JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization

Hansen suggests eco-terrorism

Civilization is the problem. Hansen recommends a book that incites violent sabotage, and promotes illegal activities to bring about an end to industrial civilization. Is this kind of book legal in the US?

James Hansen has called for industrial sabotage and defended lawbreakers before, but did he really read all of Keith Farnish’s words before he endorsed the book “Times Up”?

Farnish has put together a frightening compilation. He tried non-violent protest with Greenpeace for five years, but then he changed tactics. He got angry, and recommends you do too:

“Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful – even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then,  however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”

The four key rules of sabotage

1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.

What Keith suggests is vigilante terrorism, to paraphrase:

1. Stepping outside the law is essential. (But don’t get caught).

2. Blowing up Dams is ok, if you feel the action is a net benefit to the environment.

Thus any 17 year old zealot might be “inspired” to dynamite say, Hoover dam, and that would be “OK” according to Farnish, and by inference, to Hansen. After all, the kid did a net-benefit analysis on the action. He just forgot it might kill some people.

Like any fundamentalist terrorist Farnish and his fans would probably reconcile the collateral damage in any case.  Presumably the natural environment is better off without those people, who as Farnish would say, are a part of a “Culture of Maximum Harm.” He predicts billions will die as civilization collapses, and in his Key Rules, he warns against getting caught, but not against hurting people. If it smells like Enviro-Jihad…

The confusing phrase “tools of disconnection” mentioned in rule 4 BTW, appears to be a clumsy reference to picking targets that are meaningful (according to him).

In his delusional view, he talks of “early adopters” and quotes the percentage of any population willing to take up new ideas, only he thinks his idea, (to promote and survive some apocalyptic collapse of civilization) is somehow a “new idea”, instead of a big step backwards.

Here are a few other selections from the free online version.

“Don’t waste time protesting: this changes nothing – that is why it is legal.”

“It is not possible for a corporation to be “green”, therefore at no point must the message be allowed to include business as an ally; politicians are not enablers of change, they exist to maintain the status quo, so are not going to play a part in the solution; connection can only be made with an artefact of the real world, it cannot be reproduced in a technological “experience”. In this case, sabotage needs to be focussed on exposing the damaging alternatives to real change as “greenwash”, lies and attempts to keep us as parts of the machine.”

“Getting rid of civilization is not going to be easy, but the alternative is far, far worse.”

What I am going to propose is radical, fundamental and frightening.”

…all laws exist: “to maintain economic success above anything else –”

“Industrial Civilization has to end; I made that clear in Part Three. There is no doubt that, sooner or later, it will collapse, taking much of its subjected population with it: oil crisis, credit crunch, environmental disaster, pandemic – whatever the reason, it will eventually fail in a catastrophic manner. This may not happen for fifty or a hundred years; by which time global environmental collapse will be inevitable. That is one option; the other is for it to die, starting now, in such a way that those who have the nerve and the nous to leave it behind can save themselves and the natural environment that we are totally dependent upon.”

“[I]t is possible, indeed probable, that to create catastrophic collapse within an economy, and thus bring down a major pillar of Industrial Civilization, the public merely have to lose confidence in the system. This is reflected in other, related parts of civilization: following the attacks on the World Trade Centers in 2001, the global air transport industry underwent a mini-collapse; the BSE outbreak in the UK in the early 1990s caused not only a temporary halt in the sale of UK beef, but also a significant drop in global beef sales. Anything that can severely undermine confidence in a major part of the global economy can thus undermine civilization.”

“Because they are only present in civilizations, neither governments nor corporations have any part to play in the solution. Despite the protestations of the mainstream environmental movement, it is obvious now that the best thing corporations and governments can do is to shut up shop and leave humans to go back to the emphatically less destructive beings they were before Industrial Civilization took control.”

If Hansen was a reasonable concerned citizen he would immediately disavow this book and discourage all who call for similar illegal potentially dangerous action. Likewise, the climate change topic is owned by NASA and the IPCC–where are their moderating responses? Silence is tacit approval. Are they really happy to ignore the safety of the same public who funds them?

Farnish’s downloadable “book” is here.

In 2008, Anthony Watts described James Hansen’s efforts to support eco-vandalism.

James Delingpole does a great job here.

UPDATE: People are finding it hard to see the James Hansen official review on the book on Amazon. So I’ll add it here, so it can be seen that Hansen approved of the book, used his NASA title, and endorses the idea that the  “system” (meaning democracy/voters/media/money/civilization etc)  is the problem and that we have to “force” people to change it:

“Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. –Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y8zkf9q

252 comments to Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Where are the men in white coats?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE:
    If Hansen was a reasonable concerned citizen he would immediately disavow this book and discourage all who call for similar illegal potentially dangerous action. Likewise, the climate change topic is owned by NASA and the IPCC–where are their moderating responses? Silence is tacit approval. Are they really happy to ignore the safety of the same public who funds them?

    And yes, Phillip, where are the white coats? If not to take Hansen and Farnish away, then why not for the rest of the Hansen-loving-media, NASA directors, and IPCC board of directors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Wow,

    So Hansen is prepared to trust people stupid and ignorant enough to listen to him to weigh up the Pros and Cons and then performing sabotage.

    What a freakin’ moron. And for anyone who is stupid enough to listen to anything he says on any matter, you are on a parellell with people who quietly smile when they hear of some terrorist act somewhere in the world.

    Any act that endangers the lives of civilians to make some form of political point is Terrorism.

    The fact that this moron is prepared to support a book that advocates terrorism shows that he is yet another idiot who believes the ends justifies the means.

    So now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who supports Hansen on anything is a supporter of terrorism. End of story.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    MadJak

    Joanne,

    Please let’s not beat about the bush here. The book Hansen is advocating is supporting Terrorism. Let’s not put a spin on it like “Potential illegal action”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Ya’ gotta fight The Man!

    What’s the matter, dude? The last few decades a bit of a blur?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    We can make this multiple purpose. [snip ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anna Jones

    Phase one of insanity has failed.
    Phase two begins.
    (You really didn’t expect them to just lie down and die, did you all? Our own prime minister has repeatedly contributed Australian tax payer millions to their slush funds for his own political gain.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Need I say it again? They do not mean well. They INTEND to destroy modern technological civilization and a major fraction of mankind along with it. That NASA and neither the Democratic nor Republican administrations do anything about him, they are in on the end goal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    tide

    Hansen and Farnish apparently took their cue from Al Gore who was promoting Civil Disobedience almost two years ago. Shockingly, that received practically no media attention here in the U.S. and none at all in the mainstream media.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This isn’t news to me. I’ve long thought that the end of technic civilization was the goal (thanks to the late, great Poul Anderson for the term).

    So now we’ll have to deal with green jihadis as well as the other kind. This could get ugly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    An English politician with no shortage of names – William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:

    “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Bear in mind James Hansen is chief guru to the Greens led by principal AGW alarmists Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Time to re-visit Hansen’s 27-3-08 letter to Kevin Rudd in which he massages Rudd’s massive ego and delusions of grandeur on the advice, he says, of people in Australia etc. http://crikey.com.au/Media/docs/COPY-OF-LETTER-JAMES-HANSEN-TO-KEVIN-RUDD-27-3-08-478116


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT – Lord Monckton gives Deborah Cameron a run for her money on ABC morning show, Sydney.

    You can listen here.

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/702_mornings/

    or you can download the mp3

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/monkton.mp3

    they can’t even spell his name :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Keith.

    Jo,

    I know it breaks the rules but the Farnish first name is Keith not Kieth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Joanne:

    then why not for the rest of the Hansen-loving-media, NASA directors, and IPCC board of directors.

    In bed with them. You will not hear for that kind of talk with their sycophantic press.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Two things:

    1. This quote has been around a long time. Maurice Strong was apparently instrumental in putting together the Kyoto Protocol.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

    So this is not new.

    2. James Hansen appeared before a U.S. Senate hearing and demanded that oil company executives who dared to speak an opinion he found inconvenient, be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. As far as I can tell, not a single senator challenged him about it.

    Why are we surprised at Hansen’s endorsement of this book? This crap has been going on for years. It’s just one more event in a long line of shameless self-promotion that Hansen has engaged in. And he’s not the first. He knows his case is a sham — no one knows this better than he does. It’s all about the personal power and aggrandizement of Dr. James Hansen!

    Even given NASA’s position, Hansen has got to be an embarrassment and should be fired. But frankly I think they’re afraid of him!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    OT: (Glaciergate)

    A relatively tame Hitler parody video

    Glaciergate: Hitler’s Last Straw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-6U5MwyDM


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom G(ologist)

    I think this dangerous kunatic has one thing which might be considered to be in the same county as the ball park – and that is that politicians are only interested in preserving the staus quo – theirs, that is. He is wrong about which status quo they are interested in preserving, of course – and everything else in his self-testament to his insanity.

    What we have to recognize is that there are degrees of lunacy and the frantic protesters in Copenhage back in December are only a couple rungs on the ladder removed from this guy. He is just an end member of a complete spectrum of eco-nuts. The thing is, withion that mob there are many who are close enough to this guy that they would and will follow if the chance arises (Jonestown mean anything to you?).

    To all those in the States, remember the Oklahoma City bombing – it was not an al qaeda operative but a home-grown zealot just like this guy.

    I thought Hansen was embarassing enough at those protests he stood around gloating over last year and getting thrown in jail for NOTHING, but this goes beyond embarassment and borders on complicity in treason.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Roy H. is exactly right. The quote from Maurice Strong is on the masthead of my blog.

    Faced with zealotry like Farnish’s, Hansen’s and Strong’s we have to resist in kind. The only reason such books are written is that the eco-terrorists get a free and symapathetic ride from the news media.

    F*** the bastards, it’s time to get angry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tide,

    The mainstream media are part of the problem – that’s why it rarely gets published.

    It’s gratifying to see people here starting to focus on Maurice Strong but really folks, this political movement is much older and goes back to the end of the 19th century. However the present situation could be traced to Margaret Mead and her 1975 conference, “Endangered Atmosphere Conference” at which the following players were present – Stephen Schneider, John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar) to name present day AGW agitators. (link http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-23/pdf/50-55_723.pdf). The publication does come from a fringe group but that doesn’t alter the facts (though the PDF does contain a couple of typos, Holdren’s photo being annotated as William Holdren, for example. Larouche is essentially a Social Nationalist, as are Pat Buchannan’s people in the US).

    You should also start researching the Fabian Society, as it’s movers and shakers basically control the UK and Australian labor parties which are driving this AGW agenda. Will Steffen figures prominently in the Australian Fabians, for example. It’s the various “Left” think tanks etc which seem to be driving this whole agenda and it is entirely plausible that, following Mead’s 1975 conference, that a specific agenda was put in place.

    http://www.keynesatharvard.org is another good summary of the economic policies of this group affect us.

    While at the start I was prepared to dismiss the AGW and IPCC as essentially pseudoscience, (and judging by most of the researchers they seem sincere in their work), where the scientific method is used to prove a theory not based on empirical observation but from a pre-existing belief, so that all the effort is used to prove the theory, rather than in proper science, disproving it, it is clear from ClimateGate, the US NOAA data manipulation and now GlacierGate, that it’s a political agenda in play.

    The Bilderbergers need also to be reviewed and I think the driving force behind this group is the total revulsion of what happened during WWII in Europe – with a group of rich, connected individuals, engineering a political system such that never again could a renegade politician get political control, as Hitler did, and almost destroy western civilisation.

    The worrying thing in all this is that these sincere people want to do it via the socialist system (more of a century of brainwashing perhaps) than the capitalist one.

    Hence it is important to understand the political motivation of the early Fabians, especially Sydney and Beatrice Webb, and the role of the British Empire at the time in world affairs.

