Oh noes! A handful of climate skeptics may ‘derail’ Paris treaty – so let's revoke their credentials


Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris – Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it – Warn skeptics may ‘derail’ UN treaty


Graham Lloyd – Environment Editor

Sydney: Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris, with a call for delegates with contrarian opinions to be ejected from the UN talks.

Sceptic groups such as the Heartland Institute have started to arrive in the French capital, sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests.

A new documentary, Climate Hustle, was due to be premiered in Paris tonight (Monday). Producers claim it will be for nonbelievers what Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was for the converted.

Climate change action lobby group SumOfUs has pushed back with an international campaign to raise funds for a counter offensive.

The group has planned a major advertising campaign in France’s biggest-selling newspapers.

It has called on UN organisers to revoke the conference credentials “of the most disingenuous ­climate deniers”…

“Some of the ‘world’s most notorious climate deniers’ had crashed the French proceedings ‘in a last-minute ­attempt to derail the whole thing’.”

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/#ixzz3tcSsw4O9

h/t to reader “pat”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark and two Cats
December 7, 2015 12:08 am

“[warmunists] called on UN organisers to revoke the conference credentials “of the most disingenuous ­climate deniers”
If ya can’t beat em, enjoin em.

December 7, 2015 12:10 am

One can hope so. If anything ever deserved derailing, it’s COP21.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
December 7, 2015 2:44 pm

When the wheels come off -they will be blamed….

Lawrie Ayres
December 7, 2015 12:10 am

The truth must be truly terrifying for the gullible politicians and the activists. Banning a counter view would be seen by most sensible people as a red flag and bring into doubt the message of those wanting to implement the ban. The alternate view must be very powerful and threatening to cause such concern. We here know that to be so but many have been denied the opportunity by a biased press.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
December 7, 2015 4:56 am

Absolutely agree, it’s just like Michael Moore, if Roger Smith had been patient enough to politely ignore him then he would have been a nobody, lost among thousands of other “documentary” film makers.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 7, 2015 5:31 am

It’s not so easy. Roger Smith met with Michael Moore three times. A lot can happen in the editing room.

Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
December 7, 2015 5:03 am

This is why the anti-vaccine movement has never been banned from anywhere despite its body count. Banning a dissenting view will only make it stronger.

Reply to  benofhouston
December 7, 2015 7:19 pm

Congressman Posey goes on to quote a statement from Dr. Thompson that was provided to his office:
“All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects for the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office, and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.”
PS. I’m not anti-vax and have been vaccinated for the serious stuff and so has my family but to deny that the profit motive rules certain government agencies is folly. A 340% rise in autism amongst black, males who got the MMR vaccine before the age of 3 was established before the data was “fixed”. Sound familiar?

Robert Wykoff
Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
December 7, 2015 6:44 pm

Let us stop calling presentation of scientific and factual information as “views” as if they are only “opinion”

Kelvin Duncan
Reply to  Lawrie Ayres
December 7, 2015 8:50 pm

That is why they react with such venom when even mildly critical views are expressed.

December 7, 2015 12:17 am

They claim that skeptics are disingenuous.
So do they believe that they are “ingenuous”?
adjective: ingenuous
(of a person or action) innocent and unsuspecting.
“he eyed her with wide, ingenuous eyes”
synonyms: naive, innocent, simple, childlike, trusting, trustful, over-trusting, unwary, unsuspicious, unguarded, unsceptical, uncritical, unworldly, wide-eyed, inexperienced, green; More”
I suppose that they would like to pretend that they are all these things. Especially “green”.
Such a person would not survive in a political forum for five seconds.
We are certainly not ingenuous. They, however, are devious self serving little shits.

Warren Latham
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 7, 2015 2:18 am

“Devious”: steady on !
That’s an insult to “self-serving little shits” groups in general …
climate loons and the bed-wetters
climate ninnies
the Alarmed Ones
global warming alarmists
Enviroprofiteers (wind and solar industry, mostly)
the climate mafia
government-induced climaphobians
warmista jackasses
the church of climatology
the eco-loons (ecolunacy)
I’m 97% sure it’s an insult.

