Public Relations (Spin Doctors) Deliberately Deceived Public About Global Warming and Climate Change

Spin[1]Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not. E.R. Beadle.

In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton, graduate of Harvard Medical School and author of State of fear, said,

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We are in virtual reality primarily as Public Relations (PR) and its methods are applied to every aspect of our lives. The term “spin doctors” is more appropriate because it is what they are really doing. A spin doctor is defined as: a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party. It doesn’t say truthful interpretation. There are lies of commission and omission and this definition bypasses the category of omission. It’s reasonable to argue that if you deliberately commit a sin of omission it encompasses both. A favorable interpretation means there is deliberate premeditated deception. The person knows the truth, but selects information to create a false interpretation.

Despite all the discussion and reports about weather and climate the public are unaware of even the most fundamental facts. Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.

Few people exemplify or describe the modern PR views better (worse?) than Jim Hoggan, President of a large Canadian PR company, Hoggan and Associates, in the Vancouver Sun December 30, 2005.

Want good coverage? Tell a good story. When your business is under siege, you can’t hope to control the situation without first controlling the story. The most effective form of communication is a compelling narrative that ties your interest to those of your audience. This is particularly critical when you’re caught in the spotlight; it doesn’t matter if you have the facts on your side if your detractors are framing the story. So, don’t just react. Take some time now to define your company story. Then you’ll be ready to build a response into that narrative should something go wrong.

Environment and climate suffer more from spinning than most areas and Hoggan, as Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and owner of a large PR company, has a long connection with both. He is the proud founder and supporter of the web site DeSmogBlog as he explains in his book about the climate cover-up. The objective was to denigrate people by creating “favorable interpretations” to the following questions. “Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?This wasn’t about answering the questions skeptics were asking about the science. Richard Littlemore, Hoggan’s co-author and senior writer for DeSmogBlog, revealed what was going on in a December 2007 email to Michael Mann.

Hi Michael [Mann],

I’m a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (sic) (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.

It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger’s intervention in Science. (Emphasis added)

The hypocrisy is profound because nobody ever questioned Al Gore’s qualifications or financial, career or political rewards. No promoters of global warming, such as Bill McKibben, Ross Gelbspan, Seth Borenstein, Andrew Revkin or most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are challenged. Borenstein exposed his bias in a leaked CRU email from July 23, 2009 to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang. He wrote, “Kevin (Trenberth), Gavin (Schmidt), Mike (Mann), It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Watchya think?A journalist talking to scientists is legitimate, but like the leaked emails, tone and subjectivity are telling. “Again” means there was previous communication. At least Revkin left the New York Times apparently because of such exposure.

The problem began the moment environmentalism and climate were exploited for political agendas and people asked questions. If you can’t answer the questions you either admit that or initiate personal attacks. Spin-doctors use two basic types.

• The individual is named and a slur applied. These are usually false or at best taken out of context. This includes guilt by association and taking payment from an agency or belonging to a group the slanderer considers inappropriate. It is an ad hominem.

• Individuals are marginalized by putting them in a group with a term created that marginalizes by implying they are at best outside any norm. For example, despite obvious limitations of data availability anyone who asks about President Obama’s biography is called a “Birther”. Anyone who is troubled by incomplete, unclear, or illogical explanations for events is called a “Conspiracy theorist”. There is no word or phrase for falsifying information about a group. A collective ad hominem is a contradiction. Guilt by association has some application, but a term like “Birther” has a different function. It is a collective designed to discredit anyone assigned. There can be no general name because the objective is to identify the group with a specific issue. This is necessary as part of the goal of marginalizing or isolating.

Early indicators of the politicizing of climate included the claim of a consensus. The word applies in politics not science Calling people who questioned the science “skeptics” was greater evidence. “Skeptic” is negative for the public and defined as “A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions. Most think it is the definition for a cynic, A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. The problem is most people don’t know that scientists must be skeptics.

The epithet “global warming skeptic” was applied to me years ago and was used in questions from the media. When I explained I accepted global warming the media was surprised. They didn’t understand when I explained my skepticism was about the cause – the claim it was due to human CO2. Some labeled me a contrarian, but it wasn’t effective because few know what it means.

When the basic assumption of the IPCC hypothesis that increased CO2 causes increased temperature stopped occurring after 1998, the attackers changed the subject and the pejorative. They raised the smearing level because they were losing the battle for the public mind. Now it became climate change and questioners deniers with the deliberate association with “holocaust deniers”.

