Climate skeptics in Paris branded as “criminals” – wanted posters go up in the city

‘Wanted’ campaign targets Climate Criminals at Paris summit

Avaaz publishes dossier on dirty energy lobbyists at Paris talks, calls for ministers to boycott lobbyists

morano-wanted

Marc Morano poses with his wanted poster on the streets of Paris

The seven most insidious fossil fuel lobbyists in Paris to weaken attempts to agree a global climate deal have been named and shamed as ‘climate criminals’ in a dossier published by the global citizens movement Avaaz.

The group, which spearheaded last weekend’s climate marches which saw 785,000 people take to the streets globally, posted over a thousand ‘Wanted’ posters outside 5-star hotels in the French capital on Monday morning. The poster highlighting the seven most notorious dirty energy lobbyists unearthed from the list of more than 50,000 delegates at summit.

On Monday morning,  Avaaz ‘Climate Cops’ will hand out flyers outside key Metro stations leading to the Le Bourget with photos of the lobbyists, who are expected to ramp up their efforts to derail a deal when ministers arrive this week to negotiate the deal.

Emma Ruby-Sachs, Acting Executive-Director of Avaaz says: “These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action, despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy. Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants.”

Each of the seven named lobbyists is renowned for their backroom dealings to to stop the transition to clean energy and push the interests of dirty fossil fuels. Some have resorted to harassing climate scientists and even calling for them to be ‘publicly flogged’.

The lobbyists include:

  • Benjamin Sporton, head of the World Coal Association
  • Fiona Wild, representative of mining-giant BHP Billiton
  • Marc Morano, whose trademark activity is to publish the email addresses of climate scientists to expose them to hate mail.
  • Myron Ebell, director of US think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute known for receiving money from ExxonMobil
  • Chris Horner, funded by the coal industry and known for “harassing” climate scientists in order to access to their email
  • Bjorn Lomborg, previously backed by funders with links to the Koch brothers, he’s most known as the ‘delayer in chief’ when it comes to climate
  • James Taylor, senior fellow at climate denial lobby group Heartland Institute

 

Examples of lobbyists’ far-reaching influence within climate meetings include The World Coal Association setting up shop next to the COP19 summit in Warsaw in 2013 to convince negotiators to embrace coal as a solution to climate change.

This resulted in the Warsaw Communiqué promoting clean coal, which has been deemed as “a myth” by National Geographic. At the COP17 in Durban in 2011, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (comprised of major fossil fuel and power companies) successfully lobbied for carbon credits for new coal plants.

With global warming a clear scientific reality, the world has become increasingly intolerant of the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to undermine climate science and climate legislation. The campaign comes off the back of recent cases cracking down on “climate criminals,” including the investigation into Exxon for allegedly lying to the public about the risk of climate change.

The dossier is published as part of Avaaz’s 100% Clean campaign, which has been backed by more than 3.6 million people.


 

Source: https://secure.avaaz.org/act/media.php?press_id=684

Posters: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_criminals/

Marc Morano made a statement by email:

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of new ‘Climate Hustle’ film having its red carpet debut tonight in Paris: Climate Hustle tonight at the Cinéma du Panthéon at 7:30 PM.   
Morano statement: “Since the ‘wanted’ posters for me are all over Paris, I have relocated to a secure undisclosed location. I hope my trip to Paris for ‘Climate Hustle’ red carpet premiere will go better than JFKs trip to Dallas.”

UPDATE: Another photo showing the wanted posters:

The “Wanted”-style posters went up in Paris late on Sunday. Credit Avaaz

The “Wanted”-style posters went up in Paris late on Sunday. Credit Avaaz

From the New York Times:

Environmental activists pasted more than 1,000 “Wanted” posters outside luxury hotels here overnight, calling seven people who have ties to the fossil fuel industry or are skeptics of climate change “criminals.” The activists also distributed flyers with photographs of the seven.

“These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action,” said Emma Ruby-Sachs, acting executive director of Avaaz, the activist group that organized the stunt. “Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants,” she added.

Mr. Morano sent back a photograph of himself, looking mock-terrified, crouching next to one of the “Wanted” posters that had been posted in the Eighth Arrondissement.

“The posters are an exercise in silliness,” Mr. Morano said. “Climate skeptics are here promoting open debate and arguing to allow dissent. The idea that any alternative views amount to a ‘criminal’ perspective is obscene.”

 

Mr. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute, said in an email: “It is a shame that people must experience such vitriol and harassment when they make scientific arguments supported by scientific data. If such attacks must be made, however, I am glad it was my face that appeared on their posters. I will always be proud to stand up for free and open discourse and ultimate truth.”

The Heartland Institute is hosting a climate change conference of its own on Monday, at the Hotel California here. It posted on Twitter: “Eco-left activists put ‘Wanted’ posters outside our event space last night. We are not intimidated.”

430 thoughts on “Climate skeptics in Paris branded as “criminals” – wanted posters go up in the city

  1. Are we sure these people are not working for The Heartland Institute?
    If Avaaz is for real, once again the Alarmed Ones have defied all parody.
    Is there a hint of inbreeding amongst those who demand that they must rule over all?
    Or is it inherent in their madness?

    But what a promotion for the sceptics.
    This trumpeting of the Alarmed Ones insecurities and definite acknowledgement of their own doubts, pricelessly funny, the Cult implodes.
    That 7 people could endanger the Consensus??
    They know it is over and are trying to whip up a mob to cover their retreat.

    • Why is it necessary for the left to always resort to force, threats of force and compulsion to get their agenda enacted. ??
      Oh. It is because their schemes are inherently insane and people wo not buy them. Without a left wing press shilling for them, no liberal (politician, rabble rouser, organizer, “movement” or scheme would last twenty minutes. Reality is a bit%%

      • Because facts and logic are never on their side. If these people ever told the truth, they’d be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Liberalism itself is a lie, it’s all based on lies. They have to lie to keep it going. I’ve known them to even practice lying, just so they can stay good at it. I think that’s why bill clinton lied about being a vegan. It’s a small lie, nobody really cared that much. But to him, if he gets busted at it, he knows he needs to keep practicing, if he gets away with it, he knows he’s still on his “A-game”.

      • Simon, did he say “Only” the left lies? No – he just said the left lies. Stop trying to create straw men.

      • Simon:

        No one said it was ONLY the left, LM said the left’s instincts are ALWAYS to resort to compulsion.

        Occasionally the right sinks to the same level – I am sure you can state examples.

      • iwian and David Jay:

        The “left” is no more inclined to lie than the “right”. Indeed, it was an exemplar of the far-right, Joseph Goebbles, who perfected use of the Big Lie as propoganda.

        Richard

      • I see that Richard is still trying to push the lie that Nazi’s were right wingers.
        Sheesh, they put “socialist” in their name.

      • Pat,
        It shouldn’t be a left/right issue, but that is what it’s become. One side of the politics chose the emotional side and the other chose the logical side which is the basis of nearly all political divisiveness. The sides of the science are so far apart only one can be right and when it comes to partisan politics, nether side can admit they’re wrong and their opponent is not. The left chose the wrong side of climate science, but will never admit it, so unless there’s a way that they can save face while admitting mistakes, climate science will continue its trajectory into lunacy. They can only safe face by deflecting blame, so its probably going to take a scapegoat before we see sanity return to climate science.

      • Lol. Funny how some moron has to use Nixon as an example. You can have your Nixon, and I will raise you: every leftist that opens their totalitarian mouths.

      • @richardscourtney

        Sigh… clearly to anyone paying attention, the Nazis were of the left, it’s a liberal myth that they are right wing. Altogether now… Goebbels was a National Socialist — keyword Socialist. All of their programs were big government. Adding in militarism and anti-Semitism (also, something more from the Left) doesn’t suddenly make it right-wing in my book, despite the propoganda spewed by all the “smartest people in the room”.

        Which is not to say those on the right don’t lie. Per typical platitudes and cynical lamentations about our political process, they’re all liars.

        I would agree though that lefties do it more naturally and habitually – to themselves as much as everyone else.

      • Simon! Richard Nixon! Really?!

        Now I am sure that with your twisted logic that Hillary’s lies are justified because Nixon did it first.

        Kind of like every Obama screw up is Bush’s fault because…well it’s just Bush’s fault.

      • Goebbel’s like the rest of his party, were socialists, which puts them as members of the left.
        It really is sad the way modern socialists try to rewrite history to avoid dealing with the consequences of their philosophy.

      • Pat, it may not be a left right issues, but it remains a fact that nearly everyone who supports both CAGW and the criminalizing of opposition is a creature of the left.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • richardscourtney
        December 7, 2015 at 10:23 am

        iwian and David Jay:

        The “left” is no more inclined to lie than the “right”. Indeed, it was an exemplar of the far-right, Joseph Goebbles, who perfected use of the Big Lie as propoganda.

        Richard

        Goebbles was a member of the National Socialist Germans Worker’s Party. Sorten as nazi, *Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

        It only looks far-right to people who are at the farthest-unreacheable-to-reason-left

      • Luke:

        In reply to my having written

        The “left” is no more inclined to lie than the “right”. Indeed, it was an exemplar of the far-right, Joseph Goebbles, who perfected use of the Big Lie as propoganda.

        You say

        Sigh… clearly to anyone paying attention, the Nazis were of the left, it’s a liberal myth that they are right wing {snip}

        A”liberal myth”? It is hard to imagine a more ridiculous lie than that!
        The Naz1s were fascists: they were as far to the political right as it is possible to be.
        Quad Erat Demonstrandum

        Richard

      • Sadly, because it works. A rapist uses threats, his fists, a knife, or a gun. A Leftist uses the threat of government, and mob action to rape Western Civilization. On the bright side, sometimes the victim fights back and survives.

      • Fascism – a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator (UN this time) controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
        : very harsh control or authority

        Sounds like the Alarmist solution to a non existent problem.
        History repeats itself, but liberals do not study history, neither social, political, economic or climate. So, we see the same tired failures repeated again and again.

      • Yes, the nazis were fascists. Yes, the fascists and the communists were mortal enemies. Yes, the communists were left wing. But no, the nazis were not right wing. They were left wing too because they too stood for big government.

      • I hope this arrives in the correct place.

        There is no left or right, the true spectrum goes from Anarchy (no government control) to Totalitarianism (total government control). Socialism and Fascism are just two different forms of Totalitarianism.

        In Paris you aren’t seeing “the left” at work, you are seeing “Totalitarians” at work advancing their agenda. And they move on while their opponents spend their time arguing over a totally cosmetic, semantic difference in someone’s nomenclature 70 years ago.

      • It’s partisan politics and what you call the sides is irrelevant. What is relevant is that neither side of a political divide is willing to admit to being as wrong as the political side supporting CAGW is.

      • The Nazi government implemented wage and price controls and had absolute control over industrial production and the press. They confiscated the property of the old aristocracy in the name of the German “folk.” Not so different from the Bolsheviks, and not fitting the definition of “right wing” as conservative supporters of the established order.

        The Oxford dictionary defines “left wing” as the “liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political…system.” The Nazis weren’t strictly socialist and they definitely weren’t liberal, but they certainly were radical.

        You could call them left-wing for their radical transformation of the political system and extreme right-wing once the new system was established. Typical of a transformation to totalitarianism.

        As Benito Mussolini said of fascism: “We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists – depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.”

      • The Nazi government implemented wage and price controls and had absolute control over industrial production and the press. They confiscated the property of the old aristocracy in the name of the German “folk.” Not so different from the Bolsheviks, and not fitting the definition of “right wing” as conservative supporters of the established order.

        The Oxford dictionary defines “left wing” as the “liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political…system.” The Nazis weren’t strictly socialist and they definitely weren’t liberal, but they certainly were radical.

        You could call them left-wing for their radical transformation of the political system and extreme right-wing once the new system was established. Typical of a transformation to totalitarianism.

        As Benito Mussolini said of fascists: “We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists – depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.”

      • “As Benito Mussolini said of fascists: “We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists – depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.””

        A complicated man. Grew up in a religiously divided family and ended up being taught by monks. Despised the Pope. Dad was known as an anarchist but evidently was a solid blacksmith. In and out of jail and work. Deserted his military obligation. Kind of had this moshed up version of socialism and elitism as he was a fan of Nietzsche. Con artist by most accounts but he did lose the War and it’s always hard to get anything flattering written about you when you get your butt spanked.

      • Why is it necessary for the left to always resort to force, threats of force and compulsion to get their agenda enacted. ??

        Because they have no other valid techniques of persuasion, like truth, reason and intelligence.

      • Actually they are quite intelligent. They’ve managed to take the ruse to its current state of global awareness.
        While I don’t cotton to ruses, there is truly something to be learned from how they promoted the mass movement. They certainly got ahead on the yarn way before the majority of the respectable science community knew what was happening. Strategy and cajones.

      • Wikipedia has a decent article about the history of the Left vs. Right Wing in politics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics which ends with this wise conculsion:
        “the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean”
        In other words, left vs. right has become a meaningless euphemism, much like undefined “climate change” has replaced “global warming” so it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
        Oh, the guy’s name is Goebbels, not Goebbles. Rhymes with “no balls”, as in that little ditty the returning vets on my block brought home to us kiddos.

      • It is wrong to assume a straight line between left and right. It is a circle. Really far left meets up with really far right.

      • Front National (“extreme right”) = Parti Communiste Français in the 1980 (socialism and refusal of the arrival of poor immigrants from Maghreb)

      • lee says: “It is wrong to assume a straight line between left and right. It is a circle. Really far left meets up with really far right.”
        So true… Some spectra place anarchists and communists at opposite ends, while back in the good ol’ 1800s the bomb planting and president assassinating anarchists were often communists who wanted anarchy so they could become the rulers.

      • All:

        People that want to take things from others, or enhance their power without adequate/reason tell the lies.

        Today, what political structure(s) wants to take other individuals things (material goods, freedoms, etc.)? They are the ones that will lie the most?

        (and just because some individual are willing to give up their stuff for the perceived “good cause”, doesn’t mean the political structure that they support isn’t lying to them).

      • @richardscourtney:

        G’day Richard, long time. And with respect, I feel I need to correct a grave misconception: Goebels was a member of the National Socialist Democratic Party (Nazi). Socialist. While it has become common currency to denounce “right-wingers” as “nazis” or “fascists”, both Nazis and Fascists are manifestations of the Left of the political spectrum. The Fascisti, a political party created by Benito Mussolini, took it’s name from the symbol of a Tribune of the People of Republican Rome, but he was himself a former ranking member of the Communist Party of Rome, and had edited two communist newspapers.

        To call someone “right wing” and “fascist” or “Nazi” in the same breath is an oxymoron.

        Josef Goebbels was an exemplar of the extreme Left.