    I suspect Rudd and his overseas counterparts all want to stop humanity from waging war, but at a price – our freedom.

    Incidentally during the 18th century States were at the beck and call of the bankers, but since the creation of the Reserve Banking system, the lender of last resort were not the banks with people’s savings, but the states. The banks are simply gaming the state, making windfall profits during economic booms, and getting bailed out by the State during the busts.

    And remember Mises’ insight, all human action is purposeful and directed at tangible goals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Typo “Hanson” in heading.

    [Thanks. Fixed. Posting at 4am... Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    What’s with the name on the headline? :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    A short quote from Mead’s keynote address (She was president of the AAAS at the time)

    The Endangered Atmosphere?

    Mead’s keynote to the 1975 climate conference set the agenda: Mankind had advanced over the years to have international laws governing the sea and the land; now was the time for a “Law of the Atmosphere.” It was a naked solicitation of lying formulations to justify an end to human scientific and industrial progress.

    Mead stated:

    Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices—to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse throughout the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea—the whole planet may become endangered….

    At this conference we are proposing that, before there is a corresponding attempt to develop a “law of the air,” the scientific community advise the United Nations (and individual, powerful nation states or aggregations of weaker states) and attempt to arrive at some overview of what is presently known about hazards to the atmosphere from manmade interventions, and how scientific knowledge coupled with intelligent social action can protect the peoples of the world from dangerous and preventable interference with the atmosphere upon which all life depends….

    What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats [sic].


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robinson

    Is this for real? It reads like one of David Icke’s diatribes. Whatever next from our Reptilian Overlords? Seriously, I would be interested to know what the replacement will be for our industrial civilisation in this man’s mind. I have images of “the Shire” and people with big feet.

    I seriously don’t understand how NASA can keep this man on the payroll. He’s an employee of the US Government publicly endorsing the planning of acts of terrorism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    I’m not that Keith – I promise.
    Seriously, we all know Hansen has form, but now we know why. The high profile frontrunners of this fraud, should be locked up : not to punish but protect them from the backlash of their warmist disciples. Their rage will boost the planet’s temp all by itself.

    Looks like Hansen will be busy with his own version of climategate.
    McIntyre highlights a few embarrassing emails at GISS

    This will have legs I think..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Hansen is in trouble. He is making a lot of noise for a distraction.
    I do anticipate eco terrorism. These are not rational people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William H. Snyer

    [ What a “Clear and Present Danger” Hansen is! There is no question this man is a hater of humanity. By far the greater danger, however is that this is a US Government employee that holds a high position within NASA! Where is the balance of rational management within the offices of NASA? Where is the public review and obvious need to corral this guy. fire him from public offfce and insure that every news media in the US condemns his actions and perhaps suggest the pursuit of legal action against him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Referring to Fig2 in Ch11 he says “… – what is important here is the uncanny similarity between the shapes of the Emissions line and the Trade line.”

    Actually, the Emissions increase linearly, Trade exponentially. On his figures Emissions increase from about 6000 to 30000 millions tonnes (x5) while world Trade increases from $60bn to $10,000bn (x160).

    Looks like Trade is innocent to me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Ayrdale,

    Thank you for keeping Maurice Strong right where the world can see him for what he is. I’ve bookmarked your blog and intend to be a frequent visitor.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    From Amazon.com

    “Review
    Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. –Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Davidc:

    Fossil Fuel interests ARE government. The private oil industry only controls 5% of the world’s reserves. The rest is government, or quangos. Shell is owned by the Dutch Government, BP by the UK, and so on.

    And all of them believe that oil is recycled biomass from the earth’s surface, hence the panic about Peak Oil.

    In a general sense coal deposits overlie (deeper down) gas and water, and then deeper still, oil.

    Oil is a mantle material and is ubiquitous in the universe.

    This whole thing seems to be driven by scientific ignorance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’d have imagined that most of your readers would completely endorse Hansen’s comment:

    “Keith Farnish has it right… Governments are under the thumb of… special interests – they will not look after our … well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also – I note with interest that you criticise Hansen and yet at the same time champion Monckton? At least Hansen’s random nonsense is balanced by genuine scientific expertise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB; out of context foul.

    If you don’t see the significance of how wrong Keith Farnish is, you are without a single drop of intelligence. The matter presented here is far too important to tolerate your usual obnoxious musings.

    Louis Hissink, you are spot on in every respect. I only fear that your worthy post is to long to keep the attention of the average Mattb type. It is a shame, we know what the problem is, can we do anything about it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    tide

    At least Hansen’s random nonsense is balanced by genuine scientific expertise.

    A lot of “skeptics” have genuine scientific expertise. Hansen’s problem is that his “scientific expertise” is corrupted and nullified by his political activism and willingness to cherry pick and twist data. No scientist should ever do that and one who does has no credibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    At least Hansen’s random nonsense is balanced by genuine scientific expertise.

    Mattb, I did not know we had an internet comedian on this board! Hansen and science in the same sentence is an oxymoron.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Mark D.

    I am not sure but do have a listen to Alan Jone’s Monckton interview on 2GB this morning. Our immigration policies are designed to increase our population and for most case these new immigrants vote for socialists, on the promise of the welfare state. This policy was adopted in the UK by the British Labour party, and presumably will be done here as well.

    Unfortunately individuals like MattB believe on a deep-seated need to believe, and historically trying to talk them away from their belief doesn’t work.

    The battle we face isn’t correcting the science, but trying to stop the socialists from attaining their agenda – they are perilously close to achieving it, and to all intents and purposes, private property rights have been quietly regulated into a “nothing”, starting from Native Title legislation in 1990, if memory serves me correctly.

    The easiest way for us to counter this is to ignore them – to not comply with the idiotic regulation, whether local, state or federal.

    However, let’s be realistic, 50% of the population in Australia seem to support socialist ideals, and convincing that demographic of the futility of that system is close to impossible.

    The best way to deal with these people is to ridicule them, poke fun at their policies and beliefs, for one thing is certain, socialists don’t have a sense of humour, and pricking that bubble might have more affect than anything else we could do at this point in time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    The IPCC errors are finally getting time on Australia’s ABC at last.

    here’s Andy Pittman admitting that the sceptics are winning. The reason? because sceptics are heavily funded and they don’t have day jobs [[ rolleyes ]]

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mattb,

    So by your support of Keith Farnish, I would suggest that you support radical terrorist activities and should therefore be on some terror watch list.

    Have fun with that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Off thread, but worth noting. Melbourne Herald Sun today, Page 30 In Brief (would you expect anything else from our MSM?): Quote:UN rethink on climate change.
    The UN climate panel is re-examining its claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters after doubts were raised about the evidence. Professor Jean-Pascal Ypersele, vice-chairman of the UNIPCC told London’s Sunday Times he would be reviewing the evidence.
    See full article at Timesonline.co.uk Jan 24th.
    Would it be possible for the Australian people to sue Rudd and Wong for some of the outrageous claims they have made in this regard?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    If immigrants vote for socialists how in the heck did John Howard manage to be in power for so long? How is british Labour heading for an absolute pounding at the next election over there? We (Australia) selectively hand pick immigrants from the best trained and wealthiest applicants and somehow they are all socialists? Louis do you realise how absurd that sounds?

    Not only is AGW completely false but also Oil is Abiogenic! Hissink I fear it is you who has a deep rooted requirement to believe in fringe cloud cukoo land science as an alternative to the mainstream. Hmmm add that plasma idea to the list.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Madjak I’d love an ounce of evidence that I support Farnish’s view of the world? I’ve clearly called his support of the book “random nonsense”. Although I see nothing in Hansen’s comments that endorse violence, it appears to me the support is for the general concept that society as we know it is hurtling towards catastrophe on many levels (me I don’t agree – I’m quite the capitalist who thinks we’ve identified a problem (carbon) and should just sort it out so we can continue on our merry way).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Mattb@44: “Im quite the capitalist who thinks we’ve identified a problem (carbon)”.
    We AGW sceptics have been desperately seeking “an ounce of evidence” that CO2 is the problem the UNIPCC would have us believe so perhaps you can supply answers to the following:

    1. State one credible documented instance where any observed statistically significant change in climate could be solely attributed to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    2. State one instance of any observed statistically significant change in climate which could not be put down to natural cyclical variability, as has been happening since Earth was formed.

    In my post 71 at Jo’s article on ‘Droughts might be due to Carbon Dioxide….’, courtesy of http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/thriving_with_nature_and%20humanity.pdf I list many of the factors involved in climate change.

    I do hope you can enlighten us as to how the UNIPCC managed to isolate the minor but very essential trace gas CO2 out of all those chaotic factors and positively state that the human induced increases to it’s volume in the atmosphere was the main culprit in global warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nick

    Should we be worried about a unification of extreme religous elements and extreme environmental elements. Both have a common enemy…. the modern west.

    Is this becoming a little worrying or is it me?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB

    During Gallileos’s time mainstream science believed the sun orbited the earth. Seems little has changed today, the stupid are still running the mainstream.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Nick,

    No it is worrying – again as I posted above, this anti modernism etc was part and parcel of the late 19th Century political movement spearheaded by the Fabians and the Webbs in particular. We ignore it at out peril.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Well this morning I didn’t know who keith farnish was. Today I read: http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/42068

    and I am surprised no where can I find where he endorse blowing up dams and killing people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    OK, I read the interview of Andy Pittman. He says the same old same-old-thing I’ve heard for years.

    It is clear that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing climate change but it certainly won’t stop the sceptics misusing the information for their own purposes.

    One more time we’re told that some scientist says it’s so and we better believe it. Sorry Andy, but that just ain’t the way it is. Show me the empirical link between anything going on here on Earth and CO2 or stay silent lest you embarrass yourself. It’s the evidence that’s missing. Where is the evidence?

    And just what information are we misusing? I don’t see any iformation coming from the IPCC, just fraud and propaganda. And you wonder why we’re skeptical.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jim karlock

    I’d like to perhaps correct the record on the famous Maurice Strong quote:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

    I was unable to find the primary source for this quote. The closest I came was http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Groups/DAVOS/davos.htm which attributes it to Strong describing the theme of a novel to Daniel Wood in, “The Wizard of the Baca Grande,” West Magazine (Alberta, Canada), May 1990. (If anyone knows where to find this article, please let me know at sustainableOregon.com or post it here)

    However this thread appears to have found the smoking gun on Hansen endorsing a similar thought.

    Thanks
    JK


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    How about these observations:

    The enemy is not global warming, the enemy is Deep Green. (DG)

    Deep Green is the enemy of Democracy (it cannot accomplish what it wants without central elite control) Therefore the US Constitution is the enemy to DG. (in the US this is our best last stand)

    The people masterminding DG have been working on it since the 50′s or 60′s. They have studied all forms of political ideologies or government and are working behind the scenes towards a worldwide hybrid of several of them. (it is mostly elite socialism, but it has fascist elements)

    DG should be the enemy of any religion but to the contrary, DG has made deep inroads and is twisting faith to it’s own use. (look around, they have been busy even the Pope is making statements about climate)

    DG now CONTROLS the Democrats. DG is not an arm of the left (Democrats) it is the other way around. The other arm is socialism. While we were asleep at the wheel, US socialists (radicals) took the White House.

    The ELITE media is controlled by DG through elite ownership. (the owners are part of DG)

    DG has been working on the Republican side for some time too. (cleaning up the Republican party might be messy)

    DG intends to reduce the world population. It already has shown a cold inhuman willingness to ignore suffering peoples. They will happily allow war, lack of food and disease to take care of business for them. They have been at it long enough that we have convinced first world populations to reduce birth rates to below sustaining numbers (check out birth rates in European countries.) As further evidence; ask why alcohol is a green fuel? Because it takes food away from the hungry by reducing food crops. (it absolutely cannot be viable as a fuel so what else is there to promoting it?)