Reply to  Warren Latham
December 7, 2015 9:34 am

Warren, you’ve caused me to wax poetic (again)
Coming out on climate
Authority figures, foretelling
Hot doom (and our “myths” dispelling),
Cast great dispersions
On skeptical versions
(Which keep carbon credits from selling)!
Now, shriller and louder they’re yelling,
To drown out the doubters’ rebelling!
New taxes are “just”
When you’ve gained public trust,
So “the questioners” (quickly) they’re quelling.
I’ve arrived at this realization;
Our industrial civilization
Can only be sin
If the ‘green’ Marxists win-
On their platform of demonization!
(please distribute)
Steve L

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Warren Latham
December 7, 2015 4:51 pm

You left out “Luniversity Letcherers in Climax Science” and the “Clime Syndicate” (the latter borrowed from Mark Steyn’s writings). Oh I’m sure there are many many more under the umbrella group ” “self-serving little shits”

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 7, 2015 2:08 pm

Of course, disingenuous does not (emphatically) mean “not ingenuous”, so implying that it has an opposite that means “ingenuous”, or “not knowing” is itself potentially disingenuous. One acts disingenuously when one says something patently untrue “as if unknowing the truth of the situation”; opposites of disingenuous, then, include honest, sincere, etc. Still, indefatigablefrog‘s comment and its responses are pretty funny stuff.

Reply to  Don Newkirk
December 7, 2015 10:30 pm

Of course, that is quite correct. Disingenuous is not defined as merely “not being ingenuous”.
In the same way that disinformation is not defined as “not containing information”
Both have connotations of a willful intent to deceive or manipulate.
Since, i did know this, it is also correct to observe that I was to some small degree being disingenuous.
And for that matter disseminating disinformation.
Actually, nothing all that serious was intended. And I tend to assume that all WUWT are sharp cookies who can see through my idle trickery. And, also agreed, the replies were wittier than my original comment.
I am not worthy!!

Nigel S
December 7, 2015 12:21 am

S. G. Tallentyre’s ‘The Friends of Voltaire’ (1907).
What the book could never have done for itself, or for its author, persecution did for them both. ‘On the Mind’ became not the success of a season, but one of the most famous books of the century. The men who had hated it, and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.
‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ feels authentically French.

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 12:40 am

This demonstrates one of the great defects of modern political correctness, its failure to understand this simple Libertarian concept…namely….I don’t like what you’re doing…but I would defend to the death your right to do it.
They seek ‘approval’ over all else. And the insistence of ‘approval’ is a form of thought control, which by its very nature is oppressive and abhorrent.

December 7, 2015 12:48 am

how does one revoke activist credentials?

Reply to  thingadonta
December 7, 2015 12:53 am

Make him a skeptic?

December 7, 2015 12:50 am

How insecure the green groups are. Wanting to silence opponents is such a give away too. I guess they don’t trust their own brand of science, so are not true believers at all, but then we already knew that.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
December 7, 2015 1:22 pm

It’s not about science anymore, It’s about reshaping the world into one despotic, commune.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 7, 2015 1:58 pm

Certainly, I totally agree.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
December 7, 2015 1:47 pm

I suggest that they are indeed believers – ones who believe.
They do not know – say that the Sun rises ‘in the East’. We know that, we have seen it.
It’s as if they, and their forebears for generations, have lived deep underground, and now they believe [but do not know (from personal observation)] that the Sun rises ‘in the East’.
But – as you say – ‘how insecure’!

Reply to  Auto
December 7, 2015 2:02 pm

I agree that there are believers, but I do think that those doing the most screaming (or at least the organizers of those who do the most screaming) know full well of the lies. Over the years I’ve noticed evidence of more willing liars and fewer actual believers. And of course those organizers love to inflate the numbers.

Steve (Paris)
December 7, 2015 1:02 am

So darn busy otherwise I’d be standing at the gate at Le Bourget handing at flyers for the film/WUWT.