        The difference between the political philosophy that has become known pretty universally as fascism from history, as exemplified by either the Nazis or the Fascists, and other forms of Socialism, is that fascism is a top-down philosophy that isn’t happy to wait for the crisis which is supposed to bring about a revolution by the proletariat, such that they throw off the chains of their capitalist oppressors, and they determine to use the machinery of government to impose the required changes by taking over the government. An example closer to home of this same sort of behavior can be found among the Neo-Cons in the US, considered by many to be “right wing”, many of them even running as Republicans and claiming to be “conservatives” and supported by what’s ironically called “the establishment”, but in fact they are Statists, another Left of the political spectrum philosophical group, who have an approach much like the fascists, though usually not with the—overt—attendent violence to coerce people. Contrast the modis operandi of the Neo-Cons with the causes supported by Hillary Clinton presently and when she was Secretary of State (I think even the NYT mentioned how it was three women, Valerie Jarret, Stephanie Powers, and Hillary Clinton, who talked Obama into taking action in Libya). Look carefully; you won’t find many.

        The big similarity between all the leftist groups is a strong tendency to act as if the means justify the ends, and the only variation is how ruthlessly they impose that particular meme: coercion is just one of the hallmarks of that approach.

        I remind everyone of the words of Tim Werth, when he said that even if the theory of climate change was wrong, taking action—alluding to forcing people to do things against their will in the name of fixing a problem that he was admitting might not even exist—was still the right thing to do. I might ask who appointed him king? But we have heard supporters of global warming, and other eco-activists, and Paul Ehrlich et al, frame arguments this way for generations now—rent-seekers living off government grants, lobbying for laws to effectively prevent grants to be given to anyone who dares to disagree with them—not a big ethical problem there, right? Sure—smearing people like our host here at WUWT, that HE is taking money from Big Oil, the Koch Brothers, Satan himself. Uh huh. And at every just about every big climate crisis summit, you see signs out front with BP and Exxon and the like all over it.

        So why, really, are we listening to all the global warming nonsense? Is it about saving anything aside from the gravy train for people like whazzizname that earned something like $60 Million so that his foundation could produce three or four papers in a decade or more? Capitalism is not about rent-seeking, never has been, never will be. It’s about competition in the free market, both of ideas, and finance. Statism is about eliminating competition, and choosing the winners, and the rent-seekers will have their lobbyists in their fighting to ensure THEY are among those chosen.

        So: which group, the Alarmists, or the Skeptics, acts more like Statists, or any other Leftist ideology?

        But I do get your point, Richard: historically, the Right and the Left both have shown a tendency to abuse power when they are in the majority. As Lord Acton mentioned, once upon a time.

        p@

        P.S.: for the best discussion of a history of fascism, please read Jonah Goldberg’s excellent, “Liberal Fascism”.

      • My reading of history led me to find that in the old French parliament sitting in their respective places the ‘left’ argued for government control over personal freedom, the ‘right’ argued for persona freedom over government control. Both were socialist though..

        Oliver Cromwell deposed the monarchs, claiming to be offended by hereditary control, only to declare himself chief protector then reinstated hereditary with his son to take over after him. Monarchs and Communist/Socialist rulers don’t look that different from below, the later just looking inspired by resentment or a delusion that they can do the job better.

        Conservatives have a history of conservation and preservation, giving them their name – they aspire to maintain the status quo which has evolved over time (or occasionally to return to a ‘better’ time, viewed through rose coloured glasses). They are often older people. They can lie anywhere on the political spectrum.

        radicals and reactionary seeks ‘change’, often revolutionary.. which means abandoning the past (lessons) and trying something new or different to the old order. This tends to come from the young, ignorant of the compromises that must be made in life. They can lie anywhere on the political spectrum.

        The words revolutionary, change and new are spun with positive connotations, old and entrenched with negative connotations. Saying ‘selfies are so 1890’s’ or ‘rap (flyting) is so 12th century’ taints the act. Saying Volkswagen is releasing a new car is cause for excitement (or used to be) for many people.. new is good because it’s different .. yet rarely do we get excited in a good way when our keys are not where we expect them to be, the tax form changes each year, the government tears down houses to build a highway or a river breaches it’s banks to set it’s self a new course.

        Yes change in nature is inevitable, that’s why we build houses to keep nature out, and society to maintain continuity, comfort and familiarity.

        control freedom
        many laws few laws
        big government small government

        this is different from

        communism capitalism
        socialism, fascism, conservatism, radicalism all lie in the middle in no set order

        and different again from

        power power (?)
        (individual power can be great or nonexistent all the way through this spectrum)

        Socialism is a relatively new social experiment, others will say it’s very old – it doesn’t matter. I live in a socialist country (Australia) where education, health and civil protection are free(ish) and controlled by the government to be equal for all – it has great merit. Both our main parties are essentially socialist, with one having slightly more libertarian views than the other. Fascism or the ‘third way’ was to be an alliance between business and government (peoples) interests – with essential services being controlled by government and capitalists free to make money as long as they do not take advantage of The People. it has merit, and more closely describes the Australia of years gone by before the Bob & Paul Show deregulated the banks and began the selloff of public assets. Their socialist party was more capitalist than preceding conservatives!

        yes, socialists scream ‘fascist’ at their opponents on the right, because socialists hate socialists of any creed that is not their own – and to a ‘true socialist’ a fascist IS to the right of them.. just as a libertarian will scream ‘communist’ at a socialist. To a libertarian there’s little difference, they lie on the side of government control.

        Many of those who espouse concern for ‘the common man’ have their roots in the left – but it’s no surprise the worst atrocities are committed by these people, after all control does not compromise – and people in groups require compromise or absolute control. If the starting position is control for the greater good, then the majority must come first – hence the eugenics movement that inspired the deaths of so many, the killing fields to eliminate undesirables, the gulags .. so many deaths. But when people regain their sanity and throw out these murderous rulers they always distance themselves and think, next time it will be different, next time it will be better. Few remember the likes of Titus Salt who took it upon himself to improve lives for those around him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt few recall it was the wealthy few who built the first schools, hospitals and led the charge for social equality. Bill gates led an evil empire because he what.. made money? Yet it is he hurling money about in an attempt to help..

        Many political divides exist, and many political movements promise to fix things when in reality the only functional system of governance is one that
        A. Can change
        B. Can compromise.
        C: Does not lay blame

        Me – I’m probably a conservative (I like plants and animals) libertarian (I don’t want the government to control my personal life) with fascist leanings ( government should provide water, roads, telephone services and other essential services and maintain sovereign control) a fair love of socialism (education, health services provided to all by capital raised from taxes) , capitalist personal desires (I want more money) with some radical views (I support gay marriage)

        What are you dear reader?

      • oh bollocks.. the html ate my arrows (and the bits inside them) rendering everything a bit more nonsensical than I’d hoped. Try this..

        control — communist socialist fascist libertarian anarchist — freedom
        many laws few laws
        big government small governent

        this is different from

        communism —– wealth distribution mechanism ——— capitalism
        socialism, fascism, conservatism, radicalism all lie in the middle in no set order

        and different again from

        power —- dictator, monarch, ruling elite — government — self governance — no government — anarchy — power (?)
        (individual power can be great or nonexistent all the way through this spectrum)

      • People who do not know the facts about what they believe will become shriller and shriller in defence as their beliefs are threatened. Ironically I would bet hands down that all the organisations that are stirrng them up are at least partially funded by the biggest of big oil. AKA Rockefellers. Choose any foundation such as WWF, 350.org, The Sierra Club, Green peace etc. Do a search on their website and see who funds them. If you want to learn how much they are funded by the Rockefeller Brothers (just one of the Rockefeller funding groups) take a look at their website where thet graciously list all of their funding. I published some exerpts on my blog. http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
        If the name Rockefeller does not come up in a green foundation’s website, try looking at their major funder and find out who funds them.

        Cheers

        Roger

      • Political Philosophies Explained in Simple “Two Cow” Terms

        Socialism
        You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

        Communism
        You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.

        Fascism
        You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.

        Capitalism
        You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

        Socialism, communism, and fascism are all leftist (centrally controlled forms) of government. They are also the most prone to abuse due to the concentration of power in government. Capitalism can be awful, but less so than the others.

      • Close. It’s more the case of big government knows what’s best for the individual (left) vs. the individual knows what’s best for themselves (right) although its not always clear which side of the isle is pursuing which path and that’s what makes it confusing. No political ideology in America comes close to the European idea of the far right except perhaps the far left of the Democratic party.

        The real problem is partisan politics itself where neither side is willing to acknowledge that the other side knows better. The fact that opposing political parties chose sides of the science is why climate science is so horribly broken.

      • Richard, as you well know, the only difference between fascism and socialism is that fascism adds a heavy dose of nationalism.

        Your attempts to rewrite history still fail.

      • When you use your own money to buy votes, it’s called bribery.
        When you use other people’s money to buy votes, it’s called socialism.

      • How about, say, Franco and similar monsters? you would hardly call them left. This has deteriorated into silliness.

    • “Is there a hint of inbreeding amongst those who demand that they must rule over all?”
      My, my…there is more than a hint! Although, it is also inherent with their madness.

      • PeterK:

        No! Joseph Goebbles was a Naz1: it is not possible to be more right-wing than that.

        Richard

      • For those below arguing about whether Nazis were facist or socialist, I would point out that Mussolini was a precursor of Hitler and a facist. His party was the ISP, the Italian Socialist Party. The difference is between national and international socialism.

      • To the millions upon millions of dead in Europe and Asia: As you ended your life, did any of you wonder whether the bullet that killed you was left wing or right wing?

      • “No! Goebbles (sp: Goebbels) was right wing. Because courtney says so.”
        To repeat, “left” and “right” are meaningless euphemisms that mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Like “climate change” can mean warmer or cooler, bigger snows or no snow at all, etc. etc. etc. I prefer straightforward terms like Socialist, Commie, Pinko, FM listening hippie, Obammunist, Stalinist, and Global Warming.
        Words we can all agree on, Right?

      • Richard, you can repeat your delusion as many times as you like, but it still remains a delusion.
        Like most socialists, you define as right wing, anything you disagree with.
        Goebbels was bad, therefore he must have been right wing.

    • Never forget: these are the people who admire Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stalin, et al, for their ability to “get things done”.

    • Brilliant irony. Posters are put outside luxury hotels where the parisites, fraudsters and pause den1ers are staying.

      “ Environmental activists pasted more than 1,000 “Wanted” posters outside luxury hotels here overnight, calling seven people who have ties to the fossil fuel industry or are skeptics of climate change “criminals.”

      • I love asking people wearing an image of Chez Guevera on their shirt, who that guy is?
        The answer is invariably the same.

    • I have been on the Avaaz mailing list for a while. I’m now trying to find out how to get off. I can assure you that this contemptible action is entirely in keeping with their demonizing and desiring to silence anyone who disagrees about climate change. Based on everything I’d received before, I thought these people had good hearts even if they didn’t always have good heads, but I can’t believe that any more. I once heard a liberal priest anathematising those wicked believers in absolute truth, and fancied I felt the faggots being piled around me. Reading the e-mail from Avaaz, I felt the same sensation, only stronger. Unlike that priest, these people are ready to take action. Kristallnacht cannot be far away.

    • Right! I have come to really think of them as defective people. Anyone who believes they just obviously should be in charge, and all their decisions should be obeyed without question no matter how lacking in common sense, and it should be ignored that they “power-brokerage” themselves into making huge amounts of money when they support an issue or not, (in my observances I believe they even believe themselves to always be acting “for the good”), and lastly, they do not care if millions of people suffer horribly (ISIL torture or slow starvation two examples) and die, it never causes them to turn away from or rethink their behaviour. Seemingly the thought is that millions of people SHOULD die, there are too many people I guess. If their reasoning ability is such, why would I want them to lead in government?

    • richardscourney:
      Joseph Goebels was a member of the “Nationalzosialismus” – National Socialists. He was a socialist. He was was also a fascist. If you go to the Mises.org and there is an article by George Reisman that articulates the socialist-fascist duality.

    • This newspaper article from 2010 details AVAAZ’s questionable activities, in interfering in those Canadian Elections at the time. Specifically targeting Stephen Harper, and ensuring the election of Green Activist Elizabeth May, and eventually leading as we now know, to the demise of the Harper Administration,

      Even worse is the suggestion (and not for the first time) that AVAAZ is connected with Globalist George Soros, whose reputation for interference in foreign Governments precedes him. Ezra Levant made similar allegations, which he later withdrew, under pressure. Glen Beck made similar allegations, which he still stands by. More recently “Off-Guardian” published an in-depth analysis of AVAAZ.

      When you are over the target, that’s when you get the most flak !
      AVAAZ would appear to be one of Soros’ attack squadrons, which
      he uses to subvert democracy, from what we see in those articles,
      and so Morano and the others must take this as a great compliment,
      that The Dark Lord Soros should send his minions after them.

      http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about

      http://off-guardian.org/2015/07/18/avaaz-clicktivist-heroes-or-soros-wolf-in-woolly-disguise/

      AVAAZ ? …. Nothing at all to do with “bringing people-powered politics to decision making worldwide.” as they claim at their website, but in my opinion, it’s more to do with achieving the hopes and dreams of serial finagler, George Soros. Perhaps the entire “COP” process is a creature of George Soros, certainly Western de-industrialization is one of his aims, in the “New Society” he envisages.

    • What happened to “Je Suis Charlie”? have they already forgotten the sacrifices made to protect free speech? No one should be branded a criminal for exercising their right to express an opinion. It is just not acceptable.

      • “Je Suis Charlie” never existed. It is a figment of your collective imagination.

        Charlie Hebdo tried to make the Front National illegal a few years ago, so Charlie Hebdo isn’t really “Charlie”.

        Criticizing a judge is illegal – even when he acts is a blatant political and media circus way.
        Saying that the criminality from immigrants from Maghreb is way higher than average is illegal.
        “hate speech” which can mean any non-PC is illegal.

        Truth isn’t an “excuse” for “hate speech”, unlike diffamation.

      • In France, encouraging people to not subscribe to a social assurance system is punishable. This is interpreted broadly as encouraging anyone to not subscribe to the national system but instead to a foreign health assurance. (See mouvement des libérés de la sécurité sociale.)

        Showing good aspects of illegal drugs is also illegal.

      • simple-touriste commented: “…In France…..”

        France is the poster child for everything politically correct taking over common sense.

      • As far as France goes, don’t they have pretty draconian gun control laws?
        So much for the claim that tougher gun control laws will prevent acts of terrorism.

      • You can have a weapon for hunting or sport shooting in France.

        What you can’t do is carry a gun. Transport, but not carry.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Yes in France some people kill themselves with a train instead of a gun, making thousands of people late.

    • The real question is why do these activists so fear us so? They are many and we are few. They have the peer reviewed science on their side and the UN is 110% behind them yet here they are wetting the bed and clutching their pearls because we speak out against their pseudo-science.

      We must have much more juice than we think.

      • “The real question is why do these activists so fear us so?”

        Anyone whose beliefs are based on ideology fears anyone who presents facts that dispute their belief.

      • “They are many and we are few.” Keitho, That is an illusion they have managed to create through ownership of 80% of the message board. They have even bought into their own lie.
        But the truth is not their ally. The proverbial worm has turn and the majority of citizens are skeptical of CAGW and when given a choice to prioritize problems facing them from a list including economic, terrorism, poverty, quality of life issues the climate has a permanent place at the bottom of the list. As it should because there is nothing we or any body of politicians, bureaucrats and scientists on taxpayers payroll can do about it. Nothing!

  2. There should be an equivalent for the COP21 delegates – and especially one for Robert Mugabe who has been massacring his own people.