    DG is deeply involved in and to the extent possible dictates to the United Nations. (they use money to influence)

    DG is making big attempts at small and mid size companies Perhaps you have noticed the “green profits” claims everywhere. (because if you think that it is making you money you are less likely to go against the “movement”)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] outside the law is essential…. …if you feel the action is a net benefit to the environment. Hansen, barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization « JoNova __________________ ………… …just some thoughts from a nomadic plebeian Bio – [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The Farnish text is readily downloadable from the author’s site for free.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jim Karlock,

    The Maurice Strong quote is accurate and was a muse he posed in writing a novel. His ploy, I suspect, was by having it as a hypothetical would then deflect any criticism to him if and when this comment became of interest. The source I have quotes the interview in which he mused about the proposed novel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Another site quotes Maurice Strong saying something darn close. That is supposed to be in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    janama@40 and Roy Hogue@50. Time to start pressuring these so-called journalists. I emailed Eleanor Hall through the ABC and asked why, when they have the chance and the forum to do so, she and other journos don’t or won’t pin down their “expert” guests by asking for specific evidence of their generalised claims. Lets all try and shame these journos into doing their job !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Keith you’ll be happy to know that I watched Lateline and they pinned down a so called expert on his claims and he completely avoided answering and instead tried to change the subject. Plimer I think his name was.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:

    In Farnish’s book, page 226 we have

    Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this

    You really should do your homework, shouldn’t you. All you had to do was download the PDF reference at the top of this thread and see for yourself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Since NASA must be one of the high points of Industrial Civilisation, isn’t it the case that Hansen is supporting calls for NASA to be shut down? It’s usually the case that it’s a sacking offence to bring your employing organisation into disrepute. But maybe promoting its abolition is OK, not the same thing. And remember this man is being muzzled! What does he really think?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB.

    As for his killing people, now where could you have got that reference from? Or did you make it up, or perhaps misread it somewhere?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis. From Jo above “Thus any 17 year old zealot might be “inspired” to dynamite say, Hoover dam, and that would be “OK” according to Farnish, and by inference, to Hansen. After all, the kid did a net-benefit analysis on the action. He just forgot it might kill some people.”

    I did read a lot of the book, but only had a few hours. But If you can forgive me not reading the book closely enough I’ll forgive you for not reading the short blog entry at the top. Clearly my take ont he book is that it does not seem to support killing people, or justifying deaths as collateral damage.

    Obviously Farnish’s future world would have a lot less people than today, but he seems to take that as a given – ie that the crash of civilisation is going to happen regardless but we as individuals can at least give ourselves a fighting chance of being one of the survivors. Hmm it sounds a bit too Jehovas’ witness for my likeing actually.

    Regardless, I still think that Farnish’s general thrust is actually very compatible with many on here… the distrust of government, the way they toy with public perception, that we should be using our free minds to fight against this. Ok the stance on greenhouse is in conflict, but much is compatible with many of Jo’s musings about the UN, lies from government, manipulation of money markets, and I remember some chit chat from bloggers about paleo-diets etc…

    Again I remind you I’ve seen discussion between Brian V and others about how they are prepared to fight, and they meant physical, for what they believe in, clearly as they felt the greater good (or self-survival) was the priority.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    MattB – I also watched the Monbiot lateline and I saw two rabid journos having a go at the author of a massive work of science, fully referenced, who obviously hadn’t read the chapter on undersea volcanoes! I’ve read it and he adequately answers their question which is why he kept pointing to his book. Ian Plimer is a scientist – he’s obviously not an experienced TV personality as you would have him to be.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB.

    I did read the short blog entry at the top and the short sentence “He just forgot it might kill some people.” does not mean Farnish advocates killing people but you so seem to have made that interpretation. It’s just that Jo pointed out that Farnish’s solutions will have unintended consequences, such as the loss of life when a dam is blown up….

    As for reading the book, I haven’t – I did a simple text search in it and quickly got to the dam reference.

    As for forgiveness, hah hah, after the ad hominem you posted earlier?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    BTW – those who dispute Plimers claims regarding undersea volcanoes always quote Gerlach 1991 – exactly how much did we know about volcanoes in ’91?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB, if you read Farnish’s book he not only aims to be one of the survivors, he worries that the collapse of civilization won’t happen soon enough to save humanity. That’s why he wants people to do all the sabotage they can to speed up it’s collapse.

    He clearly believes carbon causes major warming, and that major warming (plus all other evils of civilization) will kill billions, and therefore thinks that it will save a few if it collapses now, rather than in a 100 years. His “net-benefit” analysis is so apocalyptic he thinks it will save humanity if we wipe out civilization now, not later. Nowhere in any of what I read does he suggest the saboteurs should be careful to target property and not people. He simply asks of the proposed damage “is it worth it?” and “will you get caught”?

    I feel sorry for the guy. He obviously believes the Goron-story and then some. That would be a scary place to live. (As would the house next to where Farnish is). Scary.

    The lies by Al and co, feed these paranoid delusions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Janama, the question from Monbiot was clearly questioning one of the claims in the book. Pointing to the book didn’t answer the question, which was about Plimer’s claim that the US study of volcanos did not take undersea ones in to account when estimating contribution, when Monbiot’s point was that they in fact say they DID take those in to account. They both had clearly read his book.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Well I read the list of 100 things we should do, and they were all particularly non-threatening. You;d have thought “Kill People” would have made it to that list.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Keith#45

    I’ve asked your question in a slightly different form many times. “What is the compelling evidence for CAGW?” The summary answer is:
    1. CO2 absorbs in the infrared – simple physics (Yes, quantitative details for a trace gas? Nothing.).
    2. Humans have burnt fossil fuels and realeased CO2 into the atmosphere; see 1. (Yes, quantitative details, relative to nonhuman sources?; see 1…())
    3. The (computer) models. When we include the human contribution we can match the data, when we leave it out we can’t. (Just pathetic to anyone with any understanding of modelling.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Janama

    I’ve tried to source Gerlach 1991 and the USGS page citing it has a circular link to itself for Gerlach. Clearly they don’t want anyone checking Gerlach’s paper. My own searching picks up plenty of citations, but no primary reference. Querying AGU on his name and 1990 to 1992 yields one related reference on Mauna Loa and SO2 with a cryptic CO2 comment in the abstract. (The search was for the digital library).

    Tentative conclusion is that Plimer’s assertion stands until Gerlach’s work can be found to substantiate the numbers used in the AGW debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Go on – Louis in #64. Which Ad-hom upset you? I lose track;)

    Also – in this next section you;d have to be bling to think that Jo is not trying again to suggest that he supports killing people and therefore Hansen does too.

    ‘Like any fundamentalist terrorist Farnish and his fans would probably reconcile the collateral damage in any case. Presumably the natural environment is better off without those people, who as Farnish would say, are a part of a “Culture of Maximum Harm.” He predicts billions will die as civilization collapses, and in his Key Rules, he warns against getting caught, but not against hurting people. If it smells like Enviro-Jihad…”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    matty

    Speaking of Monbiot, where the hell is he? IPCC is listing like the Bismarch and getting pounded, and where is he. Somewhere squirming?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB.

    None of the ad homs upset me – it’s just the evidence when you cannot match the scientific reasoning I use, that you resort to name calling and ad hominems. Don’t you lefties understand that when you slime one of your interlocutors you admit being unable to counter the argument?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    Now the Chinese are starting to nail their colours to the mast – in a typically Chinese pragmatic way.

    China’s most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles.

    Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/china-climate-change-adviser


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    Westpac has started seeing the writing on the wall.

    Banks had been scaling back their plans to invest in carbon markets before Copenhagen. Fewer new clean energy projects need to be financed as, because of the recession, there are fewer global emissions to offset. The price of carbon credits has also fallen, while plans to introduce national trading schemes, particularly in the US and Australia, remain uncertain.

    Two sources said that Australian bank Westpac had scaled back plans to increase its carbon desk in London. A bank spokeswoman denied there were plans to recruit more staff in London, adding: “We have always said that we would look to grow this business organically as carbon markets develop and that remains the case.”

    See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: Before dismissing the abiotic oil theory you may want to consider that plenty of hydrocarbons have been found on Titan and on comets. Also likely the hydrogen on the moon is at least partly in the form of carbon compounds, not water.

    I hope you aren’t going to claim all these are the result of biological activity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I tried to stay out of this, but…MattB your dogged stupidity (I mean that in an endearing way) forced me back in. (Godfather, “just when I was getting out, they drag me back in”)
    Here is what the WWF thinks about our sustainability according to Lomborg.

    “Environmental campaigners use the so-called ecological footprint – how much area each one of us requires from the planet – to make their point. We obviously use crop land, grazing land, forests and fishing grounds to produce our food, fiber and timber, and we need space for our houses, roads and cities. Moreover, we require areas to absorb the waste emitted by our energy use. Translating all these demands into a common unit of physical area gives us an opportunity to compare it with Earth’s productive area, and thus to get a sense of how sustainable we are.
    For more than a decade, the WWF and several other conservation organizations have performed complicated calculations to determine individual footprints on the planet. Their numbers show that each American uses 9.4ha of the globe, each European 4.7ha, and those in low-income countries just 1ha. Adding it all up, we collectively use 17.5 billion hectares.
    Unfortunately, there are only 13.4billion hectares available. So the WWF points out that we are already living beyond Earth’s means, using about 30 per cent too much”.

    So Matt Buckels, 30% less comments please, you are unsustainable :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    Re #74 (sorry for referring to my own posts)

    Armageddon Kevin will probably take more heed of this statement by the Chinese than any domestic noise from his own party, the Greens, and the Libs.

    With 100% certainty I predict that there will be no denouncement by Kevin and that real-politik – or is that real-trade? – will rule. It may even shake his resolve on the ETS. I guess it depends on where he sees the max diplomatic gain is to be made. Perhaps not in Europe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    “I’ve tried to source Gerlach 1991 ”

    exactly Louis. Plimer cites recent research in his book. Gerlach was in 1991 – there have been huge discoveries of undersea volcanic activity and the more we investigate it the more we realise we know nothing about it. Which was Plimers point MattB.

    BTW Louis – I had my electrodermal reading done recently – you are right – we are electric and live in an electric universe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Please if you can, support our farmers in their quest for property rights. Our Government has locked up 107 million hectares of land with no compensation to farmers in order to meet Kyoto Protocol targets.

    The NSW Farmers Association are running a free 45 seat bus from Toowoomba via Goondi.

    Go here for more details.

    Our very democracy is under threat.

    Please attend the peaceful protest and rally – 2nd Feb 10:00 am at Magna Carta Place.

    Protect your freedom.

    Protect our democracy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nick

    Joanne @ 66,

    Once you have circumstances where someone like this gets traction throughout the general population, you can argue all the science you like, society is at the point of no return.

    Once Farnish has a following his supporters will forever change the social, scientific and economic landscape.

    I feel, maybe unjustifiably?, we’re at a dangerous point here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Janama

    May the Spark be with you, then :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis ok I checked, there are no adhoms above, except your gneral rumblings in my direction.

    Also to the rest of you clowns… thumbs down are so 2nd grade… you deprive others of opening their horizons a bit reading decent and polite counter argument.

    Janama in 79 – if that was Plimers’ point he would have made it. I think you will find he references Gerlach 1991 himself, and then his retort is that it did not include subsea volcanos, which it does apparently. If he had more recent published research that overturns Gerlach 1991 then it would have taken him a breath to utter it in the discussion.

    How about monbiots other point that Plimer quotes a source but lies aout what it says.. in fact he claims it says the opposite… sloppy sloppy sloppy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    electrodermal reading????

    to quote another great West Australian comedian Tim Minchin….