Keith Willshaw
December 7, 2015 1:04 am

There is a serious side to this folks. Many of these people are either in Government or proxies for Governments and we should not forget the words of Heinrich Heine
“Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”
That people at a conference in Paris, a city famous for its libertarian principles of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite could openly attempt to silence dissenting voices is extremely serious. Unfortunately we no longer have a liberal newspaper like L’Aurore in France nor an editor of the calibre of Emil Zola to raise the cry ‘J,accuse’ when powerful appratchniks try to hide their perfidy.

December 7, 2015 1:08 am

These people are really like spoilt little children. “Climate Deniers” …a lazy misuse of a misused term.

December 7, 2015 1:12 am

No need to derail cop21; it will implode under its own weight, especially now that the 100 billion dollar bribe they invented at cop15 to make the developing nations sign on to something – anything – comes back to bite them.

December 7, 2015 1:20 am

SumOfUs is about many things other than climate change. I have signed some of their petitions. When they started blitzing me about the eevull oil-funded denialists I told them to stop wasting my time but they didn’t get the message. Avaaz are the same. Their rabid intolerance casts a dreadful retrospective light on all the other causes they’ve promoted.
It’s not as if COP21 were going to be anything but a huge waste of time anyway. At least having climate realists there might make it entertaining.

Berényi Péter
December 7, 2015 1:33 am

They should go ahead ingenuously, it is a classic case of the Streisand effect.

December 7, 2015 1:38 am

Oddly their is lots of ‘evil fossil fuel ‘ money already knocking around the COP , only when it is used to support ‘the cause ‘ it suddenly becomes ‘acceptable’ cleansed of all its ‘sins’ in the same way that by a few magic words ordinary wine becomes the blood of Christ in the mass.

Kelvin Duncan
Reply to  knr
December 7, 2015 8:56 pm

Where can you get all that “big oil” money for working as a climate change realist ? I haven’t seen any.

December 7, 2015 1:44 am

“… A handful of climate skeptics may ‘derail’ Paris treaty – so let’s revoke their credentials”
This is just more proof that the alarmist side knows that CO2 does not drive climate and that this is a politically driven deception. There is very little science in “climate science”. An honest look at the whole con game shows that catastrophic man-made global warming is just not happening and is most likely not even possible.
I will admit that some of the useful idiots probably do believe that they are “saving the world” for “the children” but humans have a great capacity to believe delusions. But even the deluded must be seeing that the predictions and reality are not even close. But most of the people at COP21 are there because they are the ones running the con game. They don’t need or want anyone to look to closely at their shenanigans.
“The Urge to Save Humanity is Almost Always Only a False-Face for the Urge to Rule It” ~ HL Mencken

Kelvin Duncan
Reply to  markstoval
December 7, 2015 9:29 pm

I have just finished reading a paper that examined the non-conforming temperature records pre-1870, particularly in Scandinavia. Temperature has been measured for far longer than acknowledged by most climate activists (their records seem to start with the beginning of the US Met Office). These older records show climate cooling from a warm period to about 1810 to 1850 then warming again – all this before the widespread use of fossil fuels.
To explain this hockey-stick-destroying anomaly the authors attributed the phenomenon to “instrument error.”
This explanation is not science since errors tend to cancel themselves out, but it is typical of the more extreme interpretations seized on by the true believers. They can’t admit that the actual warming has only been about 7 deg C per Century and that CO2 is a minor driver of global temperature.

Reply to  Kelvin Duncan
December 7, 2015 9:46 pm

7 deg C/ century? 0.7 deg/century? maybe?

Reply to  Kelvin Duncan
December 8, 2015 3:25 am

Kelvin Duncan;
Agreed. Good points all.

December 7, 2015 1:49 am

Brilliant! Derail away!

Warren Latham
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 7, 2015 2:24 am

+ 1

Nigel S
December 7, 2015 1:58 am

Rick: We’ll always have Paris. We didn’t have, we, we lost it until you came to Casablanca. We got it back last night.
Ilsa: When I said I would never leave you.
Rick: And you never will. But I’ve got a job to do, too. Where I’m going, you can’t follow. What I’ve got to do, you can’t be any part of. Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you’ll understand that.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 7:26 am

Prefer Capt Renault’s line: “Round up the usual suspects”. No need to round them up, they are all at COP21 acting important.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 7, 2015 9:35 am

His best line was “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” as he gets handed his winnings.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 7:39 am

You wore blue. The Nazis wore green. 😉

December 7, 2015 2:08 am

“Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris … ”
These people are insane ….
Does anyone participating in the Heartland, Climate Hustle, or Paris Climate Challenge events have credentials that the UN can revoke?

