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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
thefordprefect says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“somewhat different!”
Yeah, good luck with that.
Philip Thomas says:
September 13, 2010 at 2:38 pm
…. Thomas Fuller, ex Green Technology consultant to the UK government has business interests with the EC!…
_______________________________________________–
Thank you for that tidbit. It looks to me that Mr Fuller is busy doing a bit of damage control and misdirection for his masters.
Here is the very obvious connection which I gave him a couple of days ago but he ignored:
Stan Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization…” http://216.92.66.74/index.php?title=Stanley_Greenberg
Stan Greenberg provides strategic advice and research for leaders, companies, campaigns, and NGOs trying to advance their issues in tumultuous times…
“…He is also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming….” http://tpm.apperceptive.com/profile/Stan%20Greenberg
SGreenberg Carville Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries including Tony Blair’s in the UK.
ANd look what the UK’s Tony Blair is doing now. He is a paid adviser to JP Morgan, receives fees through Tony Blair Associates for private consultancy work and speech-making, as well as office costs and expenses in his work as Middle East envoy.
SO on to CAGW. Remember the leaked Danish text at Copenhagen that turned control of the carbon credit scheme over to the World Bank?
Well here is the banking connection again:
Not only does Strong have ties to the Rockefellers and the World Bank, Maurice Strong introduced Edmund de Rothschild on the Fourth World Wilderness Conference in September 1987, held in Denver and southern Colorado: “One of the most important initiatives that is open here for your consideration is that of the Conservation Banking Program. As mentioned this morning, we have [inaudible] here the person who really is the source of this very significant concept. He was/is one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation which sponsored this meeting. He was at the first of these conferences. His conversion to the relationship between conservation and economic development has been a pioneering one… Many of the energy developments that we have seen have come from his early anticipation of our energy needs… And I’m just delighted to have this opportunity of introducing to you, Edmund de Rothschild.” http://isgp.eu/organisations/introduction/PEHI_Maurice_F_Strong_bio.htm
1972- UN’s First Earth Summit:
As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:
“It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg106963.html
“..Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
Mr Fuller You forgot to mention these organizations are UN NGOs
“..As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine: as an adviser to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance — which, as we shall see, plays a crucial part in the international power grab. The Commission on Global Governance (CGG), was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems “are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives.
Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.” http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
Then there is the Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)
Here is who theGed Davisin the e-mail is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)
Senerio B1 is Agenda 21.UN Division for Sustainable Development – full text of Agenda 21
UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance
Our Global Neighborhood – Report of the Commission on Global Governance: a summary analysis
We have had Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and more recently Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin so why the heck whenever anyone brings up the subject of a totalitarian world government is it considered a deranged fantasy?
Perhaps this is the reason. As one history professor noted Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution… Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion
For a very well documented study on the recent history of a group of elites controlling the USA look at this article.
One additional point.
In the last decades we have seen business become concentrated into a few powerful multinational banks and corporations. National borders, tarriffs, quarrantine, local laws and governments are seen as an impediment to business by these multinationals. That is why we ended up with the World Trade Organization and the WTO agreement on Agriculture which gave the USA open borders tainted food and medicine and tuberculosis infected cattle showing up in US states that have been TB free for years.
Why on earth would anyone think these business people, who have met on a yearly basis since 1954 in a closed conference, would NOT be working towards a one world government. Preferably one they control???
Back in 2007 or 2008, the UN commissioned a study that supported the idea of moving the people to the food, rather than moving the food to the people. What this report recommended was moving the world’s poor onto the most productive farmland. I can’t see anything that happening now that is not moving in that direction. Open borders, the payment from government to farmers to allow their fields to revert to original “habitat”, and finally regulation to the point of strangulation. These policies are ending the days of lucrative private farming and the value of private property.
I spent several hours today trying to find the report. Alas, no luck. At the time when I first read it, it was a featured report on the UN’s website. Perhaps another reader can find it? The idea was so preposterous to me at the time that I scoffed at it. Now, it seems possible within the crazy, radical, agenda driven world that we live in.