    “What do they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    MattB@58: “he completely avoided answering and instead tried to change the subject”. Just like you have done in relation to my questions to you at post 45?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:

    “Not only is AGW completely false but also Oil is Abiogenic! Hissink I fear it is you who has a deep rooted requirement to believe in fringe cloud cukoo land science as an alternative to the mainstream. Hmmm add that plasma idea to the list.”

    That’s described as an ad hominem, so you can’t have looked very carefully.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Actually Keith it was your post in #45 that was trying to change the subject, which was about the book and Hansen’s quote about the book.

    1) can you show me where any one has claimed that any change is solely down to CO2.
    2) can you show any such claims again.

    but for general reading you may like to check out the IPCC reports:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis how is that any different to the comment I was replying to “Unfortunately individuals like MattB believe on a deep-seated need to believe”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:

    The use of the pejorative “fringe cuckoo land science” is hardly a counter to my statement that your need to believe, as for most people, is often deep seated.

    If you can’t understand the difference, then c’est ca.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    MattB: Is this extract from The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC close enough for you to provide some credible evidence for us? (Of course, they always leave just a little room to back away whilst trying to convey they really don’t have any doubts).

    Updated Assessment of the Human Impact on Climate

    Evidence that human activities are the major driver of recent climate change is even stronger than in prior assessments. (1) According to the summary, there is a greater than 90 percent likelihood that increased concentrations of man-made heat-trapping gases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1950.

    The report confirms that the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical heat-trapping gas, “exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.” Since the dawn of the industrial era, carbon dioxide and other key heat-trapping gases have increased at a rate that is “very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    P Gosselin

    He needs to be locked up in a padded room.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hi folks
    Just for general reading, I thought I’d check out the IPCC synthesis report of 2008 :)

    6.1 Page 72

    “Climate data coverage remains limited in some regions and there
    is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on
    observed changes in natural and managed systems, with marked
    scarcity in developing countries. {WGI SPM; WGII 1.3, SPM}:.

    My interpretation:

    Climate data from developing countries is scarce, that’s 90% (at least) of the global land area. The bits that we do have good data from, lack geographic balance in data and literature. Please keep that in mind when reading the other 2900 pages of this most esteemed most peer reviewed publishing in the history of mankind which was made possible only because of the dedication of it’s chairman (who has not received a single penny from the IPCC ;) who has personally supervised every detail of this synthesis report and the summary for policy makers, (being the only two relevant papers for policy making) even down to the detail of the date himalayan glaciers would disappear.
    Please enjoy the rest of this volumous report

    signed

    RKP
    Chairman

    That was my interpretation of the above paragraph. Any thoughts?…….Matt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SamG

    I thought this image encapsulates the greenie message well; as does Hanson’s book endorsement.

    I could go on for hours about the psychology of the green movement but for now; a picture tells a thousand words. From Wattsupwiththat

    http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/images/misc/2/911tsunami-large.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes Louis – the difference is that you clearly believe in many “out there” scientific suggestions, however you know nothing about why I believe what I believe. I made a statement of fact, you made a statement of guesswork.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug and Keith – I’m comfortable with your interpretations in 90 and 92.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I wonder if what he has to say taints my perception of him as dreadful looking


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Note to Barack Obama:

    Are you SURE that “Osama bin-Hansen” is the right guy to be dictating Federal policy in the USA?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

    The IPCC lies on its own website. Where did the IPCC get it’s cooked data? From Hansen at NASA GISS>

    Copenhagen proved they are not policy neutral.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well gee then we can help James Hansen along by tearing his house down and selling off his cars,to reduce HIS carbon footprint.To help him follow his own guidelines on how to “save the planet”.

    Just don’t get caught when he gets mad over it.

    LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Kieth Farnish’s book reads like the diary of a persons’ slow decent into insanity. So slow that he is unaware (in fact he thinks he is quite rational) of his psychopathy.

    Those familiar with the Green Left will notice behavior typical of Mattb – denial:
    Yes Mattb, Farnish never mentions murder, not once. Nope, everything is efficient, clean, cold, sanitary.

    You wouldn’t want to frighten any would-be Eco-terrorist into thinking rationally about the end results of Farnish’s suggestions would you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The author of this “book” appears rather, um, unconcerned, or disinterested shall we say – whether people are KILLED by any of this.

    I cannot fathom how Hansen holds on to his job.

    I am a US Federal employee as is he and I used to endorse his right to do what he does – because, his “activism” prevents the US Government from taking steps to curb by “activism.”

    [Whatever Hansen is allowed to do, so am I]

    Hansen has really gone too far and I can’t stand behind his “right to activism” any more


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    ANGRY

    Obviously this character is a TERRORIST!
    And a LUNATIC!

    I would like to know why he is not in a straight jacket, locked in a padded cell, in a maximium security prison?

    Anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    Oh, it looks like we have a PROFESSIONAL AGITATOR in our midst,”MattB”.

    Tell us “MattB”, what subversive organization do you actually represent?

    And don’t say yourself as clearly this is NOT THE CASE!

    Come on “MattB” BE HONEST!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: AL GORE’S BEACH HOUSE

    Isn’t it interesting that the head of the Church Of Al Gore owns a beach house!

    WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ALL THOSE RISING OCEANS?

    ===============================================================
    FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
    This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.

    http://www.joepascal.com/figure-eight-island.html

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Figure Eight Island is one of the places in North Carolina that is home to many celebrity houses. Celebrities like John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore own houses on this island. The island has beautiful views as it is located between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. The entire island only has about 440 houses making it an ideal place for couples and individuals to relax. It is also home to many beautiful exotic animal species. If you are looking for a vacation house, check out the Figure Eight island real estate. Wrightsville beach real estate also offers many bargains and great houses.

    http://wilmingtonrealestatehome.com/561/figure-eight-island-real-estate-and-wrightsville-beach-real-estate/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Angry,

    First: There are only 441 homes, no condos

    Then: has about 440 houses

    Maybe one slipped into the rising ocean between paragraphs


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:

    Science is not based on belief but evidence, so while none of us would have a clue what you believe in it, never the less, remains your belief, and it’s apparently deep seated.

    This is also a fact.

    As for my interest in the other side, that would be the side of light of course, while the dark side is where we find you groping about, led by the specious prognostications of AGW priests professing doom and gloom from their pseudoscientific crystal balls (aka climate models) if we don’t lead a more sustainable life.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NecoSmartGreenLiving, ClimateGate_RT. ClimateGate_RT said: #JoNova : Hanson, barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization http://bit.ly/7EXfHi #HideTheDecline [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    How are these people getting their message out? I am assuming that are already in prison for treason and one of the guards is aiding and abetting their propaganda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    lol yes oh yes I’m an agent of the dark warmists Andersen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    MattB….. Supporting the proponents of mass murder is not a good idea Matt. It reflects poorly on your intellect and humanity…. Not to mention that it brands you as monstrous.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I couldn’t help but think of MattB when reading this…..

    A theory was developed, which can be stated as..

    “No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, seers will find suckers” (Armstrong 1980).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    The above theory is called the SEER-SUCKER theory


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    J Hansford… so how does thinking that I support the proponents of mass murder reflect on your intellect?

    Do you want my thoughts, hmm some may say it was an ad-hom so I’ll keep them to myself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Jo Nova,
    The book is disturbing, but where is the Hansen connection?
    I looked and did not see it.
    If you have a screen shot of what Hansen said, please post it.
    Keep up the good work,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    James Hansen is both stupid and derranged.

    He takes his act to the coal industry and protests coal mines. So far so good.
    He doesn’t protest mining iron ore. Iron ore comes from the same surface mining as does coal mining. it takes 5 tons of coal to make 1 ton pig iron. The electric towers weigh 200 tons. The ore gives off 3 tons of CO2 per ton of finished steel. It takes 500 killowatt hours to make a ton of steel. How much wildlife is disrupted making room for surface mining of ore.
    Movement of iron ore thru the system is exactly like the mining of coal. If you get angry at one, you get angry at the other process. I haven’t even mentioned the petrol it takes to mine, ship and handle the ore and equipment. It take a lot of energy to manufacture a piece of mining machinery. Again, the city folks see wind power as pure air. Air is free.
    It also takes a lot of water to contribute to the process. From water in steam driven turbines to water for cooling towers.

    http://www.ameronwindtowers.com/

    I haven’t mentioned the metals and copper in the generators atop the towers. The covers or nacelles are fiberglass from petrol and also energy intense in production.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    hunter:
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:17 am
    Jo Nova,
    The book is disturbing, but where is the Hansen connection?
    I looked and did not see it.

    Hunter,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Hunter, sorry the link did not post. Here it is in plain text: http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/timesup.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Henry Chance you are of course, exactly correct. However these radicals want none of what you mention. They want us living in pastures and fields, grubbing for our next meal with stone tools, not reproducing and dieing young.

    When you realize that many people are actually reading Farnish, you know it is only a matter of time. Don’t limit the damage to large industrial targets either. School age kids are able to sabotage the brakes on full size 4 wheel drive trucks (like mine) because they “can do so and not get caught”.

    Excerpts from the twisted mind of Farnish: My comments in bold

    1. The world is changing rapidly and dangerously, FALSE and humans are the main reason for this change.FALSE If we fail to allow the Earth’s physical systems to return to their natural state then these systems will break down, taking humanity with them. WTF is “natural State”

    2. Humans are part of nature; DUH! we have developed in such a way that we think we are more than just another organism; but in ecological terms we are irrelevant. Spoken like a real Darwin Atheist (and false).

    3. Regardless of our place in the tree of life, humans always have been, and always will be the most important things to humanity. We are survival machines. DUH!

    4. Our failure to connect the state of the planet with our own inarguable need to survive will ensure our fate is sealed. This must not happen. you must believe YOU MUST BELIEVE.

    5. In order to bring us to a state of awareness, we must learn how to connect with the real world; the world we depend upon for our survival. We are all capable of connecting. You must attend “connection therapy” until we think you are “properly connected”.

    6. Our lack of connection with the real world is a condition that has been created by the culture we live in. The various tools used to keep us disconnected from the real world are what make Industrial Civilization the destructive thing that it is. Or the thing that has brought us to a healthy, long lifespan, free of many diseases and worries of our ancestors.

    7. To gain the necessary motivation to free ourselves and act against civilization we need to get angry; and use that anger in a constructive way. And if you can’t get angry on your own you’ll need to be placed in a special “sanitarium for the non-angry”

    8. To understand how to remove Industrial Civilization we must realise that we, along with everyone else in Industrial Civilization, are the system. So we’ll remove you if you don’t go along with our plan

    9. Industrial Civilization is complex, faith-driven and extremely sensitive to change and disruption. It will collapse on its own, but not in time to save humanity.another guess

    May I suggest that anyone that comments favorably (in support of Farnish) should immediately be placed on a TERRORIST WATCH LIST!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    #115

    hunter:
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:17 am
    Jo Nova,
    The book is disturbing, but where is the Hansen connection?
    I looked and did not see it.

    I was about to suggest you go to the entry on the Farnish book at amazon.com and look at Reviews. I posted the quote earlier in this thread, but it seems to have been removed. Maybe Hansen’s grandchildren have given him a talking-to.