Ironically, like all so-labeled, I am anything but a denier. My 40-year career involved teaching people how much climate changes naturally over time. The IPCC were deliberately constrained by their terms of reference to human causes and don’t consider natural changes. Rather they provide a “favorable interpretation” for their political objective to blame human CO2. It’s an interpretation a required spin to counter what Huxley called ugly facts.

Every time a problem appeared public relations people appeared and strategized a defense, usually to divert from the problem. When the emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) a public relations person was engaged. After the November 2009 leak the University of East Anglia hired Neil Wallis of Outside Organization to handle the fall out. University spokesperson Trevor Davies said it was a “reputation management problem, which he said they don’t handle well. Apparently they didn’t consider telling the truth. The leaked emails triggered a shock wave that required a top political spin-doctor. Wallis, a former editor at the News of The World, was later arrested in connection with the phone hacking scandals that led to the resignation of London Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, as well as Andy Coulson, Prime Minister Cameron’s press secretary.

Michael Mann’s 2004 email to CRU Director Phil Jones was evidence of the PR battle. Confronted by challenging questions they apparently developed a defensive mentality.

“I’ve personally stopped responding to these, they’re going to get a few of these op-ed pieces out here and there, but the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about. By the way, Gavin did come up w/ the name!”

The “site” is the web site Realclimate, named by Gavin (Schmidt). But science doesn’t need PR, so why do climate scientists use it? The apparent answer is they are not telling the truth and worse, know it.

I opened with a quote from Michael Crichton so it is fitting to end with his closing remarks.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

The problem and challenge is the population generally divides into 80 percent who struggle with science and 20 percent who are comfortable. I taught a science credit for arts students for 25 years so know the challenges. This makes resolving Crichton’s challenge of “distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda, even more difficult. It is almost impossible when professional spin-doctors are deliberately diverting, misleading and creating confusion.

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.Thomas H. Huxley

A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagreeDr. Leonard George.

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” –Thomas Jefferson

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
This is a must read… and is applicable in every area of life.

Well said. It is an extra pity that our schooling systems (everywhere) seem to have devoted the last few decades to dumbing down their students. It’s harder than ever to get many thinking critically or clearly for themselves. They’ve been taught it’s easier to trust the pop-stars and priests and computer models of climate religion. It’s changing, largely thanks to nature and the non-arrival of the promised doom, but it’s changing slowly. They believe so deeply, some of them.

Great post. Thanks, I don’t feel so stupid now for almost believing this bs
Thanks to Christopher Booker and wuwt I have seen the light.

The aforementioned Jim Hoggan would be more correctlly termed the co-founder of the web site DeSmogBlog. Who was the other founder? None other than Ross Gelbspan, who says as much just 8 seconds into this audio interview: https://soundcloud.com/sciencepope/ross-exposing-coal-media
As I’ve said in guest posts here at WUWT, in my blog and elsewhere ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=86 ), Gelbspan is the epicenter of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are ‘on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry’. McKibben, Borenstein, Gore, Oreskes, Monbiot and scores of others cite Gelbspan’s work for that accusation.

Txomin

It’s an interesting post that I’ve enjoyed reading. Thank you
However,I must have to confess that, in my experience, people deceiving others are far fewer in number (and significantly less effective) than those deceiving themselves.

wayne

Such an article has been needed for so long! It is very welcomed.

Jquip

TLDR: Any one can say any thing at any time for any reason. Your choices are to believe their facts or believe their social status.

Case in point:
Would something like this (see link below) get published if Professor Soon was at odds with the current theories for dark matter or string theory? I like how the writer seems to think that someone with a PhD in astrophysics at Harvard is somehow not a qualified ‘climate scientist’. There is no one on the planet over 40 that has a PhD in climate, they did not exist back in the dark days before we could simply believe rather than question.
Questioning is so tiring.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/11/05/harvard-smithsonian-global-warming-skeptic-helps-feed-strategy-doubt-gridlock-congress/uHssYO1anoWSiLw0v1YcUJ/story.html

George Daddis

Another example of the syndrome is the revelation that in the US, the administration’s policy experts advised the President to stop making the claim that “you can keep your policy/doctor….” because it was not factual. The political folks (spin people) over rode the recommendation because even if untrue it was politically advantageous..

thingadonta

I like this quote from Hawthorne:
“No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true”
In other words, I think very often part of the deception is self-deception, and an inability to be able to determine what is true anymore, even with good intentions. (Think of various ‘investigations’ which tend to find no evidence of wrongdoing etc. etc.).
The same applies to social groups and movements. They get to the point where even with good intentions, nobody within the group can really trace what is true anymore, so the ‘truth’ simply becomes what suits the agenda of the group. i.e. ‘The Cause’.