    • Climate change and global warming are govt tax scams.
      Americans have the same problem with income tax.
      Govt-Politicians are lying about taxes. U.S. tax law is codified, and easy as 1,2.

      1.
      -Exempt Income-
      26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)
      “exempt income means any income that is … exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.”

      2.
      -Income Not Exempt- aka, The list of Taxable Income
      26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
      “Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income

      (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer … gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)
      (B) gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [means Domestic International Sales Corp, Foreign Sales]
      (C) gross income of a possessions corporation
      (D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911”

      Do you make Foreign earned income? No? Then according to code (law), you don’t owe any income tax. As usual, politicians are stealing money from citizens under color of law.

      SOURCE: ecfr DOT gov
      HOW TO: Click Simple Search, find “exempt income means”

      MORE:
      Computer scientist data-mines tax code, Whatistaxed DOT com

      • What a bunch of BALONEY. Using the exemptions of the U.S. Fed. Income Tax Code to reduce your taxes owed is simply rational behavior. That is: keeping your own money is not at all to take away money that belongs to anyone else.

      • He or she is actually right. No man or woman is compelled to file income tax nor private persons unless under jurisdiction/consent. There’s actually case law on this here in Canada. For example: here in Canada, if I choose to be employed under the social security number then my person is required to pay a tax in that jurisdiction. But if I choose to be independent and contract with whom ever I wish (given their consent) then i’m not obliged to pay a portion of the fruits of my labour. My labour is my property- my services. And one more thing: Anyone operating under the S.I.N is a foreigner working for a foreign democratic government.

        Government doesn’t dictate to Man, its man who dictates to government. So take your democratic garbage out of here and back to the Parliament of Westminster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • If you live in CA and earn income in WI, do you owe CA taxes on that money?
        Of course not. You pay the taxes where the money was earned. The same goes for any money earned in another country.

      • MarkW commented: “..If you live in CA and earn income in WI, do you owe CA taxes on that money? Of course not. You pay the taxes where the money was earned…”

        Wrong, it’s base on residency.
        California residents – Taxed on ALL income, including income from sources outside California.
        Nonresidents of California – Taxed only on income from California sources.
        Part-year residents of California – Taxed on all income received while a resident and only on income from California sources while a nonresident.

  3. Emma Ruby-Sachs, Acting Executive-Director of Avaaz tells us how 3.6 million citizens around the world are calling for 100% clean energy. Does she realize that her numbers represent less than 0.05% of the world’s population? If she is speaking for less than 0.05% of the people then she and her group are essentially irrelevant on the world stage.

      • 100 billion would be more impressive, as long as its “illions” the prefix simply isn’t important.

        Did you know 999% of all climate “scientists” believe on glowball warning.

    • tells us how 3.6 million citizens around the world are calling for 100% clean energy.

      Now if we could only force them to ONLY use 100% clean energy (in many parts of the world alarmist this would include hydro) they would most likely be begging to change their votes.

    • Eli Rabett, (aka) Joshua Halpern, why are you commenting here? No one believes a iota of what you say. Simply because you have never told a truth in your life. Compulsive missinformer…

      [A strong charge. Evidence? .mod]

  4. Without the brain dead fanaticism of climate activists, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Climate change does NOT harm the Earth or the environment – period. Global warming does NOT exist – period. CO2 has its own mechanism to control its emissions, waxing and waning – and turning forests greener when it waxes! Global warming is a scam, a scheme, a hoax. There is more evidence against it a plethora of studies, investigations and results in peer-reviewed papers, journals, and documentation that there is any shred of evidence supporting global warming. These deranged supporters use violence when the truth proves them wrong. Stealing our wealth and controlling our lives is their agenda – period!

    • Marlene: I’m an old Brit and there used to be a comedy show on the wireless in my youth, the catch phrase of which was: “Eee, our Marlene! She knows, ya know!”

      Well, let me say, you do. Well said.

    • ‘Evidence’ be ignored & trashed in a world where a myth can be declared without question to be a ‘clear scientific reality.’ ~ Thanks to ‘marlene’ for a well-stated rebuttal.

    • It’s not that there’s no Global Warming, the Earth has been warming and cooling naturally since the Earth had a climate. It’s not even that there is no AGW (GW caused by man), it’s just far too small to obsess about, moreover; even it it was significant, it would be more beneficial to the biosphere (including man) than harmful.

      The problem is partisan politics and that the left chose the wrong side and is too obstinate to recognize the truth because to do so means caving in to the right and no partisan will ever admit that the other side has a better grasp of the truth.

    • If you made a consensuses of ” brain dead ” would you find in your list, those, that have a hands on on there occupation ? or those that have opinions formed by others? You can always tell a politician, he has big ears, the bigger the ears the higher he is in leading the parade of idiots ! Because between the ears is a receiver but no brain.

    • “CO2 has its own mechanism to control its emissions”

      I’ve seen this phrase before, possibly from the same poster, but repetition doesn’t make it any more sensible.

      • “CO2 has its own mechanism to control its emissions”

        Well for one thing, it has an inbuilt negative feedback in that it greens the planet, thereby increasing the size of carbon sinks.

        The incontrovertible fact is fact is that the planet has been greening faster than man can deforest it these past 40 years, and with it the size of the carbon sink due to plants has increased.

        That is one control mechanism. Whether there are others, I have not stopped to think about it, but obviously there are on geological time scales and that is why the planet does not have circa 7,000 ppm of CO2 as was seen in the past; that CO2 has been sequestered into chalk and limestone.

      • Poorly posed (CO2 is not an active agent), but as obvious as Le Chatlier’s Principle. Let me put it this way: seawater, from having dissolved CO2 (in various chemical species), will have a CO2 vapor pressure. The atmosphere CO2 concentration will tend to equilibrium with this pressure. If the vapor pressure happens to be higher than the current atmospheric concentration, the sea will out-gas CO2 and raise the concentration. If the vapor pressure is lower, atmospheric CO2 will dissolve into the seawater, and lower the concentration. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what human beings do; we can make our additions, but what we do doesn’t change the equilibrium point. At best, it may increase or decrease the oceanic out-gassing.

        This, of course, is really an irrelevance, as the effect of CO2 on “global warming” is negligible. There is no water vapor amplification (any excess water vapor rains out).

  5. Those who make criminals of law – abiding citizens, ought to have their names and addresses published and charges brought against them for attempting to make criminals out of good and decent people.

    • At the very least, some silly pictures of them should be posted, but no business would waste money paying its employees to do so. And the rest of us are too busy to tease climate cultists.

  6. “Avaaz’s 100% Clean campaign”,,now that I can support! Just thinking about never cleaning my toilet and house sends chills up my leg

  7. In the Desert Storm war against Saddam, the US published a deck of 52 cards of the ‘villains’. We should do the same for the Climate Alarmists. They would become collectors items, even for those loons pictured upon them.

    • jsuther2013 December 7, 2015 at 8:09 am
      In the Desert Storm war against Saddam, the US published a deck of 52 cards of the ‘villains’.

      Michael mann = Joker? Or perhaps a deuce? Other suggestions? Then again we may have to create a new suit for them “The Jack of Donkeys”

      michael

    • Not a good idea. Anything skeptics do like this will be repackaged by the sympathetic media and mouthpieces, and seen as a form of threat or harassment. It would be an own goal. Skeptics need to be squeaky clean. Not fair, I know, but in this game we play, there is one thing for certain, the rules are stacked against us.

  8. Suppose one of the people on the “Wanted” posters was attacked and injured.

    Could there be a civil — or even criminal — case against Avaaz? I suppose it would revolve around whether the posters are an incitement.

  9. Great, let the thought police march across the land. The earth has been warmer then it is now, millions and millions of years ago. The time of the greatest bio-diversity was the time of the dinosaurs, the Cretaceous period if I remember right, and it was very warm. Lots of C02 to feed all the plants which fed all the animals. I often wonder if the climate change movement just hates humans and wants to shove the world back a hundred years and kill off a huge part of the population? I just can’t get behind this movement of rabid crazy people that want to destroy the world’s economy with treaties that enact polices which won’t make a difference in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. All the measures in the Koyoto treaty will drop carbon emissions by 2% at the most, while taking something to the effect of 14 trillion dollars out of the world economy. Not a good trade off.

    • Fully agree! The best scare tactic ever used for ridiculous profits… So who profits? Ahhh, the question sheep dare not answer for they would wake up. Shhh, (wisper) don’t wake the low IQ….

    • Don’t worry about it. These wonks are going away next week, after their little wonk-fest in Paris, and as usual no meaningful, binding “treaty” will be enacted. You think for ONE minute the heads of state and their advisors don’t know what the REAL data says? The Smart Money hasn’t believed in this crap since Day One. Nothing will change. My BS meter went off some years ago when I Googled “how I can help prevent GW and was directed to a .gov site that said, “buy squiggly light bulbs.” NON-PROBLEM about which nothing has been or will be done. Just BS to keep the population afraid, by my admittedly unscientific poll about 96% have long since tuned it out.

      • That is true, but here in Canada we on the hook for a few billion dollars. The only saving grace is that the Canadian dollar has lost over 35% of its value because of restricted oil exports and lower oil prices. The greenies will of course take all the credit and I for one agree that all the credit is due them.

      • The “Complaint” that was filed in Canada about alleged climate change “misinformation” last week will still be there after COP21.

        Just a different legal track is being used in Canada than in the U.S but the result will be the same. So this could go on for quite some time. Done to intimate “climate deniers” and could lead to criminal prosecution of the accused parties.

        Don’t fool yourselves about how serious this situation has become. Legal intimidating tactics have already been used in Canada over wind turbine issues.

      • The Heartland Institute is one of the parties named in the above legal action Complaint.

        The Complaint is a 24 page document.

  10. I guess I’m not surprised these climate loonies are behaving badly in Paris (where’s the next convention – Tahiti?), but it is truly dismal to watch Obama leading from in front on this silliness. What’s next – a mandatory return to astrology?

    Guess that’s what happens when you get a neighborhood organizer (really, what is a “neighborhood organizer”?) as president.

    • Guess that’s what happens when you get a neighborhood organizer (really, what is a “neighborhood organizer”?) as president. Answer: The same thing as what happens when you’re a drama coach and you become Prime Minister. You offer up 2.5 billion dollars of your tax payers’ money to the 3rd world shakedown even before you are shaken down!

    • Your behind the times Chip.
      That already happened -the mandatory return to astrology, that is – read up on Ronald Reagan and his wife. All their major policies came out of the stars, and I ain’t talkin’ Hollywood ones!

      I’m not taking a shot at the ex-President. I’m just stating a well known, “unknown” fact. By “unknown” fact, I mean the kind of double speak that Donald Rumsfeld was exceptional at, you know, there are “unknown unknowns” and “known knowns”, well in this case with Reagan, there are “known knowns” that are “unknownly, but known”, yes I wrote that correctly, parse it slowly!

      • You really should read a little history. It was Nancy, and the only thing she affected was the timing of speeches and press conferences. No policy decisions were ever made due to astrological concerns.

    • Good question, Mr. Javert (“Really, what is a’ {community organizer}'” {v. a v. B. Hussein Obama}?).

      Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising. ***

      Trying to construct a wide-ranging alliance of churches, Obama … was hampered by the fact that he didn’t go to church himself. *** Obama, drawn to the preaching of Rev. Jeremiah {“God, damn America”}(Source 2) Wright, joined Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street {member for 20 years} *** Obama got the ministers involved in several projects, without great success. … .
      (Byron York, Source 1)

      (Sources: 1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer-byron-york; 2. http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/democraticdebate/story?id=4443788&page=1 )

      • Janice Moore
        December 7, 2015 at 10:28 am

        Good question, Mr. Javert (“Really, what is a’ {community organizer}’” {v. a v. B. Hussein Obama}?).
        ************************************************************************************
        Community organizer is the PC way of saying rabble-rouser rent-a mob etc.

        SteveT

    • “Some liken the role of a community organizer to that of the coach of an athletic team, in that it is the organizer’s job to get other people to take the lead.” – World Organization of Resource Councils.

      Sound familiar?

  11. Meanwhile, the Earth’s atmospheric temperature is flat-lining, casting doubt on the whole enterprise, and the hundreds of billions spent on renewables such as wind and solar have resulted in a pathetic 2.5% contribution to the world’s energy needs. We need more of this?

  12. Surely there is an old west law against false wanted posters. It certainly should be classified as hate speech designed to promote violence against opinion. It is easy to discern what kind of world the activist wants, in all it’s nightmarish horror. Wake up citizens of free societies. GK

    • It’s like impersonating a police officer. I essentially said the same thing as you. It is a hate crime. They’ve decided among themselves (CAGW) that they make the laws. They are judge jury and executioner.

  13. Too bad the French don’t give the same attention to the RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORISTS living among them until they’ve hosed down a bunch of innocents.

  14. Climate terrorists, these climate change thugs need reining in. If so over zealous person was to act on these posters I would expect the full extent of the law to fall on the people who posted these inflammatory photos

  15. The global warming climate change hoax is on its last breath. There is no argument left to support it. The fraud and deceit of the global warmers has been revealed. So now all they have left is to silence the truth tellers (in doublespeak, deniers) by any means necessary. Marxists are always the same.

  16. “With global warming a clear scientific reality” – Like 18+ years of no warming (according to UAH & RSS) while CO2 has risen 8-10%? So does “clear scientific reality != reality”?

    As much as I don’t want the planet to cool, because that would be fatal for a lot more than warming, I’m seriously wondering if it would even change their minds at this point if we went 5 decades with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures? So divorced from real reality that they just can’t admit their pet theory is wrong.

      • As you know, the UN define anthropogenic climate change (as distinct from natural climate variability) to include ‘atmospheric composition’ and ‘land usage’. Therefore, the ability to apply taxes to every single molecule you exhale, perspire, excrete as well as to every footprint you make is conveniently present in the definition. The only way out is to absent humanity from the face of Gaia. Therein lies the truth.
        The willing ‘millions’ should start contributing. They should just get on with it and cease vacuously emitting noise and sundry pollutants.

  17. Lynch-mob mentality is the history of “mass movements” in a nutshell; failed people escaping themselves by embracing a “cause” they perceive as much larger than themselves. What could be bigger than “saving the planet from the evil-doers”?

  18. I’m disappointed that I’m not on this list. I’m the biggest denier of man-made global warming that I know of. Is there a Training class I need to attend or some seminar to enhance my resume?

  19. Darn! I was hoping they would put my mug on one of those wanted posters, but I guess I’m just not that significant. But I guess if they started putting faces of ordinary people who question the CAGW orthodoxy they would soon run out of paper.

  20. What a joke. I suppose it’s nice that these brats have so much time on their hands, but I wouldn’t know.

  21. Yes, they are all “wanted”, and more of the same if you please. The world would be a better place with a lot more realists and a lot less less magical thinking and unfounded belief systems. What is not wanted is geriatric, sex-crazed, UN plutocrats; undereducated, model-crazed pseudoscientists, and a cadre of variously defective social science advocates with not one toe in close contact with solid ground.