    From the reviews on amazon this won’t be a best seller.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi everyone

    Liking the comments – some constructive stuff there, and some people have gone so far as to read some of the book, which is nice. But, hell, I have to get used to being quoted out of context and cherry-picked because it’s a world of soundbites and the soundbites that don’t bite enough don’t get published (hey, Jo, what about the stuff in the book you agree with?). Maybe I hit a nerve; maybe there isn’t enough to get angry about so I’m made a target, but at this juncture I would like to quote the original tagline for the published “Time’s Up!” version:

    “A survival guide for humanity”

    Yes, believe it or not (as Mark D. above didn’t want to acknowledge) humanity is something I care deeply about. Now if you don’t believe we are causing the breakdown of planetary ecological systems – hell, pop over to Indonesia, or even your own Great Barrier Reef to see what’s going – then none of what I say will matter to you, except when it starts impinging directly upon you. Swine Flu was a near miss, we got lucky, but the next one to emerge from the intensive pig sheds in Mexico or the bird markets of Hong Kong might not be so benign. Or maybe the bluefin tuna just to the south of you being fished to extinction makes you think. Or what about the irradiated west of Australia – dare you venture into the desert? Nothing to do with climate change; you can be an AGW sceptic and still have something to worry about, and it’s entirely the result of civilization these things are coming out to bite us.

    Another commentator was partly right – perhaps I am a terrorist, but not the kind who goes out to kill people, only the systems that keep the destruction machine chugging along. But that’s far worse in the eyes of the law than shooting people or bombing them, which civilization seems to (legally) do a pretty good job at all year round…

    I do have an email address, by the way – it’s on the web site. I haven’t had a single message from any of the thousands of people who have commented on the hundreds of web sites carrying this story. Plenty of invective but it’s all bouncing around the blogs and not reaching the outside world. I’m actually quite a nice person and only really get angry when money and material goods are made to take priority over life: does that make me a nutter?

    Cheers

    Keith


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mr. Farnish,
    Urging terrorism is what it is at face value. If you try to defend that by claiming “deep concern for humanity” you are kidding yourself. May I remind you that every past prediction of the end times has been off a bit.

    If you spent half as much time and effort working WITH the “systems” you slander instead of inciting illegal (and dangerous) acts of terrorism you’d gain some of my respect. Until then perhaps you’ll find a prison cell within which you may contemplate your concern for humanity.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark, terrorism is in the eye of the target:

    blowing up a dam to return a river to life without killing anyone = terrorism

    building a huge dam, destroying a river and displacing entire towns = progress

    I used to work with the system, it did nothing, the system carried on as normal – because I worked *with* the system.

    Prison is a risk I take – or perhaps just a place you think people who don’t like the status quo should go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Mr. Farnish,
    You perfectly examplify the saying, “To do a great evil, first one must be convinced he is doing a great good.”
    This quote, from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
    “Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.” describes very well what you and other AGW extremists are turning into.
    From Suzuki to Hansen to Kennedy to you, your movement is as false as the remedies you push in your book.
    Far from being some sort of oxymoronic non-fatal terrorist, your movement’s success would in fact result in the xenocide of humanity.
    The pitiful truth is your belief system and analysis are not really any different at all from that of a hardcore UFO true believer. You offer derivative pseudo-science, endlessly repeated lies, horrible non-solutions to non-problems, all with a cheap veneer of of self-declared compassion.
    The Barrier reef will do fine without your terrorism. So will Indonesia.
    Probaly better, in fact.
    The truth is coming out as to how ridiculous the entire AGW social movemement is. People recognize how falsely it rings. More truth, more light, more exposure will be bound to come.
    I wish you failure, ruin and humiliation. I hope your cause moves even more quickly towards its inevitable end: yet another failed apocalyptic cult.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Hunter #124, Well said and excellent points. I doubt that he will understand how evil he has become, but perhaps in his zealousness, he will at least enlighten some other poor fools who blindly believe that the ends justify the means.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    PhilJourdan,
    Thanks.
    Mr. Farnish is a criminal, inciting criminal behavior. His cheap, shallow, used, poorly presented rationalizations do nothing to hide that. He and those like him should be confronted as directly as legally possible.
    He is an active threat to any sort of civil society and rational discourse. That he is inciting terror and xenocide in the name of a failed climate theory glommed onto a malthusian ignorance about environment only makes him more annoying. Farnish is to the environmental movement what Pol Pot was to societal reform in Cambodia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JOHN COSTELLO

    Yes, Farnish’s book is legal in the US. Unlike most European countries we take free speach seriously, with the view that the cure for sick ideas is better ideas. It would be illegal were he to conspire with others or himself engage in specific acts of sabotage, but most likely he doesn’t have the b*lls for it. Lots of human extinctionists are like that. He is hardly the only one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Farnish says:

    Mark, terrorism is in the eye of the target:

    Yes so When I say that all WASP Republicans (or conservatives) should target radical hippies you would accept that as in MY eye?

    So far you have not said anything that causes me to believe you are less than a sociopath.

    Lets talk about your “connecting” with the world beyond your fantasy where real people will die with the methods you profess as Eco-Necessary?. Please elaborate…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    JOHN COSTELLO,

    It’s the fools who will read his book and then take action on it who worry me. Those who incite to violence seldom do it themselves as you point out. They have plenty of willing stooges who will do it for them.

    We’ve seen only too many acts of this kind, smaller in magnitude to be sure, but cut from the same cloth. Sooner or later another Oklahoma City Federal Building will happen and it will be the environmental whackos this time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Roy Hogue:
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    JOHN COSTELLO,

    It’s the fools who will read his book and then take action on it who worry me.

    It should worry all sane rational people. Throughout history, it is never the “authors” of incendiary work that kill and die for a cause, but the weak willed people who read it and believe it because “they must be smarter than I”.

    John Costello is correct that America holds free speech to a much higher standard than most countries. But that does not absolve each person from personal responsibility. Keith Farnish has abrogated that responsibility when practicing his right to free speech. He should not be prosecuted for his lapse in and of itself, but should be held accountable for the simple minded idiots that will eventually follow his stupidity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Keith Farnish says: perhaps I am a terrorist, but not the kind who goes out to kill people, only the systems that keep the destruction machine chugging along.

    Mr. Farnish, in light of the above ; I’d appreciate your thoughts on these questions:

    Please explain how you propose maintaining civilization (and civilized behavior) as you commence “de-industrializing through disruptive acts”?

    How will you prevent mass starvation as the industrial complex collapses?

    How will you prevent wars and collateral damage to humans and resource as the industrial world is eliminated?

    What form of government will be established once the industrialists give up (since present laws and governments exist to support our consumption) ?

    What if you succeed in disrupting the worlds’ industrial economy but fail to convince every person to follow through with “necessary lifestyle changes” (in other words you get half way and the transition stalls)?

    Since you express “deep concern for humanity” how will you provide medical care when your “disruptions” destroy the medical technology sector of industry?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Mark

    Almost everything you ask is answered to the best of my ability in the book. Have you read it yet?

    Some of your questions are moot; one is a bit silly – “prevent wars” implies there aren’t any wars in the civilized world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mr. Farnish,

    I wonder how you’ll deal with the backlash against you once you get started. The rest of us are no more afraid to fight than you are.

    It’s not as easy as you think!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jon

    I like MadJak’s definition of terrorism:

    “Any act that endangers the lives of civilians to make some form of political point is Terrorism.”

    By that definition, Shell (sponsor of the Shell Questacon Science Circus – same circus Jo Nova toured with for 5 years) qualifies a terrorist organization, if you consider Ken Saro-Wiwa, MOSOP, and the Ogoni in general.

    I’ll side with the “greens” anyday over liars associated with Shell, Exxon Mobil, and the Heartland Institute.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jon, Please go ahead and side with the greens. Especially, go ahead and follow Farnish. Liars are found everywhere especially common with any group you disagree with. Go ahead and demonize oil companies too (it makes you stand out in a crowd). Remember oil companies are the source of all the worlds problems right? You bet……

    let me guess; you eat only home grown vegies, wear home grown hemp, walk (with sustainable wooden shoes) any where you go, own nothing made of metal or plastic, live as a squatter in a yurt on some public land and eschew modern health care right?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rob Kirkland, New Class Traitor. New Class Traitor said: WTEF? James Hansen blurbs book calling for lawless destruction and the end of civilization?! « JoNova – http://shar.es/aVvr2 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    It seems the sociopaths have found, in the cowardly Mr. Farnish, a new source of inspiration.
    Roy,
    Once someone actually carries out one of Farnish’s terror attacks, he will find a lot more to worry about than people pointing out that he is a disgusting example of human being, and wishing him ill. The system you and he hope to destroy and impose xenocide on is a lot more resourceful and resiliant than he or you have any idea of.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: People are finding it hard to see the James Hansen official review on the book on Amazon. So I’ll add it here, so it can be seen that Hansen approved of the book, used his NASA title, and endorses the idea that the “system” (meaning democracy/voters/media/money/civilization etc) is the problem and that we have to “force” people to change it:

    “Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. –Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mr. Farnish, this blog is where I choose to hear your comments. I have read enough of your book to establish my opinion (to which I can now add “is unwilling to answer questions). I’ll accept your misunderstanding that I was asking about ADDED war and violence as innocent (as opposed to the Left typical slippery evasion of a simple question). I am not interested in promoting your book or your ideas.

    You are prima facie evidence of the importance of Amendment 1 AND 2 of the US constitution. You would do better by observing the adage; “better to be silent and thought of as ignorant than to open your mouth and establish certainty”.

    I believe you are completely lost in delusional thinking. You have a myopic view of the problems humans face. To be sure, there are plenty of problems in the world. All pale in comparison to what your “solution” would cause.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mr Farnish

    only really get angry when money and material goods are made to take priority over life

    So how can you possibly justify destroying Dams? Dams convert energy which then powers peoples homes and allow progress to occur. What about the people who depend on the resources the Dam have – are they allowed to suffer while they adjust because YOU deemed what was best for us all.

    You do realise that by advocating what you are advocating, you have an implied responsibility for any nutter that reads your book and then acts accordingly -maybe tweaking the rules a bit. Heck, I would hate to have that thought lingering over my head. Yes you can run behind the mask of “Freedom”, but with freedom comes responsibility, and this appears to be a right that you have abused.

    The arguments you’re using sound awfully familiar to arguments used from the Eugenics movement, and the structure of the arguments you make seem to be very similar to the Nazi Movement in the 1930s -i.e. everything has gone to crap because of X group of people and the systems they created.

    I’m sorry, I find this approach of yours to be arrogant, ignorant and most of all, extremely dangerous. The Ends do not justify the means.

    The progress you rail against is what has help extend many (unfortunately not enough) peoples average life expectations.

    And no, I am not going to read your book. I am not into supporting Terrorists or Terrorist sympathisers in any way shape or form.

    Now to Jon, I do hope that by railing against the use of oil, that you’re not using a keyboard made of plastic, because that would make you a hypocrite, would it not? Or are the keys of your keyboard made of whale bones or Ivory?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jon, a little followup to your lies comment;

    excerpt from The Sun, Not Man,
    Still Rules Our Climate
    by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Sun_Climate_sp09.pdf

    Stephen Schneider, a top global warming guru, in an interview
    with Discover magazine:
    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to
    the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth,
    the whole truth, and nothing but. . . . On the other hand,
    we are not just scientists but human beings as well . . . we
    need to get some broadbased support, to capture the
    public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads
    of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
    mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to
    decide what the right balance is between being effective
    and being honest [emphasis added] (Schneider 1989).

    The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is
    appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations
    on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for
    opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are”
    (Gore 2006).

    Be careful where you find “lies” your Green world is full of liars.

    This article is a treasury of green history too, particularly about Maurice Strong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Keith Farnish says: perhaps I am a terrorist, but not the kind who goes out to kill people, only the systems that keep the destruction machine chugging along.