I completely agree. I used to call this phenomenon “Class Action Conspiracy”. No actual conspiring going on. Just a sort of dumbed-down likemindedness and the usual bandwagon effect.
The media campaigns and coordination described above are by no means limited to environmental issues. The identical tactics are used to promote progressive economics and politics in general. Can you say Journolist? How about Center for American Progress? MoveOn.org?
Ian Wishart (from New Zealand) wrote an excellent book on AGW called AIR CON. In chapter 16 he dealt with the motivations of those in the alarmist movement. This entire chapter is available in PDF format at SPPI. It is truly worth a perusal.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/seriously_inconvenient_truth.pdf
GaryM says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The media campaigns and coordination described above are by no means limited to environmental issues….
_________________________________________
I became a believer in the big C when I saw it in action from the inside.
Sweetheart plastics, McDonald’s (hamburgers) and Polysar had a very nice joint venture planned for recycling McDonald’s polystyrene waste. The plant was to be built in Leominster MA and was designed to employ handicaped workers. It was a really nice pro-community project that we were all proud of. Unfortunately it did not project the correct “corporations are evil” image. Les than one month before the TV commercials advertizing the joint venture were to air. The anti-polystyrene campaign blew up out of nowhere, supposedly started by a New Hampshire school teacher and went nationwide in a week. The information was lies but it effectively killed the project and shut down five manufacturing plants in Massachusetts alone.
There is no way in Hades some teenager got nationwide coverage on that issue at the critical time without a lot of power and money backing her.
I related this story to John Munsell and he told me he could not get any coverage about the e-coli contamination by Con Agri and the political cover up. According to what John told me, he was interviewed by a big New York magazine, the story written, approved by the editor and then killed by the magazine’s owner. John’s story
So much for “free speech”
Semantic Analysis, a general procedure:
1. of all possible things in the world a person could choose to spend time doing, why does the person choose to make a topic of this? why does this person want you to think about this?
2. of all possible angles a person could choose to take on a topic of conversation, why does the person choose this one from all the others? what does this person want you to think about it?
3. of all possible words in the dictionary, why would a person choose to use these particular ones? how does this person want you to think?
this very often reveals much more than the promoter of the topic intended.
The inclusion of RealClimate in the icons heading this article set an immediate red flag for me. Its banner even looks like one. It is a science blog and to the best of my knowledge does not solicit or receive public funding of any description. “Which of these things is not like the other…” Ok. I suspended judgment and read on, but there was not even one mention of RealClimate anywhere in the text!
Mark S later questioned the inclusion of RealClimate and Steven Mosher replied with an explicit mention of David Michaels, author of “Doubt is their product.” Extraordinarily, this was exactly the text I had in mind the instant I saw the opening banner of the article. If WWF, GreenPeace etc are to be damned, RealClimate is left to be damned by the mere association of its icon in the image at top, without any appraisal of its similarity or otherwise with respect to the other organisations, the content of its blog or the qualifications of its authors.
I recommend “Doubt is their product” and applying its insights to RealClimate, WUWT and environmental reporting in equal measure.
Gail Coombs,
I was really suprised to find that Skeptical Inquirer magazine was run by CSI who have contractual obligations to the UN. The UN gives out ECOSOC status, only granted if the NGO has “.. provided that they can demonstrate that their programme of work is of direct relevance to the aims and purposes of the United Nations
To hold this status, ECOSOC’s terms state that they must “..support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities..”.
http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1996/eres1996-31.htm
This means Skeptical Inquirer cannot publish articles that do not support the UN and its interests, they have to be UN mouthpieces which expains why their supposedly balanced articles are never critical of the IPCC or Global Warming. In fact they are constantly pushing CAGW down our throats.
Here is a list of over 3000 ECOSOC NGOs, some of which purport to be involved scientific research, but all of which are tied to being UN zombies. They do the UN’s dirty propaganda and viral marketing while UN remains saintly.