  22. Didn’t George Soros just buy millions of dollars in Coal stocks!? These globalist are at the end of their banking scam program because the world is getting wise to their century old Privately owned Federal reserve rip off operation and now they must create a new power grab to tax the entire planet so they can control the planets weather? Anyone with half a brain can see this as a global theft on all the worlds people. And I’m ashamed how my Pope is main responsibility is to look after the souls of the flock is joining forces with these gangsters. Just observe how they treat people who respectively disagree with them. That should tell you something about these people. It’s all about CONTROL over the masses.

  23. Clearly the cultists have taken to the mob mentality.
    Hey alarmist, there is nothing admirable about either cults or mobs.
    You have become low life defects. Google- “Tre Arrow” to profile yourselves.

    Social psychology does offer relevant explanations for group or mob mentality and violence.

    ……….. they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness.
    …. they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions
    and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity.
    …..a sense of emotional excitement,
    ….provocation of behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if alone.
    .. make some behaviors acceptable that would not be acceptable otherwise.

    ………people believe they cannot be held responsible for violent behavior when part of a mob because they perceive the violent action as the group’s (e.g., “everyone was doing it”) rather than their own behavior.

    ……people tend to experience a diffusion of responsibility.
    ……. the bigger a mob, the more its members lose self-awareness and become willing to engage in dangerous behavior.
    .. physical anonymity also leads to a person experiencing fewer social inhibitions. When people feel that their behavior cannot be traced back to them, they are more likely to break social norms and engage in violence.

    … The greater individuals feel like they identify with a group, the greater the pressures for them to conform and deindividuate become.

    …violence is most likely to occur when the group is large, people are able to remain anonymous, and people experience a diffusion of responsibility.

  24. Anyone care to guess what Emma Ruby-Sachs’ ‘carbon footprint’ is? How about just her COP21 carbon footprint. Maybe we should start calling out this loons by posting all of their COP21 carbon footprints.

    • Canada sent over 300 (330 IIRC) partiers, freeloaders and tourists delegates from various organizations.

      • Canada sent over 300 (330 IIRC) partiers, freeloaders and tourists … er, delegates, from various organizations.

  25. Didn’t George Soros just buy millions of dollars in Coal stocks!? Greedy hypocrites! These Globalists are at the end of their banking scam program because the world is getting wise to their century old Privately owned Federal reserve rip off operation and now they must create a new power grab to tax the entire planet so they can control the planets weather. What a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see this as a global theft on all the worlds people. And I’m ashamed how my Pope whose main responsibility is to look after the souls of the flock is joining forces with these gangsters. Just observe how they treat people who respectively disagree with them. That should tell you something about these people. It’s all about CONTROL over the masses.

  26. I offer my sincere congratulations to The Magnificent Seven whose success is so great that warmunists have resorted to targeting them for personal attack.

    My only regret is that after 3½ decades of opposition to the AGW-scare, my efforts have had insufficient effect for me to have earned being a target of the attack.

    Richard

      • Richard
        That remark was originally scribbled on a torn- off corner of paper by Keith Richards to Mick Jagger, some 40+ years ago.
        Your regret was that you hadn’t been made a target. I can’t resist the chance for a joake.
        / <<<that's a sarc tag in some circles

    • Have some posters made of yourself. If we all did that and put this website for more info, each of us could protest this in a most useful way. Target the grocery stores, etc. for display.

      • Dawtgtomis:

        Thankyou for that idea. Although it has an obvious appeal, I don’t think it would work.

        We need the wamunists to be making the mistake of attacking people instead of the arguments. Doing it ourselves prevents use of the warmunists’ mistake when pointing out they have nothing to substantiate their alarmism.

        Richard

  27. The naked emperor now commands that all who cannot see his new clothes be publicly flogged and thrown in the dungeons. What a circus this has become!

    • Paris is a perfect venue for “La misérable celles du climat combats”… and what a show it is!

  28. Those “wanted posters” were posted outside 5 star hotels?? Now who do you think was staying in those 5 star hotels — the skeptics or the hotheads?

    When, through their taxes, the little people are paying for it, why shouldn’t the hotheads have only the best? Maintaining that poise of continual moral outrage needed to save the world is hard work. The hotheads are owed a little R&R.

    Paris is climate justice at work for all the world to see.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    • Exactly,

      Did they put the posters outside the 5* hotels to make sure Mugabe and Obama saw them when they left the hotel lobby together?

  29. These western global minority warmist supporters/promoters must be unprincipled global socialists and anti west in loyalty and sentiment – similar to the many similar elitist pro-Soviet supporters from the early 1920’s onwards. Otherwise they would be barracking and condemning the Indians, Chinese and other Developing Countries with this propaganda and coercion – nations who will be generating far more CO2 in the next 15-20 years creating a situation denying us all of achieving what the war it’s preach is essential, regardless of what the Developed Countries ever now do and even if CAGW actually ever occurs.

    They should be ensuring that the local populations in these Developing Countries are properly re-educated into really believing that alleviating their poverty must not take preference over the “benefits” of over expensive and environmentally ineffective renewable power and heating generation with its avoidance of “poisonous” CO2.

    They should be prepared to protest vigorously and directly in these Developing Countries regardless of any personal risk to themselves or bad consequence they may suffer. They need to demonstrate they are the Saints and wannabe martyrs their self-righteousness advises them they are and that their religion and dogmatic policies are the only means available of meeting their stated environmental objectives’ and not simply designed to impoverish the West.

  30. “despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy”

    ….. so that leaves about 7 billion other people in this world who are not calling for 100% clean energy.
    If the “representiatives” ae representing the people & not their own greedy political interest, it is pretty clear what the should do about the “problem” – nothing at all.

  31. What the whole world wants? Well, we want those who only think of profit to die. Those that run the oil companies are behind the takeover of this fake notion of going green. How many inventors came up with free energy that have been silenced? Ahh, you see we the people of this planet are on to your tactics. You’ve fooled us for to long. We ran out of hunting tags for you evil people. The season for hunting you all down is close. You call us crazy when you put profit before human kind? We don’t need you! We need good people to make our species advance. Not the greedy evil scum!

    • Sir, do you draw a salary at your job? Or are your parent’s wealthy?
      (You’re probably a civil servant or a trust fund youngster with that attitude.)
      Your “occupy” mentality shows that you have been taught to resent success.
      Only governments and thieves TAKE money from others.
      Profits represent wealth CREATED by success in business
      Profits are not TAKEN from anyone.

    • Jason:

      I write in hope that what I write here will encourage you to seek knowledge of the economic principles which govern how the world works. And if you do then you will learn that progress occurs because it benefits people. And you will also learn that destruction occurs when selfish but powerful individuals act to impose what they “want”.

      All of your post is plain wrong because every assertion you make is based on ignorance of elementary economics.

      For example, you ask

      How many inventors came up with free energy that have been silenced?

      The answer is NONE because all energy is free.

      All energy was created at the Big Bang and now cannot be created or destroyed. But it is expensive to collect energy and to concentrate it so it can do useful work.

      Fortunately, nature has done much of the collection and concentration for us.

      The energy concentrated in ancient stars is available in radioactive materials, notably uranium. Energy from formation of the solar system (including collected radioactivity) is available as geothermal energy. Solar energy collected by photosynthesis over geological ages is available as fossil fuels. Solar energy collected by evapouration of water over large areas is available as hydropower.

      Diffuse energy sources were used for millennia because higher energy densities were not available. These diffuse sources included wind power, solar power, biomass and power of the muscles of slaves and animals.

      These diffuse sources were abandoned when the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available to do work by use of the steam engine. But, of course, hydropower was not abandoned because it has high energy intensity.

      There is no possibility that an industrialised civilisation can operate if it abandons the sources of high energy density collected by nature and returns to using the energy that humans collect themselves.

      Richard

    • You forgot the sarc tag sonny.
      Or are you suffering Cultism?
      I am constantly amused by the lame bravado of non literate,non tool users.
      If you had hand and head skills, it is highly unlikely you would be a would be planet saver.

      However as the cult of calamitous carbon/climate or whatever continues to implode there will be acts of senseless violence.
      True believers always assign responsibility for their weakening faith to “evi”l other persons.
      Shoot the messenger.
      That gal in Texas had the right approach, come on down, we are mocking your ideology at Smiths Shooting Range, 10 am Tuesday..

    • Jason
      You just made a terrorist threat. Your expressed viewpoints indicate a mindset no different than that expressed by members of any terrorist organization.

      @ mods: Please report that individual’s email info to the proper authorities.

      • I’ll personally take him on if he doesn’t get to use any weapon or tool made from a very dense energy source while I do get to use such a weapon or tool. Maybe that would awaken him to the advantage of very dense energy sources.

    • Nobody thinks only of profit. That’s one of the big strawmen pushed by the idiots of the left.
      Even evil businessmen think of their employees, they think of their stockholders, they think of the future and how best to position their companies to continue into it.
      Since nobody has come up with an idea that could create free energy, it hasn’t been necessary to silence anyone. Free energy is physically impossible.

      PS: Your nuts.

  32. … despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy

    There are so many things wrong here:

    1. There are no “citizens” around the world; there is no global nation.
    2. 2000 times the number of people around the world did not call for 100% clean energy.
    3. Is the use of “clean” meant to imply that fossil fuels are haram?

    The religious connotations are frightening, as is the public HATE that this campaign represents. Hey, Avaaz, whoever you are, George Orwell’s 1984 was a warning, not a training manual.

  33. The Marxist warmers and their green friends must be getting worried that they have been found out to be fraudulent zealots.

    • David, I am with you on that one. Imagine using a Nat Geo article as an authority, a source of scientific validation. Of what? The F-stop?

      Yesterday I heard the enthusiastic plan to ban using hydro power for heating and the expansion of the use of coal for low grade energy. Their idea is that hydro electric energy should be used to create jobs, not heat. Solid fuels are, in a modern combustor, cleaner overall than a thermal power station and far more energy efficient. But this is a first for me to hear: a plan that bans the wasting of electricity from a renewable source on an application that can be met by expanding the mining of coal.

      Apparently they didn’t understand the memo from Paris because it is in French.

  34. Will they be forced to wear special badges to identify them in public? Bring in the special trains to load them up too.

  35. Hum… we in France become less tolerant to this “humour”.

    Look at what happened to the “comedian” Dieudonné.

    • “incitation à la haine” is whatever the judge wants it to be, but realism isn’t a religion, an origin, a race (but then races don’t exist), genre or sexual orientation…

      But since the targets are named, they probably have a case.

      IANAL

    • “incitation à la haine” is whatever the judge wants it to be, but realism isn’t a religion, an origin, a race (but then races don’t exist), genre or sexual orientation…

      But since the targets are named, they probably have a case.

      IANAL

      mod: please remove the first post

    • Steve Oregon 0n December 7, 2015 at 9:29 am ,

      – – – – – – – –

      Steve Oregon,

      That is an excellent idea.

      With the seven ‘Wanted’ skeptics listed in the lead post, we could add seven ‘Unwanted’ alarmists per your idea . . . . then I suggest we add seven who are ‘Un-Re-Electable’ politicians who are alarmists.

      The good ‘Wanted’, the bad ‘UnWanted’ and the ugly ‘Un-Re-Electable’.

      John

  36. Weather-Scary cult might as well list me on their poster and put a $10,000 Bounty on it.
    I burn leaves, drive truck when/where I please, leave lights on at night, and think ManBearPig is a scam.

  37. Not reporting things that go against the mantra of AGW is one example of the desperation the warmers are exhibiting. This takes it to a new level.
    In the last week an independent body that monitors species that could be in danger of extinction has published the highest count of polar bears ever….20,000 – 31,000 with a mean average of 26,500 being the number that is most probable. Incredibly good news considering as there were only around 5,000 left in the mid-1940’s. Have you read or heard about it…anywhere?
    Polar Bear International run by the activist scientists have not issued a comment…fortunately Susan Crockford of Polar Bear Science has let the world know. She has followed this up with news about the ice forming rather quickly this year in the Hudson Bay and what may be the ice coverage in Feb/Mar.
    Yesterday she posted a fascinating article on the problems thick ice causes Polar Bear cubs in the Spring and states it as the main cause of cub mortality…rather than anything to do with a lack of ice.
    Please read it…..just Google polarbearscience
    I emailed it to a friend of mine who reads the Guardian and hangs on to everything the BBC say’s on pretty much any subject. A warmer bless him.
    The article that Susan posted was very well received by my friend who put on his old Geography teacher hat and viewed it as very logical and felt that it improved his knowledge of the subject.

      • Bubba Cow on December 7, 2015 at 12:07 pm

        – – – – – –

        Bubba Cow

        I got my electronic ‘Kindle for PC’ version of the book Eaten on December 2 and consumed it (pun intended of course) within 24 hours.

        I really enjoyed it. It is in a style of writing which flows towards an easy read. I recommend it.

        John

  38. The thing I love about people in politics or who lecture us is how incredibly two faced and hypocritical. Priests caught molesting children or with prostitutes, Al Gore and his 4 mansions, Lear Jet and 800/month heated swimming pool. Kennedy’s complaining about wind farms outside his mansion and academics and company presidents who make millions/billions from hyping global warming, get huge government grants complaining about someone making $25,000 from some alleged “oil money.” Reading the scientific literature today one would think a substantial portion of the $20 billion research budget of the US government is going to global warming hype and these people complain about a few thousand. Pretty funny. Do they complain so much because their billions are threatened?

  39. 3.6 million out of 7 billion? 0.005%? And I bet that are all climate scientists too.
    Seriously, if that’s not intimidation, what is? Exactly what crime are they being accused of? The people who put that up, with the tacit consent of the government, is really a hate crime. In a civilized society you can’t do that. They are calling them criminals. If the government passes a law saying that my opposition to CAGW is a crime, then it becomes a matter of conscience whether I or anyone else continues to express that in violation of the law. And suffers the consequences.
    There was a case in Massachusetts were a guy that didn’t participate in a rape, other than loudly and vocally urging others to do so, was just as guilty. These people with out due process and in clear violation of the right to express an informed opinion on a scientific matter are guilty of intimadtion, and if something were to actually happen, they would guilty whether it’s related or not. For instance a mugging or a robbery or my brakes fail on my vechile.
    They can’t set themselves up as having passed a law and judging others on it.

  40. Bjorn Lomborg? Really? An academic who believes in global warming? Jeesh. This is so 1984, so propoganda. Is it possible they don’t see the hypocrisy of their positions? It’s really amazing to me and sometimes I wonder are they doing all this and saying all these things simply to see if they can get a rise out of people? I mean they can’t be serious? I just can’t believe anybody believes the catastrophic global warming scenarios after 20 years of zero or minimal warming it must be obvious it is not going to meet their expectations of disaster? Practically everything they said will happen has been proved won’t happen.

    Plankton to die from global warming: FALSE (recent study)
    Polar Bears to die from global warming: FALSE (population up)
    More extreme storms from global warming: FALSE
    More storms from global warming: FALSE
    Coral Reefs to die from global warming: FALSE (recent study)
    More people die from warmer weather: FALSE (Lancet)
    Less food in 2080 from global warming: FALSE (common sense)
    More malaria from global warming: FALSE (see CRISPR gene)
    Temps +3C in 2100 from 1945: FALSE
    Temps +2C in 2100 from 1945: FALSE
    Temps +1C in 2100 from 1945: Maybe, maybe not

    I think the reason they are getting so upset is that people know it’s all overplayed hugely and there are no consequences. None of these predictions they made stood up to simple common sense. We all know the earth has been warmer than today before and nothing happened.