Reply to  Martin Clark
December 7, 2015 5:47 pm

Yes, they needed credentials to set up a booth at the confab.

Reply to  Martin Clark
December 7, 2015 6:45 pm

At least we now know who’s credentialed and who is not.

Harry Passfield
December 7, 2015 2:19 am

Isn’t this the very essence of the ‘Streisand effect’. Strikes me that these activists are the naive ones.

December 7, 2015 2:28 am

Have we got to ‘gas chambers for deniers’ yet?

Reply to  Steve
December 7, 2015 11:47 am

Re-education camps will come first.

December 7, 2015 2:31 am

How does one ‘crash’ something they were already given permission to attend?

Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 7, 2015 6:47 pm

You should see the catastrophe that would happen if the “Skeptics” decided to get really belligerent.
(This is so funny I can’t help but laugh out loud!)

Knut Rellsmo
December 7, 2015 2:40 am

UN Climate Manager Christina Figueres in Bruessel in November:” It is not about climate, it is vital to achieve a new economy. For the first tine we have anopportunity, within a limited time, to destroy capitalism which has been ruling for 150’years”
Antarctic with ice above average for 1978-2010, Arctic increased 1,7 mill.sq.km from 2012 to 2014 and should be icefree acording to Al Gore in 2008.
Polar bears increase from 5000 in 1950 to 32000 to- day.
In Paris they want to spend billions of dollars to avoid the climate returnijg to higher temperatures as in the Stone Age, Bronze Age , vikingperiode and the Medival periode.
Plants and trees demanding Hugh temperatures were growing in North Europe in 7500-2500 years ago have disappeared because of to-days’ COLDER climate !

Sandy In Limousin
December 7, 2015 3:24 am

If a “handful” of sceptics can derail the work of 40,000 people 150+ heads of state and 21 conferences over 23 years then the edifice doesn’t have very good foundations, if any. If the science is truly settled they have nothing to worry about in the presence of a few sceptics.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
December 7, 2015 3:53 am

Sandy in Limousin:
It’s taken a lot of people over 23 years to try and persuade the masses that the Earth’s climate will change in a dangerous fashion due to mankind’s activities, hasn’t it?
Pull government funding from all this nonsense and we might just see some reality returning to the world of science.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Carbon500
December 7, 2015 5:00 pm

Yeah its taken lots of people 23 years to try and persuade the masses that they had only 10 years to save the planet.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
December 7, 2015 10:07 am

Indeed Sandy, they are many and we are few. They are the 97% and we just the piddling 3% yet they fear us so reflexively that they wish us to be removed from the field completely.
If they are so right and we are so irretrievably wrong why do they, the 97%, think that we control so much of the policy arena? These people seem very unsure of their ground if you ask me.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
December 7, 2015 6:49 pm

I invested in playing card futures several weeks ago….

December 7, 2015 3:26 am

“Producers claim it will be for nonbelievers what Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was for the converted.”
aye and theres the whole thing….. “the converted “….TO the faith/belief”

Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 7, 2015 2:51 pm

The belief.
Less violent than some believers [although there are a few who contemplate exploding schoolchildren’s heads . . . .], but – still, not exactly tolerant.
Nor confident.
If seven so-called ‘deniers’ [and I bet none deny climate change, although some may deny or – certainly, minimise – the human role in said change] can threaten their castle in the air, it obviously has weak foundations.
If right – meet, argue, debate. Don’t try to exclude.