    Mr. Farnish – you have just described Osama bin Laden as yourself. Are we now to believe in your newspeak that he is not a terrorist of the worst kind? That we should now give him the Nobel Peace Prize? Apparently by your definition of the kind of benefactor you are, we now must.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jon

    Mark,
    Here’s some follow up to my lies comment:

    29 April 08
    500 Scientists with Documented Doubts – about the Heartland Institute?
    by Richard Littlemore
    http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
    “DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far – in less than 24 hours – three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery’s conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.”

    The Heartland Institute is distributing Nova’s “almost comic-book-like” book of AGW-denial (subterfuge); Nova’s association with the oil industry is very relevant to her position on AGW.

    Mark, how do YOU define terrorism?

    MadJak,
    I’ve not written enough here for you to say I’ve rallied against the use of oil. I simply find it interesting when people clearly associated with the oil industry become some of the more outspoken critics of AGW. Cui bono?

    Oh, and I’m not sure who used it, but “xenocide” is not in my dictionary.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Jon,

    Sorry, friendly fire.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Hello Shell, Exxon-Mobil we have a live greeny here, please send me more cash it looks like I’ll be spending quite a bit of time converting this one……whats that? Oh Ok I’ll give him the cheap version then…Over and Out.

    Jon, Where should I begin……Lets start with; my liars are more qualified than your liars. There that should keep you busy (Prove me wrong.) You must be terrified that your AGW house of cards is now on the floor so you have come here to vent. Go ahead I can take it.

    The Heartland Institute is distributing Nova’s “almost comic-book-like” book of AGW-denial (subterfuge); Nova’s association with the oil industry is very relevant to her position on AGW.

    Jon what a zinger you’ve uncovered here! Imagine a comic book just so that you could follow along with the solid simple science explained within. Guess what I give copies of that same comic away too. I print them at MY OWN expense. I give copies to my children to leave laying around at their schools….

    Then her connection to Shell…..as a science educator for a popular and well regarded introduction of science to Australian school kids (probably brainwashing). Yup another red hot scoop there. You warmers are SOOOOO predictable (it’s big oil you know? secret stuff, riches wealth beyond belief) Hey guess what I’m connected to big oil too. I’m paid with gasoline on a secret credit card (so the IRS can’t catch me)

    Every day I get up in a warm home, flip on the lights, turn on the laptop, drive my big V8 powered (15 MPG) full size truck. GUESS WHAT I LOVE IT. I have the biggest carbon footprint of anyone you know. I’m NOT gonna let you Green Lefties take it away without a fight. (just for you I’m going to drive home in second gear so that twice as much gas goes up and away) HA HA.

    Terrorism: violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). I’d also include: acts of unlawful violence and war.

    Hows that for ya.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    hunter,

    You misread what I said at 132. Please go back and read it again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jon

    MadJak,
    It wasn’t “friendly fire.” At least be honest.

    Mark,
    The “comic-book” line was taken directly from the Heartland Institute’s website. I’ll not play the “your liar/my liar” game, and I do not care about your individual lifestyle, except that by mentioning your lifestyle, you have done a minor service to Farnish, and that “movement” you pretend to understand.

    By your definition of terrorism, both Shell and ExxonMobil are terrorist organizations – Shell in Nigeria, and ExxonMobil in Indonesia. Both cooperations are directly responsible for civilian murders in association with their operations (cooperate-sponsored state terrorism); Farnish isn’t responsible for any human deaths. Slamming Farnish for encouraging sabotage while ignoring (or being ignorant of) the oil industry’s terrorism, demonstrates that just about any tactics can and will be used to deny AGW and to disparage scientists associated with the theory. It seems that it is all a joke to you, Mark. You don’t even fully understand (or really want to understand) Farnish’s position – except for where that position potentially stands to interfer with that huge carbon footprint you have.

    One last point, not directed at Mark: mistakenly equating “humanity” with “civilization” unfairly distorts Farnish’s ideas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Jon,

    OK, It wasn’t friendly. I still maintain anyone going on about big oil industry conspiracies should take the lead and practice what they preach.

    It’s like a lot of the dark green stuff – people flying around busy telling other people what to do instead of just going out and planting some trees, and making sure they don’t consume oil.

    The hypocrisy of it is galling. And I am not the only person who is absolutely sick and tired of it.

    If you subscribe to keiths ideas, go and live in a cave – stop telling other people to change the world for you. If you must, change the world in your own back yard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jon, I don’t know anything about the oil company terrorism you reference. If it is true then I hope all guilty parties are punished by a court of law. I suppose it would be entertaining to hear the details of what you are asserting but it is off topic. The difference here should be obvious but I hear a bit about “relative morality” and such.

    What is your point? Are you suggesting that all of the thousands of “big Oil” employees are terrorists by default? Are you suggesting that this terrorism is why I should support AGWarming? That well founded scientific skepticism (as found here) is some how connected to this state sponsored terrorism?

    You don’t have to care about my life style either. I’ll return the favor as long as you aren’t sponsoring or urging or taking part in illegal acts. The central issue is, however, that Apocalyptic Warmers are hell bent on dictating, controlling and restricting how we ALL live. Do you get that?

    except that by mentioning your lifestyle, you have done a minor service to Farnish, and that “movement” you pretend to understand.

    Please elaborate.

    Slamming Farnish for encouraging sabotage while ignoring (or being ignorant of) the oil industry’s terrorism, demonstrates that just about any tactics can and will be used to deny AGW and to disparage scientists associated with the theory. It seems that it is all a joke to you, Mark. You don’t even fully understand (or really want to understand) Farnish’s position – except for where that position potentially stands to interfer with that huge carbon footprint you have.

    This is a very long stretch of un-reality. Shell Oil didn’t come here to convince me that I should “Disconnect” from laws that keep us civilized, and learn to “connect” to a twisted reality, so that I might or support their illegal activities did they?
    By “understand Farnish’s position” you really mean buy into his insanity. No I won’t “understand” him. I don’t even feel the need to try to understand him. I’ll leave that to his medical caregivers.

    Then there is the carbon footprint comment (I knew I could get you fired up on that) I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT THEORY! The entire “save the world from carbon” is a smoke screen for tax and revenue schemes, and larger government intrusion. That is crystal clear and if you don’t see it then you need to spend more time with the history books.

    Will I go to “any length” to deny AGW? lets rephrase that: I will leave no stone unturned in the search for TRUTH in science. This means ZERO politics in the process, Full disclosure, transparency and complete admission of what we DO NOT yet know about the various earth systems. Anyone that claims the science is settled is flat out wrong. As for the joke comment apparently sarcasm is lost on you.

    Now why don’t you bare your soul here? (or perchance are you really Keith with a different log in?)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    One more thing; I find your comment about disparaging scientists really outrageous. I have been following “global warming” since many of the current believers were in Junior High. The disparaging was started entirely by the Green Believer camp. You should go back and read the entire history as can be found here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

    Perhaps you’ll wake up from your funk.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I sent this email directly to Jo, but she has decided not to respond – so I will post it here instead:

    Dear Jo

    I don’t know if your intention was to make James Hansen and his family a target of physical attacks, but you seem to have found a reliable way of ensuring this in your blog: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilization.

    Your views on AGW are not my concern, but to put someone’s family at risk based on his providing of a puff-quote for my book, simply because you have a professional grudge against the guy is something I certainly would never do. Having read my book, did you at any point notice anything that advocated physical attacks on anyone? Yet by entering the fray and using quotations from the *unpublished* version of the book, which was significantly tempered in order to be published and subsequently supported by Hansen, you have managed to whip up a very threatening array of comments that I urge you to read. This is your blog – everything that appears on it is your responsibility, even comments.

    I have done my best to temper the comments by giving a more rounded picture of my approach. You may not support what I believe, but don’t drag someone else into it simply because he was trying to give a new writer a decent break. As I have commented, terrorism is in the eye of the target: I only advocate actions that threaten the ability of the industrial system to control people’s behaviour (for instance http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2010/01/15/monthly-undermining-task-january-2010-the-great-tv-turn-off/); I do not, and have never advocated violence against the person – why would I, given my objective is to protect humanity?

    Yours sincerely

    Keith Farnish

    I’m going to step out of this thread as hundreds of blogs are carrying this item and I’m too thinly spread between them, but if anyone wants to discuss this further then please drop me a line. My contact details are on my blogs.

    Thanks

    [Keith, Did you notice that you are the one suggesting we break laws. (And I'm... kinda roasting you for it?). It's implicit in what I say that I don't think anyone should be encouraging people to take the law into their own hands. That was my point. Teenagers might read your book and mistakenly think it's ok to kill people, if the "net-benefit" adds up (in their own heads). Sincerely, if you are concerned about that, and don't want people to accidentally hurt others, could I suggest you rewrite... well several chapters,... and add statements like... "what-ever you do, make sure your actions will not hurt people". How about Rule One: Do No Harm? Even sabotage on say, electrical supply lines, can have unintended effects. Apart from electrocuting the activist, there's risks like....car accidents, medical devices that fail, alarms that don't go off, lifts get stuck, doors don't open, who knows? Even an old activist doesn't have the answers. I think the law is an ass too, but despotic tyranny and tribal justice is worse.] -JN


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry, just a little response to MadJak because it’s necessary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    K.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I re-read every post here and cannot find anything that threatens Mr. Hanson. Can anyone else find a threat?

    It appears to me that Mr. Farnish is completing his publicity stunt by making false allegations. Ironic isn’t it?

    Jo is this how they hope to slow us down?

    Perhaps Mr. Hanson needs to have some Public Relations help before he puts his name in any book reviews?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I suppose I have to respond (I get email alerts when comments are posted) just to say that I did re-read the comments myself, and some of the more distressing ones seem to have been removed. There have been a lot of very nasty comments all over the blogosphere, and perhaps I was getting worried overall for Hansen’s safety so read more into the comments than was there. In fact Jo’s initial article on second reading comes across as more aggressive than any of the comments now on here.

    I really must sign off now. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H.

    I don’t think anyone has mentioned the anthropological findings that before agriculture and civilization were invented, humans lived long, healthy, fulfilling lives. “Civilization” is the combination of agriculture combined with warrior kings combined with the first cities, all of which led towards institutionalized violence, diseases, slavery, and more. Granted, it’s not as simple as that, but a blog response shouldn’t be too long.

    When we have “found” groups of people in modern days, people untouched by civilization, they tend to be doing quite well, some have no words for poverty, and few even know of the concept of catching colds or getting sick. In fact, those people only tend to start declining in health and happiness when we invite (force) them to join our civilization.

    You can argue that Global Warming doesn’t exist, that’s fine. But are you really arguing that coal plants don’t push a toxic sludge back into the waters that then carry that toxic sludge into the rest of the ecosystem? Are you arguing that water is NOT becoming polluted in the “advanced” parts of the world? Are you arguing that civilization leads to people working less and spending more time with their friends and families? Are you arguing that depending on energy and technology is good for humanity (experience a major city during a blackout, people die, worry of death, can’t keep food refrigerated, etc.)

    Fortunately, more and more people are coming to the view that civilization was a mistake. Remember, the collapse of civilization doesn’t mean the collapse of humanity, it actually will be the best thing humanity could ask for.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Mr. Farnish,
    It is you and Hansen who put yourselves at any risk you find yourselves in.
    Hansen is the one who started supporting criminal and terroristic activity to achieve his poltical goals.
    You are the disgusting person who actually built upon that idea and have written a pathetic manifesto calling even more people to be terrorists, and have provided them your cowardly instructions on how to do it.
    If Hansen has actually received any death threats (which I doubt), it is only because he, like you, are making death threats on humanity.

    Brian H,
    Please do feel free to post anthro and archaeological references to what you claim.
    Coal sludge is pollution, and pollution is something that can be dealt with.
    Making up lies about non-existent climate catastrophes is not a very good way to fight pollution.
    Your closing sentence is only a rather pathetic delusion on your part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Your understanding of the word civilization differs greatly from mine.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

    Civilization develops because of the implementation of LAWS.