    • +10

      Mighty fine list.

      In classic form it looks like the paleoclimate patterns are trending to a colder climate starting in 2019/20.

      Monty Python will make a comeback

      • Your list is very good. Thank you for keeping track. There’s more you could probably add. The only and I mean thing only that I disagree with is that you’ve stated that early on in the 20th century they said the sun was responsible for temperature rise, my understanding, according to the IPCC, is that the sun never varied and had no effect on temperatures, ever. Their whole focus even during ice ages was co2. There was only a couple of times when the planet froze to the equator or close, that they couldn’t explain.

        Excellent compilation.

      • I believe that they accept that solar forcing was higher in the first half of the 20th century as partial explanation of the rise at that time. They had to choose solar sensitivity that are high to get the models to move because as you know co2 didn’t move much. However as you point out even with such adjustment computer models do not show the same level of warmth reached during that period even with enhanced solar forcing. So this is one of the biggest divergences in the models from the 100 year period to 2000.

        Of course the models are fits to the data. Complex expensive fits. We’ve spent billions on these very complex programs which require supercomputers to run when much simpler models based on a few variables can do much better.

        My point is that since we now know about the PDO cycle this explains a lot of the rise in that period which means they were wrong in their attribution during that period of co2 and solar forcing. I find it astonishing they don’t mention these failures since they are so important and reverse the logic of their conclusions about virtually everything. If they don’t know why or can’t model the variation in pre1950 temperatures then there is no basis for suggesting their models could model future temperatures. So this failure in attribution is by itself enough to discredit virtually all the models and climate science. Their inability for instance to be able to model the cooling of several degrees 300-400 years ago during the LIA and the subsequent warming means that there is no way they can confidently say that the warming from 1979-2000 was not simply a continuation of the warming that has gone on since the end of the LIA.

        CO2 cannot be the cause since co2 is basically unchanged during this period prior to 1945 or so. This is why it is so critical to 1) deny the Lia or mwp existence in spite of written records, drawing and physical evidence and now numerous studies pointing out it was clearly a worldwide phenomenon. 2) deny that there is or was any problem with attribution.

  41. By far it is better to be a truth-speaking climate denier than a filthy climate liar. Name and shame the liars.

  42. The more their lies about global warming fail to bring people on board, A) the more dire their predictions become and B) the more like Naz|’s they act. Their calls for skeptics to be locked up, their calls for the UN to go after them, now “wanted posters”.
    This is exactly how the Naz| party acted in 1930’s Germany. You go against the party, you were in trouble. You spoke out against the propaganda, they came after you. You either accepted what they said in silence, or you bought in to it.
    I’ve heard some call for “reeducation camps”. Of course those are the extreme fringe, but they’re also “professors” in “schools”. So not all that “fringe” really. I think they were just running it up the old flag pole to see the response they got. If it was pretty well received, the call would go out. They’re also the ones that get caught up in the book burnings too.
    The only thing missing right now is the Reichstag’s fire. But that’s coming…….

  43. The personal behavior of about 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the actual average / person. Not surprising to anyone. But do you realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL, it is simple algebra) U. S. CO2 emissions? Indeed, were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would decline 17% and OVERALL PLANETARY CO2 emissions would decline 2.7%. Yet the president has unilaterally implemented programs that allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Can any of you AGW folks explain this, please?

  44. “last weekend’s climate marches which saw 785,000 people take to the streets globally”

    Were the same people who are fudging the numbers from ground based weather reporting stations also in charge of determining the number of people who participated in the so called “climate marches”? These “marches” were an epic failure. So once again we get numbers that were completely fabricated from people who claim to be able to determine the average temperature of the entire planet within a few hundredths of a degree.

    • I watched the London march file past me as I stood outside Green Park tube (subway) station.
      It was just a bunch of naive youth, old hippies and radical communists. The weather wasn’t good so most of them were clothed in plastic-based jackets of some sort. Plastic – the stuff made out of fossil fuels.
      Members of the public were laughing at them.

      Meanwhile, two streets away, London’s biggest shopping street, Oxford Street, was thronged with way more shoppers walking in and out of massive, brightly lit, energy sucking shops that had “carbon footrpints” the size of Texas. The people were quite rightly enjoying buying things with their hard-earned cash. They couldn’t give a sh#t about gorebull warming.
      And more and more of these shoppers will be there every day for many years to come and none of them will give a sh#t about gorebull warming.
      The climateers are wasting their time (and our taxes).

  45. The criminals are the alternative energy subsidy scamers, among others, who are behind the global warming / climate change scam. They should all be going to jail for racketeering.

  46. One would think that perhaps the French after two terrorist attacks in the last year, one specifically targeting dissent, would take a dim view of this call for mob violence against people expressing controversial views.

  47. Nothing new for the Greens who terrorized, bombed, and murdered people all in the name of world peace. These are some seriously deluded people who believe any means justifies the end which is their view of what is right and wrong. Perfect useful idiots co-opted by the AGW pushers to carry their banner to force wealth redistribution on the world. A relatively small but effective and ruthless group that is well funded by the Socialist/Marxist/OneWorldGovernment believers. Europe is their breeding ground.

  48. Why is the behaviour of the liberal left always so disgusting? Probably because they haven’t grown up.

    Liberalism is like acne – most grow out of it nut some are scarred for life!

    Why take any notice of these shreeking children?

  49. Ummm. What do these children want? If they don’t get their way… Attack. Slander. Sounds like fascism to me. (Antarctic ice has increased by 5% in last 3 years)

  50. To RichardSCourtney at 10:23 a.m. The Nazis were not conservative. The name of their party was the Nationalist Socialist party. They were fascists like Mussolini of Italy. Theirs were not conservative principles like free markets, minimal government control, local control of schooling, etc. After all the good books written on the subject, it is disappointing that the perception continues.

    • Loren C. Wilson:

      Please don’t be silly. The Naz1s were the far-right: you admit they were fascists and there is nothing further to the political right than fascism.

      What they called themselves is not relevant. Do you think every so-called Democratic Republic s democratic?

      Richard

      • Richard – Let this be your guide to political identity.

        “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
        ― Robert A. Heinlein

        Big government socialists. Another way to spell “someone to stupid to spend his own money.”

      • The term ” Left wing & right wing ” came from the French Parliament in post revolutionary times , where the members on the right of the speaker advocated freedom of the individual , minimum state intervention & a system of meritocracy.
        The members on the left wing wanted state control of everything & no individual freedoms .

        The various factions of socialism [ Fascism & Communism etc ] were all great friends together with a common cause , until operation ” Barbarossa ” when they had a big fall out .
        Thereupon Stalin issued a DIKTAT to all of his followers to in future separate the factions by calling the Fascist Socialists right wingers .

        So anyone calling a Fascist a Right winger is just following Stalins orders .
        .

      • DD More:

        You quote the ultra-right Robert A. Heinlein (who wrote ‘Starship Troopers’ to explain and extol fascism) as saying

        The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire

        Well, yes, the far-right do believe that, and they use it as their excuse to impose their will on others by force.

        Socialism is the ideology for people who oppose to the far-right taking all they can by any means they can for their own benefit.

        Richard

      • Those of you arguing ism’s with Richard have fallen into his trap.

        This Post is about the Paris summit on CAGW. the Alarmist cannot win the debate since their psuedo-science iis founded in fear and guilt rather than science. So it is an old Alinsky trick, To freeze, name and demonize your opposition hence the wanted posters.

        Richard is deploying another Alinsky trick: If you can’t win the argument change the debate. Who cares what isms back this junk science aka CAGW? It is a fools errand.

        I am reminded of the old questions: What do you get when a wise man argues with a fool? Answer: 2 fools arguing.

      • Richard

        I do not intend to comment on the left vs. right theme of parts of this thread; it’s a tired meme and a faulty discussion point. Anyway, I agree with you that the CAGW scam is not a left-right issue.

        However, I will take issue with you on your assertion that Robert Heinlein “wrote ‘Starship Troopers’ to explain and extol fascism”. I contend that a) it does no such thing (although many people who saw the film may have got the impression that it did) and b) in any case, no-one who wrote ‘Stranger In A Strange Land’ could possibly be described (as you did) as “ultra right-wing”.

        In any case, to ascribe any ideas that authors make the subjects of their novels to innate characteristics of said authors would be to claim that e.g. P. D. James or Ruth Rendell (to give political balance!) were mass murderers. I think you’d have to agree that neither could be so described.

      • Fascism is socialism with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism thrown in.
        As for racism, nobody takes a back seat to leftists on that score.

      • Fascinating how the left actually thinks that they can get away with redefining words.
        Not wanting to have govt run your life, is now imposing your will on others.
        Not wanting to have govt steal your hard earned income, is now stealing from others.

      • MarkW:

        You add to your growing mountain of lies when you write

        Richard, as near as I can tell your definition of socialism, is all things good, and for the right is all things bad.

        You just whine and scream that fascism and socialism have nothing in common, but you obviously can’t give a definition for either term.
        Others give dictionary definitions for both terms, and then you whine that giving definitions for the terms you use is a grade school tactic to avoid debate

        I don’t “whine and screram”: I object to fascists and liars.

        In the past I have repeatedly referred yo to the proper definitions of socialism, fascism and other ‘isms’ that I provided in a post on WUWT here.

        But you don’t provide “dictionary definitions”. You only provide offensive falsehoods such as this

        Fascism is socialism with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism thrown in.
        As for racism, nobody takes a back seat to leftists on that score.

        Donald Trump is not one of us “leftists” and my record of opposition to racism is clear.

        Richard

    • Loren C. Wilson on December 7, 2015 at 10:38 am

      To RichardSCourtney at 10:23 a.m. The Nazis were not conservative. The name of their party was the Nationalist Socialist party. They were fascists like Mussolini of Italy. Theirs were not conservative principles like free markets, minimal government control, local control of schooling, etc. After all the good books written on the subject, it is disappointing that the perception continues.

      – – – – – – –

      Loren C. Wilson,

      I tend to agree with your position.

      The concept of fascism is fundamentally based on government control indirectly of most means of production and wealth by the state ‘centralizing/regulating’ the private sector to do what the state wants. Whereas, the concept of totalitarianism is fundamentally based on government control directly of production and wealth by having them be a quasi-formal or formal part of the state. Both fascism and totalitarianism are forms of socialism (actually, collectivism is a better term than socialism).

      John

      • John Whitman:

        You assert – wrongly and without evidence – that

        Both fascism and totalitarianism are forms of socialism (actually, collectivism is a better term than socialism).

        NO! Providing false definitions is a childish trick to win a debate in your own mind.

        Define a mouse as being an elephant and you can claim a person would be crushed if trampled by a mouse. But real mice do not and cannot do that.

        Neither fascism or totalitarianism are forms of socialism.

        Richard

      • Nit picking over semantics will not solve the problem. Today there seems to be a fusing or hybridization of the different forms of tyranny and oppression. Marxism socialism Communism statism fascism do not exist in a “pure” from. And it seems like all roads are leading to totalitarian type governments.

      • ricardo maxwell:

        Sorry, but you miss the point: this discussion is NOT about “semantics”.

        This discussion is about members of the rabid right using this thread to attempt to divide opposition to the AGW-scare by presenting the lies that
        (a) the AGW-scare is promoted by the left and opposed by the right,
        (b) the left lies all the time but the right rarely lies, and
        (c) socialists are fascists.

        Richard

      • “Sorry, but you miss the point: this discussion is NOT about “semantics”.”

        Actually, it is.

        What is left? Is the left the same as leftism?
        What is right?
        What is extreme right?

      • simple-touriste:

        Your ‘red herring’ fails.

        The discussion is about members of the rabid right using this thread to attempt to divide opposition to the AGW-scare by proclaiming lies about “the left”.

        Presentations of false definitions is one of the ploys they have been using to proclaim their lies.

        In Paris The Magnificent Seven are being branded as “criminals”.
        In this thread “lefitsts” are being branded as liars and fascists.
        All the branding has the same purpose and it is all equally untrue.

        Richard

      • Richard, you are the one providing false definitions.
        Socialism is a form of totalitarianism, because you have to force the producers to take part.
        The leeches in this world don’t want to let the milk cow get away, so they have to use force to enslave those who are required to support the rest.

      • Richard writes:
        (a) the AGW-scare is promoted by the left and opposed by the right,
        (b) the left lies all the time but the right rarely lies, and
        (c) socialists are fascists.

        A is mostly true, but you are the only one pretending that anyone has made such an absolute statement.
        B is mostly true, with the same proviso
        C Fascists are a subset of socialist, not the other way around. Can’t you be bothered to get other people’s arguments correct?

      • Richard, as near as I can tell your definition of socialism, is all things good, and for the right is all things bad.

        You just whine and scream that fascism and socialism have nothing in common, but you obviously can’t give a definition for either term.
        Others give dictionary definitions for both terms, and then you whine that giving definitions for the terms you use is a grade school tactic to avoid debate.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • “Do you think Social Security is “totalitarian?””

        What is your opinion about mandatory vaccines?

        “Do you think public education is “totalitarian?””

        What is your opinion about mandatory teaching topics? About teaching unproven theories?

        What is your opinion about national diplomas?

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • MarkW:

        As proponents of fascism always do, you misrepresent.

        I wrote to ricardo maxwell

        Sorry, but you miss the point: this discussion is NOT about “semantics”.

        This discussion is about members of the rabid right using this thread to attempt to divide opposition to the AGW-scare by presenting the lies that
        (a) the AGW-scare is promoted by the left and opposed by the right,
        (b) the left lies all the time but the right rarely lies, and
        (c) socialists are fascists.

        You claim

        Richard writes:
        (a) the AGW-scare is promoted by the left and opposed by the right,
        (b) the left lies all the time but the right rarely lies, and
        (c) socialists are fascists.

        NO! I wrote the precise opposite of what you claim I wrote.
        I said those statements are lies and – as I have here quoted – you have added another lie seemingly for the same purpose as I said the listed lies have been asserted.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney on December 7, 2015 at 11:55 pm

        John Whitman:

        You assert – wrongly and without evidence – that
        Both fascism and totalitarianism are forms of socialism (actually, collectivism is a better term than socialism).

        NO! Providing false definitions is a childish trick to win a debate in your own mind.

        Define a mouse as being an elephant and you can claim a person would be crushed if trampled by a mouse. But real mice do not and cannot do that.

        Neither fascism or totalitarianism are forms of socialism.

        Richard

        richardscourtney,

        The central fundamental concept of ‘socialism’ is the political principle supporting state control (by whatever means or style or in stealth or in openness for any reason) of the core means of production and wealth (where physical property is included in wealth and where a person’s valuable time is also included in wealth).

        ’Adversus solem ne loquitor’ is wisdom sometimes.

        John

    • Moderator

      My comment to Loren C. Wilson a few minutes ago just disappeared without even going into ‘Waiting Moderation’. Can you look for it in the Word Press nether regions? Thanks.