Pedro Oliveira

jc: OUTSTANDING comment

Even the spin doctors are reaching, now it time to fear the return of the Titanoboa
http://news.yahoo.com/a-snake-the-size-of-a-school-bus–it-happened-before–and-could-happen-again-153534343.html

RockyRoad

Warmistas are like a bunch of squawking geese–you avoid them because they’re so doggone annoying.
They don’t realize their only value is to be roasted–for dinner or otherwise.

Chad Wozniak

A perfect example of disinformation spread by the mainstream media is tonight’s report on greenhouse gases on CBS nightly News.
Inter alia, this report conflated pollution in China (uncontrolled coal-fired electric generation) with carbon dioxide as pollution, and repeated the IPCC’s lies about seal level rising a foot by the end of the century. It talked about how even the South Pole is being polluted – by CO2.
Of course the source for all this was the IPCC and some of its alarmist satraps. No mention of skeptics, not even that they disagree. Not exactly “fair and balanced.”
Somebody needs to tape these reporters on the shoulder and remind them of the following: (1) warming stopped in 1996, and it’s been cooling at least since 2002, despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2;; (2) it’s cooled overall since the 1930s despite a 40 percent increase in CO2 since then; and (3) calling pone of the three substances most essential to life a “pollutant” is insane.
Anyone have any ideas as to how we can compel these institutional lairs to stop their lying and get the story right?

stan stendera

Bravo, Dr. Ball.

SAMURAI

In any rational world, CAGW theory would have been disconfirmed by now given the overwhelming empirical evidence which doesn’t come close matching hypothetical projections of: global temperature trends, severe weather, ocean rise, ocean pH and Antarctic ice extents.
CAGW sycophants are now relegated to scouring the world in search of one-off weather events to propagandize in an effort to keep the CAGW swindle in play. They’re also riding the Arctic ice hobby horse for all it’s worth, but even that pony is growing lame.
Virtually all long-term climate indicators show no substantive evidence supporting CAGW’s premise that rising CO2 levels will cause catastrophic climate consequences. Conversely, an excellent case can be made that rising CO2 levels have been a net benefit to humans in terms of: increased crop yields/forest growth from increased photosynthesis efficiencies, reduction of excessive ocean alkalinity (now at pH 8.1, with the 250 million year average at pH 7.7), slightly warmer temps have increased arable land area and longer growing seasons, slight increase in precipitation, etc.
Climate history shows it’s falling global temperatures that cause catastrophic climatic consequences, not warming.
The CAGW hypothesis is in its final stages of viability and the CAGW advocates realize this. Politicians are doing all they can to milk this cash cow for all it’s worth, but taxpayers are getting rather sore form the milking process….
And so it goes….. until freedom and rationality is restored.,,

R. de Haan

And the worst aspect of all, the bastards breed like rabbits. They have infested virtually every corner of society. Wait until they show their true colors and start marching….(LOL)
Great article. Thanks

Russell cook @ 5:20 add greenpeace and the boston globe(11-5-13 on Dr Soon) to your list

Stan

[SNIP – we don’t care about your defamation issues and whining, especially when you use fake email addresses. A valid email address is required here, chump – mod]

Stan

[[SNIP – A valid email address is required here, fake ones don’t cut it – mod]]

Thanks mod for bringing this to my attention
“stan” with the fake email address has used several aliases and fake emails here:
Edd Ward
Mughal
Phobos
Stan W.
Sedron L
Typical warmist, no integrity, hides behind shadows taking potshots. Isn’t that right, David Appell?

Russian scientists laughed at this crap from the start. They are quiet now because
Russia made a deal to be classified as a third world country, no carbon tax, in fact I
Believe they will receive money as will china and india. Ironic that russian scientists
Are more truthful than those in the west( present co. Excluded)

JohnWho

[snip – the commenter used a fake email address to make posts here – don’t engage him – mod]

davidmhoffer

[snip – the commenter used a fake email address to make posts here – don’t engage him – mod]

Jeff L

I totally agree with the statements presented here – my thoughts precisely.
On the other hand, it is a very depressing state of affairs that we are dealing with : when you consider the 80/20 percentages on those who are “comfortable” with science, the odds of the real Truth prevailing in the long run ( either with the issue of CAGW or any other politicized topic of science) are depressingly low. Anthony, I want to thank you for running this blog & all others running similar blogs, whose goal is presentation of the real Truth. It is the only real force preventing us from slipping into the “internet version of the Dark Ages”, as Dr. Ball would call it.

albertalad

The Calgary Herald could perhaps explain the climate science degrees of all the activists the IPCC are using as documented. Then in this case – Dr Ball is indeed a step up from that group of morons the IPCC uses themselves. Or the IPCC lead – a railroad engineer – Dr. Ball is a genius to that fake.