    What this thread is about is the promotion of lawless behavior to further a political agenda. (based on a series of flawed assumptions of the state of the worlds ecology.)

    If you are part of a group that eschews civilization, let me be the first to commend you. You are assuredly on the right track for proving some of Darwins theories. Good luck.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Roy Hogue,
    I did misread you. Please accept my apology.
    Dealing with Farnish online at this point is like dealing with Pol Pot as as student in France.
    Exposing the nastiness and confronting him is the best that can be done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    hunter,

    Apology accepted.

    Thank you

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Wow how did I miss all this?

    It’s easy to have a utopian view of the world after you’ve woken up, had your toast, juice and cereal. Then you wear the modern rags, hop in your car (pirius or not) go to the office, fire up the computer and wax lyrical about the follies of modern society on the internet.

    Now if you were doing all that with pedal power, I tips my hat to you and resign from the discussion.

    It’s the height of arrogance and self-righteousness to preach to the OTHER 5,999,999,999 people on this planet about how they should live. (Hypocrits to the max, do as I say not as I do. Who appointed you the guru? Richard Craniums).

    Options? Give up modern technologies? medicine? Was it a better life in the 1700′s? 1800′s? when? 2000BC?

    We’re overpopulated right? So then, I wonder if the Hansens and Farnishes of this world have told either or both of their old folks that they should “lay aside” for the good of humanity. Better still, demonstrate your conviction and “lay aside” yourself. (don’t jump down my throat, only making a point not making suggestions)

    Pollution in the modern world? Almost all of the modern first world cities have cleaned up their backyards very nicely and are continuing to do so, only because the residents collectively are able to afford to do so (thnks to affordable energy). Try a big city in the developing world and see where they’re at regards pollution.

    For these wags, it’s ok for a lion to make a kill for food, but not ok for me to eat meat. It’s ok for an elephant to knock down a tree to scratch it’s arse, but not ok for me to knock down a tree in order to build shelter. It’s ok for a beaver to knock over trees and build dams, that’s natural, but when a different species (human) builds a dam, that’s eco terrorism. According to these eco extremists a bit of moss on the side of a rock has more rights than a human being. (fo)

    That’s enough.
    Meat headed, naive, unwise (though educated) Richard Craniums have existed throughout the course of history. It’s just that MODERN FRIGGING TECHNOLOGY that they hate so much enables them to be heard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Remember, the collapse of civilization doesn’t mean the collapse of humanity, it actually will be the best thing humanity could ask for.

    Brian H.,

    Count me out! My life, my wife’s life and our son’s life all depend on technology. There are hundreds of thousands of others in this same boat including others who post here. What you propose is to kill off such people, many in the prime of their lives.

    So I hope you will forgive me if I regard you as someone dangerous to me personally. You are no friend of humanity. I will not use the words that most adequately describe your position but you know what they are.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Keith,

    Thanks for commenting. I agree that there are problems, but I don’t advocate breaking the law to solve them.

    I am very concerned that you do.

    Our laws are far from perfect, but god-forbid how many people it would kill if our system of law and order broke down completely. Sure it muddles along, flaws and all, but you only have to look at countries with worse law-and-order systems to see the kind of tyranny that the inevitable corruption brings. The people who starve, the children who die from preventable diseases, the people unjustly jailed or enslaved.

    Inciting people to break the law is neither sophisticated nor wise. There are other alternatives.

    I realize you are frustrated with the system, but choose your targets carefully. If you pick the wrong side of this debate you work unwittingly as a tool for big bankers, large bureaucrats and ambitious politicians. If you pick the right side, you fight for freedom, for good science and for the worlds poor, who desperately need the cheapest source of energy so they can enjoy the lifestyle we do.

    The long hard road is to get the science right. To figure out the universe as best as we can and set that information free to help people rise above the dog-eat-dog world of tuberculosis, famine, malaria, and dysentry. Nature is a brutal master. WE can only rise above if we work together. 300 million people can’t “work together” if they don’t work through an organized system of some sort.

    (The kind of system I’m aiming for BTW would allow us the most freedom to spend our time and money within the legal confines, but with less burdensome government interference.)

    I’ve added a comment inline above, also. See #150.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Mr. Farnish,
    Mike Godwin is a friend of mine. I have no problem triggering his law in the face of your disgusting ideas.
    I will make sure to buy the next round of drinks as a royalty fee tohim at our next get together.
    My toast will be to the utter ruin and failure of you and your book and your movement.
    And God rest your soul.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [Keith, Did you notice that you are the one suggesting we break laws. (And I'm... kinda roasting you for it?). It's implicit in what I say that I don't think anyone should be encouraging people to take the law into their own hands. That was my point. Teenagers might read your book and mistakenly think it's ok to kill people, if the "net-benefit" adds up (in their own heads). Sincerely, if you are concerned about that, and don't want people to accidentally hurt others, could I suggest you rewrite... well several chapters,... and add statements like... "what-ever you do, make sure your actions will not hurt people". How about Rule One: Do No Harm? Even sabotage on say, electrical supply lines, can have unintended effects. Apart from electrocuting the activist, there's risks like....car accidents, medical devices that fail, alarms that don't go off, lifts get stuck, doors don't open, who knows? Even an old activist doesn't have the answers. I think the law is an ass too, but despotic tyranny and tribal justice is worse.] -JN

    Jo, this is important. This is a direct quote from my book:

    First, I want to make one thing clear: I am not talking about mindlessly sabotaging the first thing you lay your hands on, nor am I condoning anything that will cause harm to innocent people – when I talk about ‘Undermining’ I am specifically referring to the act of giving people back their liberty, their freedom to choose. Nothing more.

    So what kinds of actions are we talking about? No doubt it’s a major achievement to bring down a corrupt government, but in the Culture of Maximum Harm it will only be replaced by one that operates along the same lines as its predecessor – to promote the ‘need’ for economic growth and to spread the influence of Industrial Civilization around the world on behalf of its corporate masters. Bringing down an oil company or even a single refinery will, indeed, cause a halt in the production and sale of a large amount of climate-changing hydrocarbons and, if the company or refinery is large enough, could trigger economic unrest; but there are other oil companies and many more refineries, and there are always powerful institutions, and huge numbers of deluded people, who will ensure that the oil keeps flowing – at least until it runs out. As I said, the primary targets, if enough people are to carry out the other tasks necessary to reclaim the Earth for those who actually want to survive, are the things that are stopping people from connecting with the real world: the Tools of Disconnection.

    Rule One: Concentrate your efforts on the Tools of Disconnection.

    The first reason for this is that disconnection is the biggest problem humanity is facing, and we are trying to deal with the root of the problem here. It may be satisfying to burn down a garage full of SUVs if you have a virulent hatred of gas-guzzling road transport; but these places are insured and there are plenty more SUVs where they came from. In the context of reconnecting humanity, it turns out that such actions are only symbolic – they don’t actually achieve anything useful. Far better to undermine and halt the activities of the advertisers and marketing media that encourage people to buy SUVs in the first place; far better to hijack the work of the government agencies and trade bodies that ensure that vehicle sales and production remain a high priority; far better to expose the efforts of the oil and motor companies in convincing people that climate change is nothing to do with them, and even if it is, the disappearing icecaps are not really that much of a problem. All of these activities are within the means of any intelligent, motivated and connected person.

    And later in the same section:

    As I said at the beginning of this section, there are risks involved in at least some aspects of this Undermining process, and like any of the Level One activities, I don’t expect more than a small number of people, at least initially, are going to be keen to take part. In fact, many of the ways in which this can be done are actually far less risky, and far more fulfilling than you might imagine. It could be that you are in a position to do something that might be of great value to safeguarding the future of humanity but have never realized it.

    Even if you are in a position to act, you may have concerns about the morality of what you are about to do. To make a judgement, you need to weigh up Risks and Rewards: the Risks being the various negative outcomes of your actions, the Rewards, the positive ones. When it comes to Risk, you must go into things with a clear mind – Risk is not just a measure of the risk to you; it is a measure of the risk to everyone who might be affected by what you do. You may have a rabid loathing for some part of the system, but you still have to take responsibility for your actions. If you take Rule One into account, you are very unlikely to encounter any serious moral dilemmas; the vast majority of Undermining activities that are likely to be effective are relatively small acts that are part of a larger, beneficial, whole – small acts that, in themselves do not cause harm to people. If you do encounter difficult choices, though, then Reward can play a part.

    Reward is a measure of the net improvement in the long-term survival of humanity; based ultimately upon the improvement in the condition of our natural life-support system. It is most certainly not about fame and glory – if that is your intention then I suggest you reconsider your actions. Few, if any, people are qualified to judge whether an action has sufficient reward to justify a high degree of collateral damage: the best advice I can give is that for all undermining activities – large or small, morally complex or not – always abide by Rule Two.

    Rule Two: Only act if the rewards far outweigh the risks.

    Still a terrorist?

    Laws exist primarily to protect the economic interests of the rich – law does *not* equal morality; if I have to break the law, then so be it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I am sorry but I can’t let this sit. So far as I know there are only three people in the world that think the way that Brian H. has posted. It could easily be that thousands think that way but let me offer some sage thoughts just in case:

    Baa Humbug said it well: “It’s easy to have a Utopian view of the world……

    Brian have you ever tried to live on only food that you have grown (by hand without the use of machinery or steel)? (I know the answer already) For everyone in the world today to grow their own food by hand would require a mass movement of people to warmer regions. It is impossible with the population we have today. (maybe eliminating some people is part of your plan?)

    Have you thought through completely what you are splashing about here on the web? Where do you personally draw the line on what “civilized” items you will be able to live without? Your picture shows a relatively young healthy person so maybe you can actually live like you suggest for a while. What about when you are old? What about the child you father that has a handicapping permanent disability? Don’t say you’ll have no children either because your Pre-civilized tribe needs children (and many of them) to exist. As long as you have those children do you know how many mothers died in childbirth pre-1900? (not to mention the “long, healthy, fulfilling lives” of 35 years average for remote tribes) missing most of your teeth by 30. (Oh and the pain when you pull the crumbled root of that remaining tooth)

    What you are describing is an absurd fantasy. Both you and Farnish do a great disservice, at minimum and dangerous at maximum by promoting this life as even possible (at a global scale). If it weren’t for Farnish’s dangerous book I’d dismiss all of what you have said with a jolly laugh. Both of you need to spend your time more wisely. You’ll be old sooner than you imagine and little of what you talk about will happen before you are old.

    Lastly, come up with a name for your “movement” so I can watch for it in the headlines.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Laws exist primarily to protect the economic interests of the rich – law does *not* equal morality; if I have to break the law, then so be it.

    Mr. Farnish this statement is patently false both in the first assertion and second in the logic of the rationalization (i.e. “the law” = all laws, are not moral)

    Besides the above;

    nor am I condoning anything that will cause harm to innocent people

    Define “innocent”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mr Farnish@150:

    given my objective is to protect humanity?

    Wow, so who died and appointed you to be our saviour? Pol Pot?

    What a Pious, misguided and condescending load of toe-jam.

    If you truly care about humanity – there are things you can do NOW which would help humanity – like work on eliminating poverty in the third world, for example.

    I have concluded that the Nazi analogy is the wrong one for your ideals. I would suggest that your ideals are more in line with Pol Pots Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot seemed to think that moving back to an agrarian economy was the best thing too. Look at how that worked out for the Kampucheans/Cambodians. I’d bet that Pol Pot believed he was a “nice guy” and Cambodias savior too.