Bob Lyman
December 7, 2015 4:08 am

COP21 may appear to be a international negotiation but it more closely resembles a theatrical production or a rally where all the fans get together and cheer for the football hero, except that in this case the theatre is farce and the hero is really a villain. How gauche of the Heartland Institute to show up with some contrary evidence that spoils the scene! No doubt the play/rally will end with a triumphant signing of an agreement that commits the participants to wring their hands collectively again in some four years time and to announce unattainable goals that their populations oppose. The whole thing will warrant an Academy Award nomination.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 7, 2015 6:51 pm

I wonder if they could celebrate CO2 by filling the entire conference building with it and see if their voices rise.
(They seem as clueless about everything else…..)

December 7, 2015 4:11 am

Typical extremists. Blame those with no power for their pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. The Emperor is getting laughed at because of the extremists, not the skeptics.

P. Wayne Townsend
December 7, 2015 4:30 am

Can any one say “safe zone”? The so-called adults have finally regressed to the level of the college “cry bullies”.

December 7, 2015 4:52 am

I guess believing it will be full of lies before ever seeing it when it’s being toted as The Inconvenient Truth for sceptics is just a tacit admission that The Inconvenient Truth was garbage. Mission accomplished?

Reply to  Bored
December 7, 2015 6:51 pm

Rather, hoisted by their own petard.

Claude Harvey
December 7, 2015 4:53 am

A better strategy would be to turn Al Gore loose on the offending parties. Judging from the “swooning reporter” film-strip, when Al bloviates, all the surrounding oxygen is used up and his target drops like a rock.

Bob Burban
Reply to  Claude Harvey
December 7, 2015 9:07 am

Aha … the Al Gore rhythm

December 7, 2015 5:07 am

As far as I can find out, Greenpeace have an annual income at least 10 times that of the Heartland Institute. SumOfUs apparently has 60% of Heartland’s income, and Avaaz nearly 3 times Heartland’s income. I don’t share Heartland’s views on many things, but they would seem to be David to the pseudo-greens’ Goliath.
The one admirable character in the Iliad is Thersites, who tells the truth to Agamemnon and is beaten up by Odysseus for doing so. Using force to shut up tellers of unwelcome truths has a long history. Odysseus himself would have been better off if he’d listened to Thersites. True things can stand questioning; it’s only falsehoods that need to fear debate.

December 7, 2015 5:17 am

“Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it ” I have not seen it, but I have caught Morano in one lie about the film. He wrongly claimed that scientists no longer believe aerosols from burning fossil fuels led to cooling mid 20th century. It does not inspire much confidence.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  seaice1
December 7, 2015 7:46 am

Pssst….Seaass1; PDO.
Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 7, 2015 5:06 pm

But don’t feel bad Seaice 1 Mainstream Climate scientists hadn’t hear of the PDO, NAO or Enso until the pause. Now they are trying bend these to their abuses.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 12:49 am

You see, it doesn’t matter whether the actual cooling was due to PDO or not. Morano claimed that scientists no longer claim it was aerosols. He was wrong. They do. Huge mistake for someone trying to poke holes in other peoples’ utterances.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 10:16 am

Once again seaice demonstrates that he either never reads the responses to him, or is incapable of understanding them.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 9, 2015 3:14 am

“Just because you refuse to believe something does not make it a lie.” No, but if you say someone said something they did not say, then that is a lie. This is what I accuse Morano of.
Please give me the benefit of you superior understanding to explain what I have not understood.
I say Morano is wrong when he says scientists no longer believe aerosols from fossil fuels cooled the Earth mid 20th century. The evidence that he is wrong is that sites like Skeptical Science say:
“Climate scientists believe that the primary cause of this mid-century cooling was an increase in atmospheric aerosols due to anthropogenic emissions (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels).”
This directly contradicts what Morano said. Therefore when Morano says “they now say it never happened” he is wrong, as you can see from the quote above.
All I get in response is cryptic comments about PDO, with no explanation of the significance.
I surmise that this is a reference to PDO as an alternative explanation of mid century cooling.
However, if you read carefully, you will see that my claim was never about the cause of mid century cooling. It was about what climate scientists say is the cause. It does not matter one jot to this argument whether PDO or aerosols were the actual cause. To repeat, my arguent is that when Morano says climate scientists deny that anthropogenic aerosol cooling ever happened he is wrong.

Reply to  seaice1
December 7, 2015 11:49 am

Just because you refuse to believe something does not make it a lie.