Sedron L

[Copying what Stan has been trying to post under that false email address, eh? Mod]

gopal panicker

Eloquent Essay…well done Dr Ball..

JohnWho

[snip – this “Sedron L.” is a fake persona used by David Appell, don’t engage him. – Anthony]

I don’t think the debate should be whether or not increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the world. Some fairly simple science shows it does. What I see as the question is *how much* (or how little).
Claiming that CO2 increase has no effect at all makes it easier for those claiming more effect than “the truth” to dominate the debate.
It appears to me that CO2 increase accounted for possibly as much as half the warming from the early 1970s to 2005 according to HadCRUT3, the surface index that has best resemblance to satellite indices of the lower troposphere. Most of the other half appears to me as being from a natural cycle. The hiatus of global warming could continue another 20 years as the natural cycle downturn and the effect of CO2 increase continue to roughly cancel each other out.

Great article.

R. Craigen

I disagree with the final Crighton quote in one aspect:
“So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism”
Should be
” So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of the environment”
(or “environmental science”). “Environmentalism” is not a science.

Dr. Walter Elsasser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_M._Elsasser
Refered to as “Walter Maurice Elsasser, PhD, physicist and theoretical biologist”…
Hum, funny…no mention of “Infrared Heat Transfer of the Atmosphere”, by Elsasser, in 1942 (found in PDF form here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34962513/elsasser1942)… Funny thing, it must be MEANINGLESS, because Elsasser wasn’t a “climate scientist”. YET, this document gave the Elsasser Diagram to all “weathermen” from 1942 until the ’80’s to even ’90’s, which allowed them to use the day’s Radiosone balloon measurements of pressure, temp. and humidity (from sea level to about 80,000 ft) to predict the daily “heat up” and “cool down” of the Atmosphere, for regions (usually the size of a midwestern state or two), covered by the Radiosone(s).
Obviously, since he wasn’t officially a “climate scientist”, his work (again, sarcasm ON), must be meaningless. Actually, NOT SO. In many respects his work was PURE GENIUS! Reducing the Integral/Differential equations to a tabular/chart form so that within an hour or two, given the Radiosone readings, even the most basic of plotters could give you a decent estimate of the day to day temperature profiles for a day or two ahead (depending how fast the “fronts” would be moving, and how fast the composition of the atm. would be changing.)
A good illustration of the Elasser Diagram at work is given here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/161984855/Elsasser-diagram
Yep, the “Internet” is a problem too. Particularly when drones as I can easily find the evidence to show (hat tip to Willis also!) that the “real climate scientists” continuously need to be saying, “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!”

Chad Wozniak

@Donald L. Klipstein –
Whatever effect CO2 has had on climate is too small to be detectable with certainty, let alone measurable. The historical record, including (1) four prior periods of temps warmer than today when CO2 was lower, (2) cooling overall since the last century’s peak temps in the 1930s, a period of 80 years during which CO2 increased by 40 percent; and (3) the fact that significant increases in atmospheric CO2 began about 150 years after the climate began to warm, in keeping with the observed lag of CO2 behind temps. Ergo, the rise in CO2 is due to the warming, not the other way around, and is to be expected when oceans and soil warm, and there is no other correlation of temps to CO2.

milodonharlani

Donald L. Klipstein says:
November 6, 2013 at 7:53 pm
On what basis do you find that CO2 could possibly account for half of the warming allegedly observed from the early 1970s to 2005? Even accepting the manipulated data at face value still only produces warming comparable to that which occurred during a similar period in the first half of the 20th century. To derive such a result, you must apply a high climate sensitivity to the increase in CO2 concentration recorded at Mauna Loa during that interval.
Also, warming began c. 1977 & ended c. 1996. Before that cooling from the 1940s occurred, despite rising CO2, & since 1996 temperature has remained flat, despite being heavily “adjusted” & in spite of continuing rise in magic gas levels.

wayne

Donald L. Klipstein: “I don’t think the debate should be whether or not increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the world. Some fairly simple science shows it does.”
That so? Simple science huh? Pray tell us of this simple empirical proof that additional co2 raises the Earth’s atmospheric temperature at these current concentrations that this side has been searching for over the years. And since it is so simple, please include the equations and the data if you don’t mind. Will check back on your enlightenment for all of the scientists and engineers reading here tomorrow.

davidmhoffer

“stan” and “sedron” are inadvertently making Dr Ball’s point for him. From behind a wall of anonymity, they sling mud that is not only misleading, but highly irrelevant. They are the epitome of those with an agenda who, having no ability to participate in the discussion of the science itself, have no other tools at their disposal.

philincalifornia

Donald L. Klipstein says:
November 6, 2013 at 7:53 pm
It appears to me ….
————————————————————-
Other than what appears to you, do you have any hard, citable evidence for any measurable effect of CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm on any aspect of climate and its change ??
Do you have any hard data to support the conjecture that any effects on climate by the recent 40% increase in CO2 are anything other than somewhere between zero and immeasurable ?
Please take these questions at face value as I’d like to see what the state of play is here (and others please do too).