      John

      • BillyV:

        You claim

        Richard, I provided the clip especially for you, but I see you missed completely its message. You fail to define your terms and if rationality is correct, total control by the government is on the left.

        As far as refuting itself, that is your term.

        Please don’t be silly. You provided that overtly anti-democratic propaganda in hope of misleading the uninformed and gullible.

        Your claim of what is “rationality” is merely promotion of falsehood.

        I use the “terms” that are known and understood by all but are refuted by the ultra-right originally in their text book titled Mein Kampf. If you do want the definitions, then I provided them on WUWT here.

        It is simply true that the video refutes itself.
        It begins by stating the accepted reality of the political spectrum with communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right and moderates in the middle.
        It follows that by making the untrue assertion that the political spectrum is different from that reality and is from all forms of government on the left to “no government” (i.e. anarchy) on the extreme right.
        It later asserts that the left don’t define their terms. But not so, it admitted near its start that every rational person – including the left – accepts the reality of the political spectrum is communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right with moderates in the middle.

        You present falsehood when you write to me

        Just because you wish to trash anything on the right, you can’t nor will ever see the logic of the message.

        NO! I support truth and oppose lies. The “logic” of the message in that video results from the video replacing truth with its an assertion of its own untrue and imagined political spectrum, and then arguing as though that imagined political spectrum exists.

        You also say of the video

        As Eugene says, I think it should become at least a starting point for discussions in civics classes.

        In reality that video would only be fit for use as a starting point for discussions in ultra-right-wing indoctrination classes.

        Richard

    • Found this on YouTube and I think it is important for proper understanding the different forms of government(s) “available” today and a bit of their history. Some may argue the assessment is wrong, but if you really define the terms properly, it is true what is presented:

      • BillyV

        Excellent post. That should be shown on the first and last day of every high school civics class in America.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • BillyV:

        Your video provides ridiculous far-right propaganda refutes itself.

        The video starts by admitting what is the real political spectrum with communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right and moderates in the middle. It then makes the untrue claim that the political spectrum is different from that reality and is from all forms of government on the left to “no government” (i.e. anarchy) on the extreme right.

        Having redefined ‘black as being white’ it then uses its distorted definitions to make a series of untrue assertions. Indeed, it claims that people who adhere to understanding of the real political spectrum don’t define their terms: not so, the diatribe began by stating the true definitions of political right, left and center.

        However, the video is honest about one thing: it reviles democracy as all fascists do.

        But, as Churchill said, “‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. I agree with Churchill and not the fascist polemic you have provided.

        Richard

      • Richard, I provided the clip especially for you, but I see you missed completely its message. You fail to define your terms and if rationality is correct, total control by the government is on the left.

        As far as refuting itself, that is your term.

        You seem to re-define the terms until you achieve in a later post, the following conclusions: “The Naz1s were fascists: i.e. they were the extreme right. That fact is embarrassing for the American far-right so they pretend fascism is left-wing but they only fool themselves with that and everybody else laughs at such a Big Lie.”

        Please go re-watch the clip and follow its logic. It did not per your critique, “admit” anything but for your benefit, carefully initially defined its terms. Just because you wish to trash anything on the right, you can’t nor will ever see the logic of the message. Sorry Richard, think it is you that has the vision and comprehension problem based on your definitions, bad historical assumptions and classic engrained misusage of the term- “right wing”.

        Not being in the group on the far right, (or left) I feel I can honestly assess what is going on.

        As Eugene says, I think it should become at least a starting point for discussions in civics classes.

        BillyV

      • Great video!!! And both of you stop focusing on right vs left or right and left; that’s how the oligarch gets its way. The point of the video is made in just mere seconds. Bottom line: Democracy is by majority and its policies…… a corporate code; the republic is by rule of law. i.e natural law/God- freakin logic!!!!

        It doesn’t matter whether its right or left, its a matter of lawful vs legal. Real law can’t be created/passed/repealed, only policy or the family code can be thought up and or repealed. And trust me, the democracy is a family with no rights to property because it belongs to the collective. the collective who make up this family. I hope that’s simple enough.

        Canada (Her Majesty) is a Democracy; America was a Republic and still can be, so long as you know how to reclaim it and rebut presumptions that you are a member of the democracy.

    • In the real world:

      You claim

      anyone calling a Fascist a Right winger is just following Stalins orders

      No! Outside of the fantasy world of the ultra-right it is known that political alliances are formed for expediency.

      Churchill and Stalin were allies during WW2. That does NOT mean Churchill was a communist or was “following Stalins orders”.

      The Naz1s were fascists: i.e. they were the extreme right. That fact is embarrassing for the American far-right so they pretend fascism is left-wing but they only fool themselves with that and everybody else laughs at such a Big Lie.

      Richard

      • I love the way Richard decrees that those who agree with him are ultra right wingers.
        That’s the left for you, everything black and white. Me good, you evil.

  51. Ooh, this is surely a declaration of war by the Unelected Powers on those that question them. Only a matter of time before Sceptics hit back with their own reply, surely? This could turn out to be very damaging for the establishment.

    • They already “hit back” with data, model error checking, and the slow drip of additional research in regular science process, but to no avail.

  52. Somehow I don’t think the NYT and LA Times will cover this story of intolerance. At least they are not calling for number tattoos on the arms of skeptics and fact checkers……yet.

    • Nicholas

      So good of you to notice.
      Additionally, you would be impressed to know how many of those come from 50K a year schools.
      The demigods of the elite imposing their self importance on the little people.
      Perhaps an unintended consequence of capitalism.

  53. ROFL! Go Marc Morano and the Magnificent 7! (But get your hand out of that ick!)
    Gee, I sure hope those “Wanted “posters were printed on 100% recycled paper (by hand on a mimeograph) with wild-gathered plant ink and affixed with non-petrochemical adhesive . /
    Reminds me of the good old days.
    Too bad someone didn’t have the time to print up small bumper-type stickers and to attach them to the posters a la National Lampoon; Like one that says “Thinking People” ,to be placed under the “Wanted” part , and “Invites you to learn about the REAL science and the potential effects of wasting your tax dollars on misguided policies” under the “Marc Morano” part.

  54. Scientific Consensus leading to extremist ideology is not a new thing. I have been reading about the Eugenics (which means good birth) movement which was born in the 1880s. By the 1910s they were very powerful worldwide movement. In 1921 they had a conferences where they took over two floors of the Natural History Museum in NY, renaming Darwin Hall Eugenics Hall. They were backed by the science establishment, the journals like Science and Science Monthly and their their slogan was “Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution” Their emblem was a tree with its roots in biology, psychology, POLITICS, ECONOMICS, STATISTICS, genealogy, intelligence testing and other fields. They had exhibitions on heredity, psychology, human migration and you guessed it CLIMATE CHANGE. (my emphasis)

    At this International conference papers were presented on “racial difference in Musical Abilities” “Distribution and Increase of Negroes in the United States” “Inheritance of Mental Disease” and “Some Notes on the Jewish Problem”.

    Alexander Bell, inventor of the telephone and telegraph warned that unless the use of sign language was discouraged in schools for the deaf, society an the risk of engendering ” a race of deaf mutes”

    Francis Galton (half cousin of Charles Darwin) launched a “War on the weak”.

    30 states in the US passed laws granting state officials rights to to forcibly castrate convicts and residence for the care of the feeble minded children

    In in pre Nazi Germany the movement was embraced. In 1920 Ewald Meltzer director of a state home for non-educable feebleminded children in Saxony sent out the following questionnaire to fathers

    1 Would you give your consent in every circumstance to a painless shortening of your child’s life, after an expert had determine him incurably imbecile?”
    2 Would you give your consent only if you could no longer care for your child, for example if you were to pass away?”
    3. Would you give your consent if your child were suffering serious physical and mental anguish?”
    4 What is your wife’s opinion of questions 1-3?”

    following the survey a Alfred Horche wrote a book called “the liberation and destruction of life unworthy of life” this is an extract “Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not regard it as unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not create even the smallest gap – except perhaps in the feelings of their mother or loyal nurses”

    For a while clergy from the Catholic church were seduced to join in encouraging forcible sterilisation, but to their credit Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical in 1930 banning sterilisation for other than therapeutic uses.

    It ended in a whole nation going mad with ideas of race purity and notions of exterminating the weak and a world war.

    am I alone in finding the parallels between belief in CAGW and Eugenics disturbing

  55. ” 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy”

    3.6 million out of over 7 billion? That’s less than 0.05%

    Yet they demand that the world MUST do what they want.

  56. Perhaps that should be forced to sew different color triangles onto their clothing to identify what type of denier they are.

  57. Typical Leftist tactic… RESIST OUR HEGEMONY… you are a criminal worthy of jail or death.

    ———–
    “We do not have time to play at “oppositions” at “conferences.” We will keep our political opponents… whether open or disguised as “nonparty,” in prison.”
    — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

  58. Would Phineas T. Barnum call this the Greatest Circus On Earth!

    Ha ha

    PS. Hay, peeing on a Pole in Paris is part of that “Fraternité” they keep on singing about. ;-)

    Ha ha

    • Well at least someone was returning his nitrates to the soil as part of the nitrogen cycle.
      So that’s as scientific as it gets.

  59. Thank you a million times to Heartland Institute and CFACT for taking the team to Paris and making the huge and expense effort to make the skeptical point of view heard at the International Climate Conference. I look forward to the new CFACT Marc Morano movie. It is David against Goliath, but the battle must be waged in the non-ending effort to stop the agenda driven, one-world government, tax the rich team from destroying our modern society with only a failed scientific theory behind them.

    • Roy Spencer on December 7, 2015 at 11:41 am

      – – – – – – – –

      Roy Spencer,

      Yes! : ). Or should I say ‘Qui’?

      And the hair style is priceless.

      And that is a very nicely styled shirt and tie . . .

      They go well will in fashionably chic Paris.

      John

  60. And these people are advocates of free speech. Oh, I forgot, you are free to say what you like as long as you agree with us of the Left!

  61. the left/libtards will NEVER admit that AGW is a complete hoax. there are a couple of issues: one the feel that their CAAAARING about this (non) issue makes them morally superior to anyone who doesn’t and two – admitting they are wrong will not only diminish their crumbling sense of self worth it will also make them look stupid and that is something they can NOT abide.

  62. “The underlying foundations of climate predictions mean that, if one is truly interested in the well-being of poor people, the only realistic policy is to help improve their economic conditions. Even if that means allowing the climate to warm, it is unlikely that it would warm enough to pose danger, let alone a danger as great as poverty.”

    From Climate summit: Why we believe Paris proposals doom billions to live in extreme poverty, Fox News, at http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/07/climate-summit-why-believe-paris-proposals-doom-billions-to-live-in-extreme-poverty.html?utm_source=Cornwall+Alliance+Newsletter&utm_campaign=93f43237ef-Climate_summit_Why_we_in_extreme_poverty12_7_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b80dc8f2de-93f43237ef-153380749

    • Climate summit: Why we believe Paris proposals doom billions to live in extreme poverty

      that link is to good stuff from – By Rev. Charles Clough, Dr. Neil Frank, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Jeffrey Haymond, Dr. Tracy C. Miller, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Dr. David Wells Published December 07, 2015

  63. The Canadian lawyer Emma Ruby-Sachs? How is it possible? The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been translated from Abkhaz to Zulu. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.

    Can a Canadian lawyer graduate ignoring it? Or ignoring the roles of the government, court and police in a modern western society? For example in the country of ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’? Especially right now?

  64. Seems you may want to add China, Russia and India to the list. They aren’t even acknowledging climate is changing of which geographies double that of climate change proponents. Now, if were ticking off hours as to the irreversible (facts?) don’t you think climate scientists in China, Russia and India would participate in global self preservation? Or are the leaders of these enormous counties idiots too?

  65. Real environmentalists shun the use of paper and ink and energy for ineffectual and frivolous activities. The belief in climate lycanthropy has completely undermined real environmental stewardship.

  66. Posting these men’s pictures all over town is not a scientific argument for global warming. I am sure there is a name for it like slander but I am not a psychiatrist.

    • Legality depends on who targets who.

      F.ex. “b*tch” seems OK when the target is “extreme right” and the targeter is a leftist “comique”.

  67. That’s the way to silence them!
    Call them to everyone’s attention!

    Avaaz must be in pay of Big Oil. (or maybe Big Coal.)

  68. Most jurisdictions require permits before posters can be ‘put up’.

    Those jurisdictions also have restrictions on how long the posters be stay before they are considered litter. Any unapproved posters are considered immediately.

    I live in a relatively rural area and even here there are requirements for posting items.

    Locally there is a three day period before the posted material becomes litter. Both unapproved material and permitted material left standing after three days are deemed litter. The initial fine is $10 per piece. A few thousand pages posted quickly cause big money. Take the matter to court and the judge gets to add in legal and punishment fees along with the fine.

    Submit a complaint to the local police offices that people are ruining the natural beauty of Paris with their litter; give them the names of the group and their leader doing the posting and let the law do it’s work. For all we know the police would love a reason to haul some litterers to jail.

    Plus, I think Marc, Bjorn and the others should collect as many of their posters as possible.

    A) It reduces the wanted posters out there and perhaps forces the loony’s to stay busy checking posters.

    B) Those posters are likely to be worth big money someday, especially if autographed. Put on EBay next year should see some early returns on the effort!

    • This is Paris. The ‘authorities’ are to be avoided at all costs, alas. A simple complaint like that could cost you years of your life with petty paperwork alone.

  69. The Nazi Party was a socialist organisation, called in English, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. This was contracted to ‘Nazi’ from the full “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” in German. Socialists were so embarrassed by the Nazis that they called them a far right organisation.

  70. Eliminating opponents is a standard tactic of revolutionary communism.
    Somewhat ironically the “useful idiots” are guided to support the “purging” of individuals who wish to save the “useful idiots” themselves from the ruin that is to come.
    Where were the military tacticians when the Soviets were repelled by tiny Norway?
    “The Soviets possessed more than three times as many soldiers as the Finns, thirty times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Red Army, however, had been crippled by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s Great Purge of 1937.”
    Where were the agricultural specialists when Lysenkoism lead to the starvation of millions?
    And again in Maoist China:
    “Some activists went against the Great Leap Forward movement, but they were seen as the opponents of Mao and were silenced in the purges of the following Anti-Rightist Movement”.
    In the end the results are always the same:
    “Yu Dehong, the secretary of a party official in Xinyang in 1959 and 1960, stated,
    I went to one village and saw 100 corpses, then another village and another 100 corpses. No one paid attention to them. People said that dogs were eating the bodies. Not true, I said. The dogs had long ago been eaten by the people”

    Above quotes collected in about 2 minutes from wikipedia. Even a “useful idiot” can do that!!!

    • Can’t help thinking that someone should organise a book signing or something. Avaaz have done all the legwork, seems to me that Morano et al should take advantage of the free publicity

  71. Emma Ruby-Sachs, Acting Executive-Director of Avaaz says: “These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action, despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy. Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants.”

    [The lobbyists mentioned by AVAAZ included:

    -Benjamin Sporton, head of the World Coal Association

    -Fiona Wild, representative of mining-giant BHP Billiton]

    I do not recall ever hearing from or about those two individuals or their associated organizations on the major critical (aka skeptical) climate focused blogs over the past 8 years.