December 7, 2015 6:12 am

If they think so little of their “science” that they believe a handful of fringe deniers could derail the entire movement, then maybe we should also think very little of their “science.”
Oh wait… 🙂

December 7, 2015 6:16 am

We can’t have anybody pointing out that the emperor is naked.

December 7, 2015 6:38 am

“Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it”
Well, of course they would say it is “full of lies”. They don’t need to see it to say that.
Remember, to the Warmists, “lies” are facts, data, and proper conclusions drawn from real world observations.

December 7, 2015 7:11 am

“… claim it will be for nonbelievers what Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was for the converted.”
If there’s still anyone left out there who thinks this is all about science, rather than faith, that quasi religious statement should be a final wake up call.

Brandon Gates
December 7, 2015 7:46 am

The original piece by Graham Lloyd at The Australian is here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/paris-climate-talks-greens-want-muzzle-on-climate-deniers/news-story/4ccecc011cf6053b88abf076f598f74d
Better to let the opposition speak their piece, rebut it with specifics and move on. Preemptive, sweeping attacks are ugly, counterproductive and unfortunate.

December 7, 2015 8:28 am

Graham Lloyd – Environment Editor
Sydney: Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris, with a call for delegates with contrarian opinions to be ejected from the UN talks.
Sceptic groups such as the Heartland Institute have started to arrive in the French capital, sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests.

Why are the proponents of the observationally challenged hypothesis of significant AGW so worried?
Are they worried because they fear that believers in their problematic hypothesis are so gullible in accepting the hypothesis that they are gullible enough to accept alternate hypotheses such as dominate natural climate variation? In other words, do they fear that their tribe is on shaky ground wrt common sense & objective research?
Their insecurity betrays their weakness.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 7, 2015 11:50 am

Sounds to me like they are trying to set up scapegoats in advance to explain why this conference will fail as badly as the previous ones.

DD More
Reply to  John Whitman
December 7, 2015 12:03 pm

sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests.
Yes only pure tax payer, NGO and wind/solar funds are pure enough for their truth.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 7, 2015 1:05 pm

MarkW on December 7, 2015 at 11:50 am
Sounds to me like they are trying to set up scapegoats in advance to explain why this conference will fail as badly as the previous ones.

If there was a commodity market segment in ‘scapegoat’ futures then we could make a fortune knowing right now that after the Paris climate meeting there is going to be a huge demand for scapegoats.
: )

Reply to  John Whitman
December 7, 2015 1:17 pm

DD More on December 7, 2015 at 12:03 pm
sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests.
Yes only pure tax payer, NGO and wind/solar funds are pure enough for their truth.

DD More,
Avaaz appears to condone funding prejudice and bigotry. My, my, my . . . it does whines on so.

G. Karst
December 7, 2015 8:40 am

This is probably the very best sign that the conference is a complete failure… No matter what is claimed afterwards. Nothing has a greater impact on the general population like blatant injustice and dictatorial displays of the privileged elite. GK

Reply to  G. Karst
December 7, 2015 7:04 pm

Good point! I’ll take much if not all of the blame if it would help.

December 7, 2015 9:53 am

Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris

And from the Edmonton Journal today:
“A Canadian environmental organization is calling on the Competition Bureau to investigate “misleading” information about global warming put out by groups that deny climate change is happening.
Ecojustice is concerned about messages from groups including Calgary’s Friends of Science Society, which has produced billboards in Edmonton and Calgary with such statements as “Global Warming? Not for 18+ years!” and “The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.””

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Werner Brozek
December 7, 2015 5:14 pm

What competition are they talking about? Has there been predatory pricing of carbon credits? Collusion of windmill companies on dividing up markets? Selling of wind strength futures after the bell? Or have they just been dumping their watermelons below cost. These idiots had never heard of the Competition Bureau before. Must have seen reference to it in a newspaper and thoroughly misunderstood its purpose.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 7, 2015 7:52 pm

UofA Prof – that about says it Gary.

