lesser extent the scientific method.
Bottom line for me: If the scientific evidence is not strong enough to confirm a predicted causal relationship then I’m not persuaded. And the trouble with climatology is that none of the scientific evidence is strong enough. So let’s get back to applying scientific method to environmental problems with well known and predictable causal mechanisms.
BobT,
You may have already see this, but it’s too funny not to share:
Holy smoke sanity at last!!!!
————-
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
————
but it won’t do the slightest bit of good.
Egos (left and right) get too attached too the idea that they have special insight into things they can’t possibly know and so reality is denied.
“But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed consp!racy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a consp!racy theory to explain events of the past two decades.”
Tom, I’d by lying if I said your stance doesn’t confuse me, though I may be misinterpreting what you say. I agree wholeheartedly that there is no need of a consp!racy theory (so I don’t trip the filter) for as I’ve said countless times most of this agenda is transparent and readily available for all to see, and not consp!ratorial interpretations of the agenda but the agenda material itself from the parties involved. So with that, I can’t see how you could possibly propose that the aim here is not global government.
Adding to my confusion of your statements is the memory of what you said just a few weeks ago in comment #5 in the article Jeff Id created about global governance spawned by my initial comment. You can find your response here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/uns-ideal-global-government/#comment-35261
“Broadly speaking” you agreed with the article and ended with, “It’s the poor that have to be kept down for their shabby little plans to work.”
So what “shabby little plans” do you mean and would said plans be “centrally directed”? In that article I spoke at length about some of the details of the agenda from the UN-sponsored Commission on Global Governance, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, and in comment #24, the Club of Rome (they are not from a Dan Brown novel and count Gore, Gates, and Strong among their powerful ranks). All of these sources are out there for you to research the topic, so how exactly is it that you draw your conclusions about global government and your contention that the idea be “put away”?
The only way I can make sense of your stance is to say that the word “consp!racy” is unnecessary because that implies this is being done in secret when most of it is not. They seem rather proud in fact about precisely how they plan to save us from ourselves. I’ll leave you with that Club of Rome quote I highlighted in my comment:
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
Some of those open sources for you to scrutinize, hopefully more closely than you apparently already have:
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=94#1
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/0/17394484.pdf
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
I have been breezing over these Thomas Fuller essays over the last several weeks.
I guess is what bothers me most is that Thomas Fuller seems late to the game with his profundatries.
For those of us following the bouncing ball of the globalony hoax, Thomas Fuller’s essays are pedantic.
If I may cut to the chase and ask that thinkers like Thomas Fuller cut to the chase.
Globalony is a hoax. It is a massive propaganda campaign. Everything proposed by Algore, his ensconsed scientists at GISS, NOAA, and the EPA are liars.
There, Thomas… that was not so hard to do….
To beat around the bush is Stockholme Syndrome. The libs lie. Sustainabiltiy is a cult. Globalony is a hoax.
There….don’t we all feel better?
Man up Thomas & quit dancing around the obvious.
Thomas, I beg to disagree with you on the conspiracy issue. If you study history on the right and ancient sources, you will notice that “conspiracy” was the way the world was ruled almost from the beginning. In more recent times, starting with the Venetians merchants, you’ll see that when they were defeated by Florence and Romans, they moved to Germany and later to England. In England the Venetians became powerful and had the most strong influence on Her Majesty Queen Victoria –Disraeli was one of them. They built the British Empire.
The ones who went to Germany soon were in 1776 convinced by Adam Weishaupt to form the sect known as the “Illuminati”. They were persecuted and Weishaput was sentenced to death in Bavaria but managed to escape and sought refuge with Duke Edward of Saxe-Gotha. Finally, they were financed by the Rothschild house in Frankfurt, and sent to France, where the Illuminati had a fundamental role in the French Revolution.
Today the Illuminati are still in good health, with several organizations working for them: the Bilderberg group, the New York Council for Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and many, many others, as the IMF, World Bank, the U.N., etc.
If you don’t like the word “conspiracy”, just replace it with “a gentlemen agreement”.
LuXs : September 13, 2010 at 10:43 am
It is interesting how often this Club of Rome MISquote is made:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
—————————
The real quote:
http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
—————————–
somewhat different!