David Appell apparently STILL doesn’t have any class
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/

milodonharlani

Max Hugoson says:
November 6, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Keeling was a chemist & Revelle an oceanographer. I guess that excludes them, too.

Gunga Din

The “site” is the web site Realclimate, named by Gavin (Schmidt). But science doesn’t need PR, so why do climate scientists use it?

=====================================================================
Shouldn’t that be “ReelClimate” as in “reel ’em in”?

Gunga Din

Typical warmist, no integrity, hides behind shadows taking potshots. Isn’t that right, David Appell?

===========================================================
Was Appell the guy who inflated someone talking about culling kangaroos into people threatening climate scientist? Or do I have the wrong guy?

Way I’m seeing it, more and more regular people are waking up to something wrong. More and more are getting onto the Internet to find out what else is being said about the issues. We can see the polls and stats changing. We see that more people are getting angry about the situation.
I think the real change will come when that number grows so big that there is a common backlash every time these alarmists claim something scary and false with no data to back it. It will come and I suspect when it does, things will move very rapidly, primarily for the politicians.
I just wish I knew when.

Jim Clarke

Donald L. Klipstein says:
November 6, 2013 at 7:53 pm
“I don’t think the debate should be whether or not increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the world. Some fairly simple science shows it does.”
That is not the debate and never has been, but it is how the spin doctors like to portray the debate. The propagandists portray CAGW skeptics as people who don’t believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so they can compare them to flat-earthers. This is one of the tactics that Tim Ball is talking about. Judging from your post, it looks like the spin is working.
When someone defines their opponent’s argument, it is very likely they are lying.

shano

Sedron L presents a fine example of what Dr. Ball illustrates in the article above. First he calls him Mister then he goes into a detailed ad hominem. He must have studied his “Rules for Radicals” and passed with flying colors. Congrats Commrad. Back at ya.

Gunga Din

Anthony Watts says:
November 6, 2013 at 8:33 pm
@ Gunga Din, yes, you have it right http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/

============================================================
In that case,

Gunga Din says:
May 31, 2012 at 3:28 pm
(I still didn’t do the whole song but I revised the second verse to fit the situation better.)
To the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You”
Well I don’t know why I caused such a fright,
I had the feeling that something ain’t right,
I made a scare of some emails out there,
And I’m wondering how my rep now will fare,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in Yamal on a yew.
Yes I’m stuck in Yamal on a yew,
The “threats” were against kangaroos,
It’s so hard to keep this egg off my face,
Damage control, yeah, “Someone invaded their space,”
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in Yamal on a yew.

john robertson

Good post Dr Ball, however the actions of Canada’s Liberal Party should not be left out, the attack on science by the CAGW public relations shills was funded and promoted far too much with canadian tax dollars.
Far too many statists who are more than happy to lie, if lies will further their goals, lurking in the politicians cheering the IPCC on.

Paul Baverstock

Could someone please go to the Taranaki Daily News and retrieve the story about the river running orange, amazing viewing. I don’t have the skills to do this. Sorry

Segue C

A delightful read despite the tragedy of it all. Will those who fight the effects of Agenda 21 succeed in stopping the spin?
We see greed energy still destroying green and special places throughout Ontario though fewer people genuflect to its monuments the unspoiled vistas of Lake Superior may be despoiled even as that particular sWINDle fails in Europe.

Dumb Scientist (@DumbSci)

[SNIP a valid email address is required to post here DumbSci@twitter.example.com is not a valid email address – feel free to resubmit with a valid email address – mod]

Dumb Scientist

Jim Clarke says:
November 6, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The propagandists portray CAGW skeptics as people who don’t believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so they can compare them to flat-earthers. This is one of the tactics that Tim Ball is talking about.”
Isn’t Dr. Tim Ball an author of Slaying the Sky Dragon… the book which denies the existence of the greenhouse effect?
[‘Dumb Scientist’ link to screen name removed due to admittedly profane commentary. This is a family blog. ~mod.]