December 7, 2015 11:53 am

It is almost like the advances of Western thought and the Enlightenment have been overtuned by an return to base values of emotiional manipilation.
The logical argument (and logical rebuttal)is forgotten to ad hominem attacks.
The scientific theory of theory, experiment and conclusion are distorted.
The most repulsive crimes of murder and rape have been replaced by offending opinion or use of proscribed words. That to challenge an individuals opinion is a ” hate crime”.
Voltaire is often quoted but I think on this occasion Galileo is more apt. ” But, still it moves.” The truth will out and to conclude as a a tribute to the AGW adherents.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away

Gary Pearse
Reply to  London247
December 7, 2015 5:18 pm

I guess the only ‘works’ of Ozzie of Egypt left to “Look on..” was what the sculptor gave him.

Gunga Din
December 7, 2015 12:25 pm

“Group Think” at its worst.

December 7, 2015 1:49 pm

Critics of the early 20th century eugenics movement were also heavily slandered and defamed in many of the same ways.
From Eugenics and Other Evils: Arguments Against the Scientifically Organized State:
“That much-longed-for day [state controlled reproduction] could never come as long as there remained within society, groups that were educated and articulate opponents of state-control over reproduction. Hence the fury in which eugenicists…attack and attempt to slander their opponents.”
We’re seeing the exact same thing here, but at least this time we’re dealing with mostly Chicken Littles, Tweedledees and Dumbs, but not Adolf Hitler.

Reply to  RWturner
December 7, 2015 10:47 pm

Nothing has changed. Now, if you support any aspect of eugenics then you will be heavily slandered.
Hitler has a lot to answer for. He misunderstood and abused both Darwinian evolution and eugenics.
Just because Hitler got it wrong, doesn’t mean that the theory has no merits.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 8, 2015 9:42 am

Eugenics isn’t much of a theory and more of a philosophy. The science behind it will be completely replaced by genetics yesterday. Just like climate science, the science behind eugenics was hijacked by politicians.

Reply to  RWturner
December 9, 2015 5:17 pm

Yeah, luckily the science of genetics will now allow us to rid ourselves finally of such horrors as lactose intolerance.
I despise all kinds of intolerance, and lactose intolerance is the worst.
It should not be tolerated.

December 7, 2015 4:08 pm

Well now, don’t that just beat all.

December 7, 2015 6:14 pm

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Sounds like the Climate Cultists are desperate for their own “safe space,” where no contrary opinions are ever heard.

December 7, 2015 6:37 pm

Can people understand, now, why America needs someone like Donald Trump to be President?
Under Donald Trump, all this climate change rubbish will whither and die, as will political correctness, and as will the UN’s AGENDA 21. Without a President Donald Trump playing ball with the UN and global warming environmentalists like Obama/Clinton have done, the house of cards will come crashing down.
After Copenhagen, it was about to come down until Obama intervened and gave the whole fraud life again.

Reply to  Mervyn
December 7, 2015 7:07 pm

How does a fraud give life to a fraud?

Tom O
December 8, 2015 5:09 am

Does anyone that reads anything on this blog truly believe that this “climate change movement” is about “science and saving the planet?” I didn’t think so. Do you really think facts or truthful arguments is going to change anything? I hope not because this is a political issue. In this day and age, few are the politicians that don’t make decisions purely for the purpose of garnishing more real wealth from the people and distributing it amongst the few, and drawing more “authority” to themselves. This is about a world government that will control the future and the future growth of the human race. Stop thinking that this is going to go away because you can prove what the climate crisis crowd is saying is bullcrap. It isn’t. They will end up with their one world government sooner or later because we don’t actually go after the politicians and throw the bastards out of office that are driving this farce. It isn’t being driven by the climate frauds that are creating the scare data – they are only part of the vehicle, like the engine of a car. They are not in the driver’s seat directing which way the car goes, they only supply the power. If you continue to think this is going to go away because “truth wins out in the end,” I’ve got a bridge or two that I would love to sell you, dirt cheap.

December 8, 2015 1:27 pm

in reply to Warren Latham’s comment yesterday December 7, 2015 at 2:18 am
Nice collection. Better is ‘climate jihadists’, it covers the full behaviour spectrum.

%d bloggers like this: