‘Wanted’ campaign targets Climate Criminals at Paris summit
Avaaz publishes dossier on dirty energy lobbyists at Paris talks, calls for ministers to boycott lobbyists
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:
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.”
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”.
I don’t think the threat of force is reserved for the left.
George Johnson
So it’s only the left that lie? Ever heard of Richard Nixon?
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
And the Blood is barley dry from real terrorists and criminals….
Feh,.
Just because he was a Republican is not evidence that Nixon was a conservative.
I see that Richard is still trying to push the lie that Nazi’s were right wingers.
Sheesh, they put “socialist” in their name.
This is not a left/right issue.
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.
MarkW:
The Naz1s were fascists, not socialists (as you know well).
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
Micheal Darby: It can’t be “rewritten” because the science is already settled right?
Luke:
In reply to my having written
You say
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.
Hitler did the same thing
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.
Simon,
The Left has no conscience. When others lie, they feel remorse. But your kind uses deception to advance your goals:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”
The goal of this conference, like every other ‘climate’ conference, is redistribution of wealth. It has nothing to do with ‘the climate’. That is only the narrative.
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.
The terms left and right have lost their meaning. There’s big government and small government. The left and right have completed the circle and at their extremes are both big government.
I think this sums it up:
http://davidsdiamondsandrust.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-it-time-to-dump-left-and-right-in.html
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.
Simon
Ever hear of Barack Obama
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.
Richards Courtney at 10:23 am: Joseph Goebbles was of the left persuasion.
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.
No, they are trying to whip up a mob to enforce their rule.
They are just proving themself that the Whole tjing is not science based?
Never forget: these are the people who admire Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stalin, et al, for their ability to “get things done”.
Obama for one. He wants USA to be like china so he can dictate policy outside the constitution.
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.”
At least it provides some comedic relief for Parisians after the horrors of the recent past.
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?
They can all go home now. Problem solved. There is nothing to worry about.
The decline has set in:
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/15/infographics.htm
spangled drongo commented: ‘…The decline has set in: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/15/infographics.htm”
Blatant attempt to spin the current state of natural climate variability except the CO2 mix in the atmosphere is still rising.
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.
Ah the Soros Family
The son of the father seems to strike a slightly different tone.
He recognizes the imbalance of special interest access and promotes its limits.
On the other hand, he did just attend an Obama fundraiser.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/opinions/soros-ending-campaign-dollars-corruption/index.html
You fight corruption by limiting power NOT money.
The problem is that all these so called attempts to limit influence always end up ensuring that outsiders have less say in how govt is run.
The ultimate will be public funding of campaigns. In which the two candidates selected by the govt will be permitted to compete against each others, and all others will be barred by law from trying to participate.
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.
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!
There should be an equivalent for the COP21 delegates – and especially one for Robert Mugabe who has been massacring his own people.
What Mugabe has done is closer to genocide.
Yes but killing people by the thousands helps “save the climate”
If he is a marxist it will be forgiven?
Always worked in the past.
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
For the love of all that is good and decent, please go away.
PERHAPS THE POST THIS IS REFERENCE TO CAN BE DELETED?
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.
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.
Yes! Powers that be all at it again.
You’d think she’d have made up a much larger, more impressive number. 🙂
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.
She should quote it as parts per million:
500 ppm sounds way more impressive than 0.05%
/snark
Doesn’t she know that 3.600001 million people work in fossil fuel industries and therefore “the whole world” doesn’t want a climate deal in Paris?
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.
We must thank Avaaz for making it clear who the illiberal thugs are.
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]
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!
Exactly! Spot on !
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.
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).
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.
Avaaz is the most childish kindergarten operation. They whine.
Barbra Streisand Effect will be operating at FULL Throttle!
“Avaaz’s 100% Clean campaign”,,now that I can support! Just thinking about never cleaning my toilet and house sends chills up my leg
How do we get on the list? It is a badge of honour.
We are all Spartacus.
Speak for yourself Bruce.
Spartacus and the rest were crucified, for they lost!
I damn well mean to be on the winning side, and crucify the warmers! We lose, the world goes back into the Dark Ages. No thank you!
To Dorian,
Perhaps you may want to retake the history class that you slept through concerning the Fall of the Roman Empire.
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
I’d reserve the Joker for certain cartoonist, as well as some other people who also love to impersonate skeptics.
Michael mann = Joker? Or perhaps a deuce?
Definitely the deuce.
A good idea for Josh
JS: I have an idea for the Ace of Spades…but I guess you can figure that one.
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.
and yet george monbiot posted his deck of deniers years ago with nothing but praise:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
Skeptics need to keep trumpeting the DATA–and we need to compress it into soundbites that Joe Sixpack can understand. Never mind the graphs, the trend lines, the algorithms. Just lay it out with crystal clarity that the ONLY place there’s a “greenhouse effect” from CO2 is in the UN’s “models”—NOWHERE in the real world is this happening measurably right now. We need to emphasize NON-PROBLEM, over and over, in Twitter-sized packages people can understand.
We used to own that deck, it may still by lying around somewhere. I should did it up and see who (or what) is left of the deck in real life. Thanks for reminding me.
I hope he washed his hands afterwards. That post is probably a pissour for the local dogs…
This is Paris…..it’s not just the dogs!!
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.
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.
Via online Complaint form, Dec.3, 2015
http://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-03-Application-to-Commissioner-of-Competition-re-Climate-science-misrepresentations-updated.pdf
If one legal track fails then other legal tracks might be tried.
The Heartland Institute is one of the parties named in the above legal action Complaint.
The Complaint is a 24 page document.
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!
Cannot be in Tahiti. After all, as everyone knows, it will be under water soon.
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!
Well if he did make all his decisions this way, which I severely doubt, then there is something in Astrology because he was usually right!!!
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?
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?
I’d be surprised if it was that much. Perhaps installed capacity, the ol’ enviro trick.
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.
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.
Well said Jasonn. Perfect.!
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
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.
Yes, Mr. Maxwell! AGWers are now an effete, defeated, band of thugs (CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED). Vilifying Morano, et. al., is just another of their despicable acts of desperation, straight out of the KGB Playbook:
(Andrei Sakharov, March 1, 1989)
(Source: http://biography.yourdictionary.com/andrei-sakharov#VbSTEupwGYkMVQRR.99 )
“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.
The goal is to tax air, worldwide. ‘Climate’ fears are a means to the end.
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.
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”?
Badge of honor, I would say. Add me to the list please!
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?
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.
What a joke. I suppose it’s nice that these brats have so much time on their hands, but I wouldn’t know.
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.
Ah, the totalitarian lunacy of La Gauche Francaise. (Hope my junior high French still works.)
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.
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.
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.
Tag them as threats and call it terrorism.
That’s stealing Putin’s tactics.
Where are the mugshots of the biggest and real climate criminals – Obama, Gore, The Science Schmuck, etc?
Avaaz takes a waz, on their own doorstep, again.
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.
I am certain I would not put my hand on the ground next to that spittle or whatever that is he is nearly sitting in, yuk!
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
Y’re ‘n ‘ld c’nt
/
Alan Robertson:
Please explain what I have done to merit that obscene abuse.
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
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!
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?
James Taylor?? A moment’s confusion there.:)
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.
“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.
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.
The guy probably lives in Oregon. Boy, I’d LOVE to meet him.
You omitted the /sarc tag on your post, as you did freedom, reason, intelligence and humanity.
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
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.
… 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.
The Marxist warmers and their green friends must be getting worried that they have been found out to be fraudulent zealots.
“clean coal, which has been deemed as “a myth” by National Geographic”. Nat G? Well that’s me convinced. #sarc/off
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.
Will they be forced to wear special badges to identify them in public? Bring in the special trains to load them up too.
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
Do these posters qualify as “hate crimes” in France?
“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
The juxtaposition would be posters of iconic alarmists with a slight adjustment.
Unwanted
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
The “Unwanted” poster idea is a clever way to depict wayward politicians or other undesirables.
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.
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.
link to polarbearscience up there on the right and my Christmas presents of Eaten have arrived !
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
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?
Plus he gave the go ahead to the coal companies to do mountain top removal when he was in the Senate.
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.
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
+10 but mention of the temperature model forecast errors needs some highlighting
I actually have a list of some 40-50 Deceptions or Fails as I call them. There include Fails around the science and deceptions around the scientists and things they do or have said or have failed to say.
https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/failures-of-global-warming-models-and-climate-scientists/
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.
Exactly…
Distinguished list .
By far it is better to be a truth-speaking climate denier than a filthy climate liar. Name and shame the liars.
COP, is that an abbreviation for ‘Criminals On Parole’? How about ‘Condemning Our Planet?’ or ‘Condescending Obnoxious Pissants’?
lol — yes.
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…….
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?
“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).
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.
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.
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.
Mark L
Yup. Here’s one of them (from this thread at 9:11am today):
Jason
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/climate-skeptics-in-paris-branded-as-criminals-wanted-posters-go-up-in-the-city/#comment-2089650
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?
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)
How do you go about lobbying a kool aid gulping leader anyway?
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.
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
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
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
Donald Trump is not one of us “leftists” and my record of opposition to racism is clear.
Richard
– – – – – – –
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
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?
“Neither fascism or totalitarianism are forms of socialism.”
Then define these.
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.
“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?
So private schools get the same benefits?
That’s new to me.
MarkW:
As proponents of fascism always do, you misrepresent.
I wrote to ricardo maxwell
You claim
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,
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
moderat0r,
Thanks, it showed up.
John
BillyV:
You claim
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
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
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:
https://youtu.be/9SVB2aH71_4
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