    John

  72. Global warming climate change is a Marxist leftist scam. From day one in the 60’s/70’s, the leftist climate scammers claimed (in their usual sky is falling down/end of the world tactics) that we were entering a new Ice Age. This turned out to be a transparent lie. Now transition to the 90’s and 00’s when Al Gore the failed politician somehow became a climate scientist (after claiming to have invented the internet); and now his claims of global warming have turned out to be a lie (A Convenient Lie) as there has been proven to be no warming since the late 90s. This is why the alarmists have stopped saying Global Warming and instead are now claiming Climate Change (their first scam was proven to be false so they just changed the name to a new scam: Climate Change).

    • Peter I know you will think this is off topic ! But its not, Albert Gore Sr. and George McGovern big D senators in the late 60,s with the help of the US FDA and UN World Health Org. changed first the US and then the world diet to a high Carbohydrate low Fat Diet. The result; Diabetes Epidemic, Major Obesity, High Blood, Arthritis I can go on and on. This is BIG Business think Obama Health Care; Health Insurance; Pharmaceutical Industry; if the truth ever came out the US economy would collapse : even Judith Curry mentioned the lie on Cholesterol this in her testimony to congress on climate. Please watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8

  73. In addition to the Climategate scandals of cooked and manipulated data from the University of East Anglia which the UN’s IPCC depends on for its data; their is also the government funded agencies like NOAA and the EPA that, at the direction of the politically motivated Obama admin., are producing corrupt and manipulated data to advance the Climate Change Scam and therefore justify further centralized government regulations and controls and increased taxes.

    • Do not omit the greatest active offender of manipulated data NASA, rewriting historical data to manufacture a false narrative for Obama to take to Paris.

  74. Climate change (real “climate change”) is simply Earth’s normal and natural climate variability (primarily affected by the Sun’s natural cycles), & has nothing to do with and is not influenced by human activity. This is why Canada and Australia have repealed their Climate Change policies & other nations are starting to realize this is all a Marxist Leftist scam. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has warned that environmental extremism is the New Communism. He said, “As someone who lived under communism…the biggest threat to freedom, democracy,….is not communism…” “Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism [Climate Change].” He added, “The so-called climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments….” In other words, this is all a Marxist leftist scam. The same old thing you always get from the corrupt lying Marxist Left; scams and lies to take money out of your wallet and put it into the government’s pocket.

  75. Here is a web site which makes it easy to recognize the arguments used by Avaaz: Logical Fallacies

    Many of their arguments seems to fall in under the category: Emotional logical fallacies
    Appeal to emotion:
    When a position is promoted through the manipulation of emotions, rather than through the presentation of an actual argument.

    Confidence as a validator:
    When the certainty one feels in respect to a claim is submitted as evidence for the truth of that claim.
    Judgmental language:
    insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient’s judgment.
    Argumentum ad baculum:
    When a position is promoted through coercion or threats of force.
    Ad hominem:
    When the person is attacked instead of the argument.
    Appeal to spite:
    When an appeal to bitterness or spite towards the proponents of an opposing position is used in an attempt to make or bolster an argument.
    Appeal to ridicule:
    When ridicule or shame is introduced in an attempt to invalidate the opposing position.
    Appeal to motive:
    When a claim is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its sponsor.
    Appeal to fear:
    When fear is employed as a reason to hold to a particular conclusion.
    Appeal to authority:
    When a claim is deemed true because of the position, authority or esteem of the person asserting it.

    The response by Mr. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute, seems very mature on the other hand:
    “It is a shame that people must experience such vitriol and harassment when they make scientific arguments supported by scientific data. If such attacks must be made, however, I am glad it was my face that appeared on their posters. I will always be proud to stand up for free and open discourse and ultimate truth.”

    • You can still go to office depot and have some made with your picture and captioned:
      Wanted: Climate Skeptics
      See Wattsupwiththat.com for details

      Brings more folks here to find out the truth.

  76. These climate bigots are the same people who claim to value diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism. But they have absolutely no tolerance for any diversity of opinion or freedom of expression when it comes to the climate. If you’re not part of their echo chamber, you’re not welcome. If you have different ideas, you’re not welcome. Everyone must be assimilated into a monolithic culture that shares the same goals and strives to achieve the same plan of action. Dissension will not be tolerated. Resistance is futile. At least, that’s their hope.

  77. despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy

    So, about 0.5% of the world population. Anyone want to take a stab at how many millions around the word are calling for ANY energy?

  78. Marc Morano looks great….I think the publicity is fabulous. And just imagine that 3.6 million people want totally clean energy….that’s like 50% of the world’s population. No wait, maybe 5%. No, hang on…0.5%. Bugger…it’s only 0.05% Well, it’s something

  79. Avaaz worldwide demonstrations? Are they talking about the reports of eighty people in downtown Portland, sixty in Chicago, 100 in New York City….yeah real robust international movement that one!

  80. Americans and Europeans use the words “left” and “right”, politically speaking, to mean different things. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you point this out, people insist on pretending it isn’t so.

    The International Communists duked it out with the National Socialists. Because Europe uses “right” to mean “nationalist,” roughly, then they claim the Nazis were right wing.

    In the US, “right wing” is a conservative political philosophy centered around individual rights (which both factions claim as their mantle) and minimalist government (at least nominally). *Both* major divisions in the US are nationalist, but not in the narrow fashion that European nationalists are seen as holding to. Also, there are more internationalists on the left, but it’s not exclusive to them.

    Traditionally socialists and communists are both on the American “left,” so, to Americans, Nazis are properly left wing.

    Europeans use the same word for something completely different, so to them the Nazis were right wing.

    Unfortunately, while at least some Americans understand this, as far as I’ve been able to tell no Europeans are capable of understanding that a word can have more than one meaning, so this dumb argument will still be going on when the sun burns out (slight hyperbole).

    The “American right” essentially does not exist in Europe, the vast majority of the “left and right” in Europe would be on the left in the U.S.

    I have explained this about a thousand times.

    • Most people use the words “left wing” and “right wing” incorrectly. Left wing has nothing to do with big government.

      “Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.”

      “According to author Barry Clark, “Leftists […] claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

      Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences and/or from competition in market economies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

      • The wikipedia political bias comes through strong. This is the same reason why you can’t trust anything they say about climate science.

        In the US, the left is the ‘big government knows best’ party, while the right is more about ‘small government, personal responsibility and free markets’.

      • Interesting. As I spoke in a message that’s a few hundred feet up in the queue here, Wikipedia has a decent article about the history of the Left vs. Right Wing in politics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics which ends with this wise conculsion:
        “the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean”
        Maybe the Left vs. Right article was written by someone else!

      • “Leftists […] claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated {by — the — state — ultimately — out — of — the — barrel — of — a — gun}.”

        “Socialists” of Europe try to hide behind the above double-speak, but, the bottom line is, coerced charity is NOT what the Bible teaches (many of them call themselves “Christian socialists” and invoke Scripture to justify confiscating the wealth of others to create their utopia) and “socialism” (like fascism) is statism no matter which side of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation you live on.

        Typical political science definition:

        “Far right” = “radical” ==> go “back” to X way of living
        (and control the society).

        “Far left” = “socialist” ==> go “forward” to Y way of living
        (and control the society).

        Both = control society by confiscation of private wealth via confiscatory taxing and/or “nationalizing” industry and severely restricting by regulation personal liberty (and all in the name of “the people”).

        They are simply two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

      • “go “forward” to Y way of living (and control the society).”

        = progressists

        “go “back” to X way of living (and control the society).”

        = regressists or co-progressists (dual of progressists)

      • That is *such* a tendentious set of definitions it isn’t even laughable. It’s basically a lefty saying that leftism is good and rightism is bad. While the right say the left is bad and the right is good, and could write an equally tendentious set of definitions.

        It would be an act of grotesque ignorance to accept one of those definitions.

    • French politics is “50 shades of socialism, collectivism, nationalism, imperialism, centralism”.

      There is no Republican Party in France.

      • Hate to break this to you but there are at least 5 shades if not 50 shades of ism in the Republican Party. Depends on how you break it down. The ones I refer to are: Libertarianism, Conservatism, Centrism (moderates), Liberalism (undercover), and the most insidious of all ism’s – Progressivism

        Progressivsim was born out of Mussolini’s fascist Italy. It is the father of New Age University Liberalism aka Petulant Brat-ism.and the home of Environmentalism. The reason for the Paris Summit. Progressivism is, at it’s core the supremely (obscenely) wealthy, buying up the political system through crony capitalism, eliminating free market competition through regulation and then using the political system to enslave the masses and control the population, resources and the distribution of energy to third world industrialization until they can control ownership

        Progressives are both “Republicrats” and “Demoplicans” The two party system in American has become opposite sides of the same coin and it is possessed by the Progressives..

      • And a left shift of the shades of the ‘right’ describes the shades of the ‘left’ which are:
        Conservatism (undercover), Centrism (moderates), Liberalism, Progressivism and Socialism
        The fact that there’s so much overlap is why many can get confused.

      • (Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

    • Thanks for your thoughtful post. I’ve tried to clarify this point several times to no avail. I believe the problem is that when a European Socialist opposes the climate scam, they feel persecuted by those that blame all lefties, and then seek to defend themselves.
      Right wing in the US is different than right wing in the Eurozone.
      Simply look at the policies put forward by “conservatives” in the US, and you will see they don’t look anything like Nazism or Fascism.

  81. Isn’t it about time the FBI had a list of ‘climate terrorists’ who represent a clear and present danger to national economic security?

    Those in Paris would be very high up on the list……

  82. {Draft Message}

    To: Emma Ruby-Sachs, Acting Executive-Director of Avaaz

    Subject: CAGW Parousia Canceled

    Well, the bad news for you is that the CAGW Parousia** is being canceled by reality. But the good news is that you can relax now, because resistance to independent critical CAGW hypothesis analysis (aka skepticism) is futile. Reality will de-assimulate you from alarmism.

    Note: Apologies to Star Trek for my climate focused adaptation of the well known lines in the ‘Borg’ episodes.

    ** ‘Parousia’ is an ancient Greek word meaning presence, arrival, or official visit.

    John

    {Draft Message}

  83. (whips out calculator) Hmmmm…. Lemme see here….. 3.6 million extremist warmistas… 7 billion people on the planet, most of whom have benefited from an energy-intensive technological civilization, even if they aren’t part of it yet (cf. Norman Borlaug, disaster relief, cheap cell phones everywhere, etc. etc. etc.).

    I make that 2000 to 1 against.

  84. “With global warming a clear scientific reality” That’s the real lie. All warming predictions have been wrong. The polar ice caps are growing. Were humans to blame for the warming after the ice age too? This whole thing is absurd. A con to control us and make us pay $$ for the lie.

  85. I have been for some years on a mail list of AVAAZ. They had several voting actions for good purposes like helping a refugee, preventing a capital punishment, etc. After some time I noticed that they also wanted support for climate actions. These texts differed from the others as they were totally bizarre and paranoid. Their editor was always Emma Ruby-Sachs. More sensible texts were usually written by other team members. With this Paris event, I’m afraid that their psychiatric component has gone wild. Two years ago I made an end to their emails as these became more and more about mad climate issues. So I missed a bit of their latest developments.

  86. 3.6 Million of the worlds 7.3 BILLION is hardly a representative sample size. Less than 0.05 percent.

  87. The warmists are like kids on a schoolyard calling names. They certainly don’t act like scientists. Is it any wonder they lose more credibility everyday.

  88. A further thought based upon a post above. Rank the 52 cards (four aces, four kings etc) based upon magnitude of carbon emissions. And the Top spot is?….Ace of spades: Gore? Suzuki must be up there too.

  89. Twitter: Climate Depot
    lots on ‘Climate Hustle’ Red Carpet Premiere …
    Tweet: Liberal Guilt Trip: I trust @ClimateDepot will be thanking all the climate activists who provided such valuable publicity…
    Tweet: Andy Revkin (NYT) Marc @climatedepot doesn’t look worried. Indeed, @avaaz campaign helps promote him…
    PLUS
    #ClimateHustle premiere was a huge success! #AllHail @ClimateDepot #FTW!…
    The paparazzi at the @CFACT Climate Hustle premiere in Paris tonight.
    https://twitter.com/climatedepot

    7 Dec: NYT: A Stunt by Environmental Activists Targets Climate Doubters
    Those who made the group’s list are: ETC
    All seven were asked by The New York Times to respond to the stunt and allegations; four responded to the emails…
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/a-stunt-by-environmental-activists-targets-climate-skeptics

  90. “The World Coal Association setting up shop next to the COP19 summit in Warsaw in 2013 to convince negotiators to embrace coal as a solution to climate change. This resulted in the Warsaw Communiqué promoting clean coal,..”

    This is total BS! Poland has huge coal reserves and with or without lobbying, no one is going to shut Poland’s coal down. They still run coal fired steam locomotives in Poland and good on them for hanging tough. They know that access to cheap reliable fuel is essential for human survival. I can see a day coming when Eastern Europe has had enough of the Kumbaya stupidity of Western Europe and starts to re-erect the iron curtain. The planet will be fine. It’s the EU that is headed for oblivion. What I hate to see is the UK, Germany and Nederlands succumbing to this neo Marxbrothers political ebola.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/polands-old-steam-trains-still-on-track-1969727.html

  91. Dang! I didn’t make the list. :o(

    Maybe I’ll be on it next year at COP22, where there will be a breakthrough agreement on where to meet for COP23.

  92. Because everything the lefts do is symbolic this childish act us as utterly ineffective as the entire carbon trading scheme would be for climate management. All petulance, no bite. Except that the world is now in the control of rogue leadership that is unresponsive to the desires of the people and the laws of the lands they represent, we’ve won.

  93. I am really upset. I wanted to be on one of those posters. Those sons of female canines left me out.

    Oh, the humanity!

  94. Unless my arithmetic has failed me 3.6 million in about 6 billion is about 0.06 %. To quote the famous French socialist politician ” they make a lot of noise, shout and scream and think they are in the majority”.

  95. If those magic gassers believe their movement’s headed for Bigfoot/Area 51/Magic Heater In The Sky

    country now, wait till they have to put the green house gases on wanted posters

    for not warmingthe planet like government employee scientists and enviromentalists claimed they would.

    After all – the green house gases have been told by scientists they’re responsible for warming this planet.

    Who the f**** do the green house gases think they are, CREATING TWO of the THREE modes of COOLING

    created by the existence of the atmosphere at all?

    “WANTED: the GREEN HOUSE GASES”
    for crime of ”CREATING TWO of the MODES of COOLING created by EXISTENCE of there being an ATMOSPHERE and HELPING the OTHER one the presence of an atmosphere creates, do even MORE cooling.”

    “The exact crime the green house gases are guilty of are as follows:

    ”not understanding the heateristical hotterisms of climatology while pretending to be ‘on the side of science’ when they’re obviously NOT”

    ”letting someone find out they don’t actually heat jack squat but create two modes of cooling that couldn’t even exist for the planet if they weren’t part of the atmosphere”

    then of course they’re guilty of ”referring to the laws of thermodynamics to justify doing it.”

    Better get those ”Green House Gases WANTED for COOLING the EARTH” posters printed up.!

    • That’s because those “big oil” folks aren’t funding him and he can’t afford the trip expenses himself.
      If the petroleum industry really was backing the skeptics, this struggle to get the truth exposed would have been over years ago.

  96. Sorry its off topic, but I am debating hurricane intensity and cannot find when they changed giving tropical storms numbers to names. Anybody help. Seems google does not know.

    • I don’t know how to link on my phone but Wikipedia had history of tropical cyclone naming and tropical cyclone naming. NOAA Hurricane Center had a little history. It seems naming has been around for a very long time. Wikipedia also has history
      of Atlantic hurricane warnings.

      • I was bought up knowing that hurricanes were named. Tropical storms had a numerical designation. When they reached hurricane strength they received a name. I recall a big fuss when it was decided to name tropical storms. It is important when discussing the number of named storms.

    • Sometime in the 1940s, IIRC. Google has lists of hurricanes by years, just do a binary search and you should be able to find the right year. Maybe 1947? I think NJ had a “hurricane of ’46”.

      • I am sure that until a couple of years ago, hurricanes were named and tropical storms were not. i recall the fuss when the change was made. It feels like i have fallen into a parallel universe. So it would be nice to get the facts straightened out. Sorry to be a pest but what better place to ask?

      • Ric, nobody is disputing that. The point is that Storms have only recently been named.

        The question was and remains in what year did they shift from numbering storms to naming them? From your previous post it is obvious you don’t know. It wasn’t as far back as the 40’s.

    • I recently ask a similar question on a different posted article regarding hurricanes. And it appears to be an unrecorded mystery by the primary press.
      You are correct. This naming of “Storms” is fairly recent (not to be confused with calling hurricanes, “tropical cyclones” or “typhoons” which is just semantics used on different parts the globe) . What Grey is referring to is the natural progression of a tropical depression into a tropical storm (winds 73 to 149 MPH) to a tropical Hurricane.(winds 150 mph on up as they elevated in severity and obtain increasing category enumerations up to CAT 5 or 6.
      It seems to me that naming “storms” coincides with the shift in emphasis by “Warmists” form Warming to Climate Change in the last decade And attaching hereto un-conflate-able weather to climate.
      I recall reading about a NOAA prediction for hurricanes that fell embarrassingly short of reality and it was trumpeted by skeptics. Prior to the next hurricane season they decided to give Tropical “Storms” names.to up the appearance of severity and provide the Media puppets content ammo.
      Two years ago they named a Tropical “Depression” out of confidence that it would progress into a “storm” only to see it fizzle out the next day. Nonetheless the kept the name and added it to their seasonal totals.

      Worthy of note: Cerescokid, take any information obtained on Wikipedia with a grain of salt if it deals with politically charged issues such as Anthropogenic Global Warm…ah, they really meant Climate Change all along. Wiki is very entrenched in the Catastrophic end of days scenario.

      • Thank you Powersbe,Thats my point. If only Hurricanes were named storms, adding mere tropical storms to the numbers now falsely inflates the numbers. Thus current season is listed as 15 named storms (very bad) yet only 4 were hurricanes. (very good , cant have that). Looking for the answer, i was struck by the facts that according to sources it never happened. So what gives?

      • i don’t think that the keepers of the CAGW keys at NASA, NOAA et.al, allowed this change to be widely disseminated.by the press on purpose.
        Logiclogiclogic posted a comment that includes a link to the “Failures of Global Warming” I would refer you number 31 on the list and their “need to know” secretive approach to their science. There are a lot questions about their methods and data handling.
        Switching from naming hurricanes only to including the naming of Tropical Storms significantly ups their numbers “of named storms” as the primary media likes to report and aids their end of days drumbeat fear tactic. A lot of CAGW reporting is subliminal as this is.
        Research using google has been a effort in futility it directs you to tropical “cyclone” links and links to the beginning of their naming of hurricanes but apparently there is no publication of the transition to include tropical storms to the naming protocol but it is a very recent transition that only began since we entered the 21st century.
        Hey we went for X to triple X “named Storms” in one year. And then they predict double digit “Hurricanes” pre-season and get to report double digit “named storms” at season end. Win Win for the Alarmists.

  97. So Avaaz is worried that if ministers hear an alternative viewpoint they may decide not to support the global warming alarmist rhetoric.

    That suggests that Avaaz is not very confident of the strength of the anthropogenic global warming argument.

    Makes me keen to hear the alternative alternative more. And Avaaz should perhaps move to China where I gather that alternative viewpoints are not tolerated.

  98. 8 Dec: Sydney Morning Herald: Peter Hannam: Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Tony Abbott was brought down by the UN, Christopher Monckton says
    Former prime minister Tony Abbott was brought down because of his anti-global-warming views and would have pushed back against plans to form a world government at the Paris climate summit if still in the job.
    These are the views of leading sceptic Christopher Monckton who, in an interview with Fairfax Media, also said Australian institutions such as the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO were being examined by “a formidable team of scientists and lawyers” for possible fraud over manipulating their climate data..
    The comments came during a day-long conference held by climate sceptic groups at the elegant Hotel California, just off the Champs-Elysees in Paris…
    “[Mr Abbott] had seen through this global warming thing for what it was,” Lord Monckton said. “It’s a very nasty totalitarian attempt to set up a kind of global system of governance.”…
    (Fairfax Media is a global partner of the UN Foundation)
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-un-climate-conference-2015-tony-abbott-was-brought-down-by-the-un-christopher-monckton-says-20151207-glhtco.html

    below: beginning at 8mins30secs, mild-mannerered Benny Peiser very effective on Aljazeera’s Counting the Cost (aired again today), despite having to follow Jennifer Morgan and deal with the host, Kamahl Santamaria’s misunderstanding of what “binding” means at COP21:

    5 Dec: Aljazeera Counting the Cost: COP21: Constructive conference or a waste of time?
    We explore whether the world will finally agree to a meaningful and binding agreement on carbon emissions.
    On this week’s Counting the Cost we show you the effects of climate change around the world, and hear all sides of the argument.
    Jennifer Morgan, the director of the Climate Program at the World Resources Institute, joins Counting the Cost to discuss whether a deal can be reached.
    ***Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Forum and a critic of the conventional view on global warming, addresses the relevance of such a summit.
    Finally, we speak to Atiq Rahman, an environmentalist at the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies…
    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/countingthecost/2015/12/cop21-climate-change-paris-waste-time-151205101515049.html

    • Hannam at the SMH now no longer allows comments on his articles because he has been debunked so many times it’s rather sad.

  99. 3,600,000 people want 100% clean energy whilst
    1,300,000,000 people want any electricity,
    2,600,000,000 people want clean cooking energy, and
    3,221,400,000 people (the rest of us) want these idiots to grow up and start acting responsibly towards the vast majority of people in the world who don’t have access to safe, secure energy supplies.

    (I know is an extrapolation too far, but if it’s good enough for the climate scare idiots, then it’s good enough for this idiot)

    And don’t get me started on clean water!

  100. criminally insane!!!

    8 Dec: AP: The Latest: Kerry mocks climate change doubters
    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is mocking climate change doubters who downplay the effect of rising sea levels.
    Speaking to a U.N. Foundation meeting in Paris on the health of the world’s oceans, Kerry took his criticism a step further Tuesday, saying the refusal to recognize the threat is “insane” and “insulting to everything we learned in high school about science.”
    “We have people who still deny this: Members of the flat earth society who seem to believe that the ocean rise won’t be a problem because the water will just spill over the edge,” Kerry said to appreciative laughter from the audience that included U.N. Foundation founder Ted Turner…
    http://news.yahoo.com/latest-vatican-hosts-photo-light-show-nature-082057322.html

  101. There are people who earn fortunes through lobbying for fossil fuels, and there are people who stack up good money via campaigning against climate change. Climate change has nothing to do with either, if it exists.

    • Why would anyone lobby for cheap lightweight transportable chemical energy?

      It lobbies for itself.

      • It sure does, as a dream, along with interstellar travel. I didn’t mean that climate change protest is about lobbying for cheap-whatever-energy. I meant this protest is about lobbying for money to fund the protest.

  102. Stupid (I’m not much of a Marc Morano fan):

    Morano statement: “Since the ‘wanted’ posters for me are all over Paris, I have relocated to a secure undisclosed location. I hope my trip to Paris for ‘Climate Hustle’ red carpet premiere will go better than JFKs trip to Dallas.”

    Better:

    “The posters are an exercise in silliness,” Mr. Morano said. ‘Climate skeptics are here promoting open debate and arguing to allow dissent. The idea that any alternative views amount to a ‘criminal’ perspective is obscene.”

    What they should have done is print some “palm cards” with the poster image on one side, but with “Wanted” crossed off and “Available” in red (or whatever EU friendly color would be good) under it. Then the back side could be the list of talking points they want to emphasize.

  103. Come Winston, mustn’t be late for the Two Minutes Hate, old Emanuel Goldstein, er, Koch isn’t going to demonize himself now is he?

    [We assume to 1984? .mod]

  104. This all leaves me wondering if the parisian public will be too fearful to attend the movie as these kooks might call for mass arrests (or worse). I think it should have premiered simultaneously in multiple western capital cities, but since it’s clearly not funded by big corporate interests, the money was not available.

    • Dawtgtomis commented: “…This all leaves me wondering if the parisian public will be too fearful to attend the movie …”

      I’m sure it will be available online so we can count the views……

  105. They missed one criminal. He may be long dead, but at least they could dig him up, convict him and then throw his bones into a swift river somewhere (swollen by Global Warming floods, no doubt).

    And what, some might ask, could he possibly be guilty of? Setting a bad example for youth by standing up for the truth in the face of official government scientists and their pet theory.

    For shame, Galileo!

    • In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

      Galileo Galilei

    • The following shows Galileo’s defiance even after the Roman Inquistion’s treatment of him.

      {Note: below from Paul Johnson’s book ‘A History of Christianity’ (1976), Johnson also noted ‘See G. de Santillana,’The Crime of Galileo’ (Chicago, 1955); and C.A. Ronan, ‘Galileo’ (London, 1974)”}

      “During the 1633 Roman Inquisition of Galileo and his paper ‘‘Dialogue of the Two Great World Systems’’, Galileo made a full submission; ‘‘. . . with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies’’.

      After his official submission Galileo wrote a note in the margin of his own copy of his paper ‘‘Dialogue of the Two Great World Systems’’:

      Galileo wrote, ‘’In the matter of introducing novelties. And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealth and the subversion of the state.’’

      John

      • Excellent quote, Mr. Whitman (bears repeating — with emphasis):

        When people of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts … .

        Timely commentary on the IPCC, et. al..

      • Powerful

        In the matter of introducing novelties. And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealth and the subversion of the state

  106. Luke December 7, 2015 at 11:09 am

    There was, indeed a socialistic wing around the Strasser brothers and SA leader Roehm in the NSDAP, the Nazi party. But during the so-called Roehm Putsch (or Roehm plot) one of the Strasser brothers and Roehm and, in addition, many SA commanders were murdered by Himmler’s SS. These SS troups also murdered the German Reichswehr Generals von Bredow and von Schleicher, a former chancellor of the German Reich, and his wife. During that time the SS was a part of the SA, i.e., Himmler was responsible for killing his commander Roehm. The weapons were delivered by the German Reichswehr.

    After that plot, there was no socialistic wing in the NSDAP. Thus, Richard Courtney is right in this matter. However, Hitlerism cannot be considered as a form of fascism. In Italy, the home of fascism, there was not only Mussolini, but also the Grand Council of Fascism, a main body of Mussolini’s fascist government. In 1943, for instance, this Grand Council voted against Mussolini. He was dismissed and arrested. Eventually, Mussolini became the head of a puppet government of a state in northern Italy established by the Germans..

    Under Hitler, the German state was already completely destroyed in 1938. The Weimar constitution was rejected. There were a lot of states within the state, only ruled by Hitler’s will. If Hitler had been killed in 1938, during that time no rule did exist for electing a successor.

  107. Nazis claimed to be a socialist party; believed in state control of all major industry; and were militantly atheist and of course anti-semitic. Pretty sure they’d be a lot more comfortable on today’s left than on the right.

  108. People. this is a debate about the future direction of our world economy not its past. Lets move on form Hitler, Stalin etc etc. The real point is that there is a well funded lobbying population out there funded by those who have billions to loose if we break the dependence on fossil fuels. As fossil fuels get harder to extract they will become uneconomic to use unless the world has no choice but to carry on using them. Thus far so reasonable if you believe in free speech and free trade competition. However, the question is how much of what they are saying is misinformation and deliberate deception? The lobbyists of course claim that the massive amount of published scientific literature represented by the IPCC reports are misinformation and that the world’s climate scientists have an interest in raising research funding so who is an observer to believe without waiting for years of hindsight to apply? Well we can look at the track record of some of these lobbyists, many of whom made their reputation by delaying the acceptance of the health risks of smoking whilst being funded by big tobacco firms. It is easy to see parallels between the two campaigns as amazingly the pro tobacco campaign by the likes of Heartland is still running despite the almost universal acceptance that SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU. Arguably 100s of thousands of people have died horribly who might have had much longer better lives had they not clung onto the shreds of doubt about smoking and had instead given up. When one sees the same tactics being used by the same people over climate change I think it is fair to imagine that the climate change campaign is just as deceitful as the tobacco campaign.

    • erikblakely,

      So you’ve bought into the CO2=tobacco nonsense. If that’s the best you can do, your argument fails.

      You haven’t posted even one example of any empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 is a problem of any kind. But skeptics of the ‘carbon’ scare have a mountain of real world evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial, and it is a completely harmless trace gas.

      So enough with the ‘smoking is bad for you and that equals CO2’ canard. All you are doing is parroting alarmist talking points that have nothing to do with verifiable evidence. This is a science site. I suggest you go find a politics or religion blog to post your belief system. Here, we need verifiable evidence that what your uneducated side of the debate calls ‘climate change’. But so far, you have sero empirical evidence.

      Skeptics know something you apparently don’t: the climate always changes — naturally. Human-emitted CO2 has nothing to do with it. So please, stop with the re-posting of the carbon hoax. Readers here know better.

    • erikblakeley

      No. Your self-called “fight” against natural global warming IS KILLING millions of innocents worldwide, and causing billions to suffer specifically BECAUSE of YOUR deliberate energy restrictions, economic restrictions, and economic damage.

      The choice of smoking or nor smoking is an INDIVIDUAL one, a choice I do NOT force on ANYONE, and a choice that apparently gives a LOT of pleasure to those who choose to undergo the real sacrifices (time, distractions, coughing, money, etc) to continue. YOU are the one killing people and harming people through YOUR fears and YOUR religious propaganda of exaggerated CAGW dangers.

      So, what is the probability of ANY harm coming from continued warmth?
      Because artificially forcing CO2 to lower (more harmful!) levels DOES cause physical, economic and environmental harm and lower plant growth, what does your precious “precautionary principle” tell us to do about YOUR irrational fears promulgated by your priests of despair?

      THEY (YOU!) ARE causing immediate harm and future harm by their actions now. THEY (YOU!) are causing this “immediate harm” and are producing “no good” future results.

Comments are closed.