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf
Some one says:
“Thank you for that tidbit. It looks to me that Mr Fuller is busy doing a bit of damage control and misdirection for his masters. ”
You can be green, concerned for the environment, as is Athony Watts, and NOT have ‘political masters’ !!!!!!!!!
For Goodness sake….. Are all the commentors here comletely ignorant of the work Tom Fuller has done to shone a light into the corruption of science that is CAGW
I suggest you all buy, the book that Anthony Watts ADVERTISES onthe front page of this website.. Written by Thomas Fuller. (and S Mosher 😉 )
Criticise him if you will AFTER, you have read the book…
Tom Fuller is very sceptical of CAGW…
His politics are very different than my own, but he thinks science is more important than politics.
He wrote the BOOK: Climategate – The Crutape letter..
That tears strips out of the ‘hockey stick team’
To quote the back cover:
“The Team, led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in attempts to shape the debate and influence public policy:
Actively worked to evade Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents and EVEN CLIMATE DATA
Tried to corrupt the peer reviewed principles that are the mainstay of modern sceince, reviewing each others work, SABOTAGING eforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands.
Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline ‘ that showed their data COULD NOT BE TRUSTED.
READ the book, do anyone really think, he is doing damage control for his masters…
Thomas and his co-author have arguably done as much, or MOREthan Athony Watts tpo highlight this issue…
While you are about it, read ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ – A W Montford (why no link Anthony?)
As this tells Steve Mcintyres (Climate Audit) story with respect to dismantylying the hockey stick and the teeam, up to Copenhage last year. Andrew Montford was able to squeeze in a final chapther, on the climategate emails, which verified the history he had allready written, of Steve Mcintyres quest, with Michael Mann, the ‘team’ (CRU, Jones, etc) and RealClimate…
Some of the commentors here are beyond parody, it is NOT a political issue. You can be sceptical of CAGW, and be on the LEFT, RIGHT, Centre ground of politics…
Take a look at Futerra – A media PR company, specialising in all things ‘Climate Change since 2001..
Are they:
1) All part of a conspiracy, designed to bombard the media, and the elite with a world wide agenda of climate change propaganda, working to create a globalised worldorder ran by the UN
OR
2)Are they a group of media professionals that started a business, and have done very well, marketing, communicating the ‘IPCC’ climate change message to the media, public, UK governments, Greenpeace, etc.
They started the busines because they are caring creative people that felt they should do something. They BELIEVE the fact that CAGW is real and dangerous….
1) is a conspircay – too be laughed at,
as the simple explanation 2) that produced the exact same result, just shows human nature..
This is the point Tom is trying to get across.
Yes, of course, there are now huge vested interest. but the majority of those you may find is actually big business, politicians jumping on the CAGW delusion bandwagon, to make money, or raise taxes..
Futerra – The Rules of the Game,
“Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.”
was one of the documents leaked in the Climategate hack
“Our audiences are
emotional rather
than rational.”
A gem of a quote.. from Futera.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf (latests buzz word)
Now we have:
” Sell the Sizzle” – Futerra.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
and to complement Rules of the Game,
to change peoples behaviour.
New Rules;New Game
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules_NewGame.pdf
(Rules of the Game, was one of the leaked documents in the Climategare/CRU hack/leak/whistleblowing)
Not forgeting – Words that Sell –
Where did ‘Carbon Footprint’ come from, these guys focus grouped it.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
Nice business to be in…
Client list, includes BBC, UK Gov, UN Environment Program, etc
http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/
The CAGW delusion, is NOT a hoax, scam, con, conspiracy….
It is MARKETING ! 😉 😉
I think Tom’s right. There’s no need for a con*****cy, although there’s no doubt that many proponents of the AGW story do collude. Those who suggest a “bandwagon effect” are closer to the mark.
My six decades involvement in the affairs of man have left me with a guiding principle for understanding the underlying realities of any situation – it’s called “Follow the money”.
That is perhaps overly cynical in a situation where mankind’s emotions are involved as well as their wallets, so a kinder way of describing the group-think collective behind AGW is a “community of interest”. There’s something in it for all of them, which makes it easy for them to subscribe to each new twisted morsel of supposed “evidence” that we’re doomed unless we act NOW.
Consider the actors in this drama, and what each has to gain from “belief”:
1) Presidents, Prime Ministers, Dictators, Despots et al – the opportunity to elevate themselves from flawed mortals into statesmen, the saviours of all people, true leaders whose vision transcends mere national boundaries and encompasses the world. The Nobel Prize beckons, at least for those who haven’t prematurely received one.
2) The U.N. – At last, the opportunity to be relevant and make its mark, with the possibility of garnering funds of its own, rather than having to beg for them from reluctant, corrupt, or bankrupt nations.
3) Wealthy first-world nations – These people realise that there’s only so much of everything to go round, and it’s their leaders’ duty to make sure that they get the lion’s share of whatever’s going, to maintain the standard of living that their citizens perceive as a permanent right, not a privilege. In condemning increasing emissions of CO2, what they really mean is that poor nations should not get ideas above their station and aspire to catch up. They would like the residents of those benighted nations to be taught to appreciate their stone-age conditions and be ready to serve as a repository of carbon credits that richer folks can buy to avoid compromising their own standards.
3) Poor and developing nations – Backward nations produce and consume bugger-all, so they feel entitled to be smug and righteous about their own minuscule carbon footprints. The leaders of these nations, and their friends and families, are acutely aware of the guilt of the west and waste no opportunity to exploit that shame. Riches beyond imagination could become available to the small cabal of corrupt a**holes who benefit. The people remain, fortunately, blissfully unaware of the existence of Al Gore and the IPCC, but they’d kill for a small gas stove.
4) China and India – These upcoming economies, with hundreds of millions of middle-class citizens and a couple of billion more who want to be, will play games for as long as it suits them. If there are any green jobs to be had, they will get most of them, and in the long run they will end up owning everything of value on earth. That process has already begun in earnest.
5) Low-lying nations – These places, which have been low-lying nations in all recorded human history and will continue to be so, feel supremely qualified to attach themselves to the golden teat. What’s more, they can get millions of strangers to sympathise with their imaginary plight and pay through the nose to assuage their guilt .
6) Politicians – Average politicians are fragile creature, elected by people who don’t know them, and slaves to the orthodoxy of the party that makes their elevation possible. Despite their personal beliefs, they vote as directed by the party’s vote-catching issue du jour. After all, who can be criticised for supporting a motion to save the world? Only ex-politicians tell the truth about what they really think.
7) The Financial community – These parasites are the ultimate example of “Follow the Money”, because that’s all they do. We should not be surprised that they enthusiastically support the creation of a new method of creating personal riches without actually doing anything useful. If carbon = cash, that’s all they need to know.
8) Big Oil – These guys are smart enough to know that they are in the energy business, not the oil business, and they don’t give a toss where the energy comes from as long as they can make a buck out of it. They need new sources to keep them in business when the oil runs out, and they know exactly how to procure subsidies to keep the dough rolling in. The beaut thing about green energy is that it’s prodigiously expensive and potentially much more profitable.
9) Academics – These are the supposed subject-matter experts, and across the world they have seized the opportunity to secure handsome and continuous funding so long as they keep supplying speculative papers that fuel the hysteria. Like politicians, they risk career suicide if they dare to depart from the party line
10) The media/journalists – It’s their business to report on the issues that count, and going with the flow, or actually even creating what appears to be a flow, is their job. Only the brave divert from the orthodox path.
11) Greenies – The guilt trip lies heavily on these folks, and AGW absolutely fits their narrative about how mankind is ruining everything Many of them have pure and honest motives, but the organisations that have sprung up around them – not so much. The apparatchiks who have hijacked the original movements (with which many of us here undoubtedly sympathise to some extent) are very focussed on the money trail that funds their grandiloquent activities.
