Josh from CartoonsbyJosh.com writes:
Like you I have been shocked by things written about this by alarmists – quite extraordinary. This cartoon comes from the daftness written here courtesy of Gav, Mike and Kev.
Be sure also to read this full rebuttal:
What have they got to lose?
They’ve got to hold their line or they lose everything now, and they know it.
As long as governments of the world give them money to keep saying what they are saying there will be no end.
They feed off each other using our taxes.
Peter D. Tillman says:
April 30, 2011 at 10:55 am
I looked up your bio. Interesting and impressive. Do you subscribe to any open discussion blogs?
I hang out, at laymans level, at this site:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/
Richard Henderson
Dyfed UK
NikFromNYC says:
April 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“….All it will take is a generation of indoctrinated kids to rebel against their no-longer-cool (since it’s not getting very hot out after all) fanaticism to create a huge swing in Western civilization…”
Thank you for thinking out loud. Reasoning alike, my understanding is that on the short term the voice of reason will come from developing countries and eastern Europe, on a long term for western Europe it will need a generation change.
I remember in one of the previous century mails(?) when the scam was started there was some rationing like: “if we are wrong with the theory we still do the right thing pushing for renewables” that it ceased to be a theory.
Sorry, but I don’t see these guys as priests, high or low. Their “sky is falling” mentality is more in tune with a new remake of the three stooges. I can’t imagine all the ways they see “human-induced warming” in every day things. Reminds me of the decade of seeing Jesus in a potato chip.
NikFromNYC says:
April 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“The Edison light bulb is hated from a very deep and deeply disturbed level of the cultist’s psyche, … Those who would ban Edison bulbs instead of just tax them …”
Edison bulbs? Really? They’re in a panic about carbon filament bulbs now?
No, I think if you’re concerned about “naked farmers killing the inventors,” you should recognise that the bulbs of which you speak are actually the work of the original Nik of NYC, Nikola Tesla.
Sorry, I couldn’t let it ride. It’s in my psyche.
Over the last 6 decades, I’ve developed a hypothesis that, where a trade or profession can be employed in either the public or private sector, the less able tend to gravitate to the public sector. This applies equally to blue collar and white labcoat workers, and in spades to the inky-fingered professions. The unstinting efforts of Minx the Merciless in exposing the IPCC as the epitome of a corrupt body revelling in it’s mediocrity, and the constant exposure of ineptitude and ingenuousness of cAGW advocacy practitioners by reputable scientists in this and other publications, leads me to believe I may have a point.
@Jake
“Instead of a deity or sense of community, pseudo-science cults obsess on a principle.”
When we talk about the typical low-level alarmists, the one they worship is the all-knowing, all-loving, kind, gentle, fatherly entity, who just wants what is best or you. But he cannot help you until you and everyone else believe in him.
Who is this entity? It’s the Scientific Concensus. As bizarre as it may sound, they believe in and worship what they believe to be the scientific unanimity of all the scientists in the world. Worshiping an imaginary opinion of a group of anonymous people as a deity is just about as weird as it gets.
RE NikFromNYC
“The Edison light bulb is hated from a very deep and deeply disturbed level of the cultist’s psyche”
Certainly the simple Edison bulb was a main target of Greenpeace activism in Europe,
and on their website they credit themselves for bringing about the ban
In Australia too saving emissions was the main driving force
(in the US it seems saving energy rather than CO2 emissions is the focus
of all the energy efficiency regulations being imposed, from light bulbs to TV sets to washing machines)
The irony, of course, is that light bulbs don’t burn coal, and don’t release any CO2 gas.
If there’s a problem – deal with the problem.
It’s not true that all supply-based initiatives need be low or costly,
and in any case the energy effciciency based bans are quoted in terms of 20 to 30 year savings, when more such alternatives are viable
http://ceolas.net/#cc2401x
Besides, as Nik says, the bulbs etc could be taxed anyway – and could cross-finance
today’s more expensive energy saving alternatives, equilibrating the market.
Both bans and taxes are however wrong compared to free market product competition, dealing directly with any energy supply and emission issues.
And finally . . . I will not be done talking . . . until you agree . . . so please, do not interrupt while I am talking!!!