12) Ordinary folk who take an interest in the welfare of their world – When subjected to a barrage of apparently uncontested agreement about our impending doom, it is the assumed duty of any civic-minded citizen to play their own small part in rectifying the situation for the good of all. Non-scientists in the main, they are blameless if they accept the apparent verdict of those who are paid to consider such matters. Belief, and being supportive of action, is conscience-easing – as long as it doesn’t cost too much.
Taken as a whole, that’s an awful lot of people who have a vested interest in the AGW scam.
Meanwhile, over at WUWT we have no barrow to push, absolutely nothing to gain, except perhaps the satisfaction of averting an unnecessary and destructive panic in the search for long-term energy solutions.
Philip Thomas says:
September 14, 2010 at 2:22 am
…I was really surprised to find that Skeptical Inquirer magazine was run by CSI who have contractual obligations to the UN…
__________________________________________-
WOW We have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer for years. Hubby is going to be very interested in that.
Thanks for the additional info. Once you accept there are people greedy for power and wealth who have migrated to the UN it is real easy to see what is going on. One only has to look at the European Union and The World Trade Organization to see which way the wind is blowing and it is NOT towards democracy but towards a Dictatorship. Unfortunately it is a lot closer than many realize.
As the FDA of the USA stated in their internet article:
International Harmonization
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html
“The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.”
Those who want power have studied real history in their private schools even though we do not.
“The kings and princes of Europe had learned from hard experience that they could raise the taxes of their subjects only so high and then they had a revolt on their hands and they tended to lose their jobs (and heads). It appears that that natural level was about 40-43%; people will tolerate taxes up to about 40-43% and then they start digging in their heels and they just won’t allow it to go any further. But with the central bank mechanism in place the lid was off. Now these governments could tax their people 50%, 60%, 70% and in some cases 80% of everything they produced and they did not have a revolt on their hands….” Source
The Real Power Brokers learned another thing. It is a lot safer if the people have no idea of who you actually are and safer yet if they think they live in a “democracy” when they actually live in a dictatorship. The EU model of allowing the “unwashed” to elect a local government while the real power resides in a body that hands down the decisions is what is envisioned for the world’s future.
Even control of the “local government” is an illusion. In the USA, state government is being bypassed by a parallel government called “Regional Commissions.” These unelected bodies are run by UN sanctioned NGOs implementing “sustainability” the code word for the UN’s Agenda 21.
“There are currently six Regional Commissions in place, or pending final approval, which impact states from New York to California; from Florida to Washington. Few people realize that these regional commissions even exist, or the growing influence they have over the lives of ordinary people, by providing the mechanism through which appointed individuals, rather than elected officials, develop public policy….
The regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore…” http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb2004/regional.htm
If you bother to look it is all out in the open staring us in the face but Mr. Fuller has the gall to try and tell us ” Nothing to see here, move along”
I guess the power brokers are starting to notice WUWT. Unfortunately they have a tendency to silence those who are too loud. For example Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, who “brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.” http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
McFadden not only lost his Congressional seat but was shot at twice and finally died of poison.
Barry Woods said on The Media Campaigns That Promote Dubious Science
September 14, 2010 at 3:06 am
Buyer beware! What CAGW is marketing has an extremely high probability of being a myth, hoax, scam, con, or some combination of some or all. Having done environemtal research at EPA for over 20 years, I’m not buying.
Fred..
I just said, it was NOT, a scam, hoax, conspiracy…..
marketing! was a little tongue in cheek(warmists seem to have no sense of humour)
shall I change this to ‘human nature’
I guess anybody reading this thread, can just follow the links I put in, have a read,think about what I have said. AND draw their own conclusions..
Some people just don’t seem to like that happening………..
You’re right it’s not a conspiracy. It’s groupthink. That, plus some pretty rabid self-interested people and organizations like CRU, Gore and GE, who catalyze the process.