    As for the poor Mr Hansen line, give me a break. First of all there have been no entries on this blog entry advocating physical arm to his person. Secondly, he isn’t exactly a nice character anyway – wasn’t it Dr Hansen who suggested that sceptics be tried for crimes against humanity because we have grave doubts about his view of the world?

    Jon , I would seriously recommend you don’t read Keith’s book. I doubt both your own (and Keiths) stability. I would suggest you both get some professional help. Please.

    I am only posting this because I fear that someone out there will be impressed by your views and will do something utterly terrible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Mr. Farnish,
    Yes, you monster. You are a terrorist.
    You want to impose, by deliberate violence, destruction of the world system on people, whether they agree with you or not.
    You are doing this because you care about the trees and fish and polar bears more than the people you impose your will on by violence.
    That is terroism. And since any reasonably well informed person realizes that if your pathetic delusion was made reality, billions would die, you are in fact imposing xenocide.
    You have no idea of law, the environment, morality, or the dark malignant center of your soul.
    You are simply a Pol Pot wannabe, hoping to destroy a much larger stage than that particular monster ever dreamed of. You even focus your delusions around a pastoral ideal that never existed, just as he did, to hide the genocide he actually created.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H.

    I think it’s important to note what Joanna Nova said:

    I agree that there are problems, but I don’t advocate breaking the law to solve them.

    - I don’t know as much as I should about US history, but didn’t we all learn in school that the rights that we have today were fought for by the law-breakers of yesterday? The reason Joanna has the right to vote today is because someone a long time ago broke the law. Our 40-hour week exists due to lawbreaking Union members (gasp!). And I guess Joanna doesn’t approve of the people who broke the law to help end slavery.

    - If you’re calling someone a terrorist because they want to see the end of techno-civilization, do you also think car salesmen are terrorists? Thousands of people die each year due to car accidents, even little babies.

    - and to the person who asked, yes, I am in fact learning about wild foods that actually are available all year round, even in the dead of winter. I’m not the greatest at it yet, but I’m learning. It is very sad to note that so much of our food supply is actually poisoned from what our civilization has dumped into the soils.

    regarding anti-civilization groups, there are a number of different “movements” out there: primitivism, green anarchy, anti-civ, post-civ.

    I used to believe that through technological breakthroughs all of society could live like kings (just like Bucky Fuller used to say). As we progress, I am only seeing more and more people breaking their backs for an ever smaller population of people to live like kings. It seems as if there will always be what civilization deems as the throw-away people: to work in the mines in Virginia, to work in sweatshops at gunpoint, to work three min-wage jobs just to keep afloat and still sink deeper into debt. Techno-civilization needs the throw-away people to do the dirty work, test the medicines and hormones, do the labor for the upper class. What kind of person would you be if you didn’t want to help get out of that scenario?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    MadJak: #166
    January 29th, 2010 at 4:43 am
    Mr Farnish@150: given my objective is to protect humanity?

    Wow, so who died and appointed you to be our saviour? Pol Pot?

    Outstanding comparison! And so very true. What this world needs is less Pol Pots.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Still a terrorist?

    Farnish,

    Yes! In spades!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Brian H,
    Where are the references showing that your paleolithic pastoralists were living so well?
    I have plenty showing lives that were brutish, violent and short.
    Mr. Franish is calling for terrorism and is a cowardly terrorist because he is calling for violence to impose his political goals.
    He is a coward because he is not willing to do it himself, apparently.
    You Brian, are a mere hypocrite, since you calim to hate techno-civilization, even as you post to the internet.
    If you had any sort of scruples, you would simply drop out and kill yourself, leading by example.
    Maybe you and Mr. Farnish could do it together, as a strong statement about how wicked humans are, and how to cure the problem?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Brian H #168

    - I don’t know as much as I should about US history, but didn’t we all learn in school that the rights that we have today were fought for by the law-breakers of yesterday? The reason Joanna has the right to vote today is because someone a long time ago broke the law. Our 40-hour week exists due to lawbreaking Union members (gasp!). And I guess Joanna doesn’t approve of the people who broke the law to help end slavery.

    1. Doubful – Joanna is Australian. The american revolution had nothing to do with Australia.
    2. Unions did not break the law, they exercised their rights. Those that broke and break the law are arrested, tried and convicted and sent to jail (Hoffa anyone?)
    3. Joanna did not comment on slavery, nor did the law breakers end it. The law was changed by Lincoln and an act of congress, followed by an amendment to the American Constitution. I believe the English abolished it long before Australia became an independant country, so I fail to see how Australia was guilty of any type of slavery.

    You may know American history, but best to check out the author of a blog before running off at the mouth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    One other point- the more Farnish blithers on, the worse anyone, especially high profile opinion leaders, look to have endorsed this sociopathetic tripe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Brian H.:
    January 29th, 2010 at 7:03 am

    “I used to believe that through technological breakthroughs all of society could live like kings”

    In material terms we already do. Which kings do you have in mind who (for example) could travel around the world in a few days? Here in Australia just about anyone with a job (nearly everyone) can do that. That’s after they have had plenty to eat.

    From some of your comments it seems that you live in the US. From here it does seem that the US gets some things seriously wrong. Your poor are too poor and your rich are too rich, but that can be fixed by measures that are far less dramatic than destroying all civilisation. True, that would promote equality but only by ensuring equal misery for everyone.

    Since you’re commenting on an Australian website how about finding out a bit about this country and about how we manage the compromises needed for a modern technological society to work (and please don’t quote Jared Diamond to me, he has no idea). Then you could try to make a case as to why we should abandon what we now have for the poverty you advocate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H.

    ah, I acknowledge and apologize for my USA-centric thinking, so sorry for that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Davidc said:

    From some of your comments it seems that you live in the US. From here it does seem that the US gets some things seriously wrong. Your poor are too poor and your rich are too rich, …….

    David, this is interesting. What I find is:

    Australia US


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Aak! I don’t know how I got the double post

    Davidc said: From some of your comments it seems that you live in the US. From here it does seem that the US gets some things seriously wrong. Your poor are too poor and your rich are too rich…….

    I found your comment interesting and I am wondering what media wants you to have this sense?

    I found these comparisons:

    Median household income; Australia $53KAUD USA $50KUSD
    Below Poverty line; Australia 13% USA 13.3%
    Unemployment rate; Australia %5.6 USA 10% (Spiked 2009)
    Per-capita GDP rank Australia 15th USA 13th

    You might have traction on the mater of the number of wealthy individuals but we also have a few hundred million more people than Australia.

    At a casual glance I’d say that your view of our rich and poor might be in need of a re-view.

    I add this with the friendliest of intent-the interest in foreign relations!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I live in the U.S. and yes, we have a lot of problems. I can find people everywhere who know what the problems are. What I can’t find are people who know how to solve them.

    I listened to the president out-gassing last night and can only see more trouble, not less. No damned politician ever made me better off. Everything they do hurts or it comes with a hook in it. Just an example: I can put away money in tax deferred savings plans but God help me if I take out some of my own money before reaching some magical age because not only will it be taxable income — which is right and correct — but I’ll lose 10% of it as a penalty — which is just plain highway robbery!

    That I made a good living for most of my adult life is no thanks to anyone but me. I worked hard to get my degrees — always while married and supporting a family, squeezing in school wherever I could. I worked even harder to become good at what I do so I would be valuable to potential employers. The government talks about jobs paying survival wages. The California Employment Development Department will train you to be an office worker and you’ll be behind the 8-ball all the time.

    So if you just want to point out problems my advice is to go somewhere else to do it. If you want to be jealous of the rich go ahead, I can’t stop you. But it won’t help those poor you worry about one bit because you have no idea why they’re poor in the first place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Mr Farnish you seem to have difficulty grasping reality. You said..

    “It may be satisfying to burn down a garage full of SUVs if you have a virulent hatred of gas-guzzling road transport; but these places are insured and there are plenty more SUVs where they came from. In the context of reconnecting humanity, it turns out that such actions are only symbolic”.

    Such actions are only symbolic? NO NO NO, you live amongst other fellow human beings, you are not a hermit in the mountains. Burning down a garage IS DANGEROUS, IS IMMORAL, IS WRONG let alone highly illegal.
    You imply that burning down a garage IS NOT ENOUGH because the owners ARE INSURED. So is it OK if they are not insured? What about if enough of your ilk burned down enough garages? wouldn’t you think people will be scared off from buyimg SUV’s for fear of being burnt down? Isn’t that a logical extension that your followers may adopt? Doesn’t that mean you are advocating terrorism? Yes yes and yes. You should be tried and gaoled.

    You have deep seated beliefs and are trying to rally people to your cause via your book. Al Qaeda has deep seated beliefs. Hitler had deep seated beliefs. Shall I go on? Where is the difference?

    We are called a CIVIL society because we have peaceful options if we want to change the way we live. SAVAGES change things through violence and brute force, that’s you.

    I guess it’s ok by you if I strongly object to your view of humanity so I burn down your house. If it’s NOT ok, then you’ve just made up tripe to sell a book, a shyster.

    You sir are a sick puppy. You need help


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Mark,

    I agree that towards the middle the two countrie are similar. But I think it’s the high and low ends that fuel apocalytic sentiments. The median tells you nothing about those. When a US executice gets paid 10x the counterpart in Oz, it doesn’t impact on the median. I don’t know if the same poverty line is applied in both cases, but low paid workers get a lot less than here (because of our minimum wage legislation). The situation descibed by Ehrenreich in Nickel and Dimed: Undercover in Low-wage USA doesn’t happen here I believe.

    These things don’t matter when things are booming but if economic conditions continue as they are for a decade or more I think they will.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug

    These are the word meanings I use, as described in the book, and elsewhere:

    SYMBOLIC: Not of practical use. I do not support symbolic action, it is a waste of time, therefore I do not support burning a garage full of SUVs

    CIVIL: From the word “civis” meaning “of the city”. Our understanding of the word “civilized” has been skewed demonstrably to favour a specific way of life. Civilized is an objective description, only civilized people have decided it is a positive marker for a way of living.

    SAVAGE: From “sauvage” meaning “of the wild” or “of nature”. Again the meaning has been skewed, specifically from the Enlightenment period onwards, in negative terms to favour the dominant culture.

    Keith


    Report this

    00

  • #

    First, I want to make one thing clear: I am not talking about mindlessly sabotaging the first thing you lay your hands on, nor am I condoning anything that will cause harm to innocent people – when I talk about ‘Undermining’ I am specifically referring to the act of giving people back their liberty, their freedom to choose. Nothing more.

    “INNOCENT” – as defined by the mass populace? “INNOCENT” as defined by our courts of law or by your kangaroo-court of vigilante attack?

    You need to unequivocally unambiguously state NO Harm to Any Person, and remove any reference that suggests otherwise or leaves the inference that it’s ok to hurt anyone. (ie 30% of the book). I know you want to save good people but if you get to define who is “good” then you are behaving like a totalitarian dictator.

    Rule Two: Only act if the rewards far outweigh the risks.

    Rewards and Risks defined by WHO– you, or some pot smoking paranoid “activist”?

    Still a terrorist?

    Absolutely.

    Farnish – seriously, I know the civilized world could be a lot better, but don’t make the mistake of thinking we used to live in some nirvanah. 200 years ago in some towns, 30% of babies died before they reached one. Read history books of the dark ages. Desperate, god-awful times. Don’t imagine that the stone-age was all that hot either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Jo I know it is easy to find keith’s stance to be akin to terrorism… but lets not forget here that you are part of a coordinated campaign to endorse the continuation of high levels of CO2 emissions in the face of the best the science has to offer, science whick also predicts devastating ramifications for such action.

    And then we could all be shocked at Lomborg who says adaptation is cheaper than abatement… cheaper for who??? maybe rich westerners but not the poverty stricken 3rd world whi will starve in large numbers.

    So maybe a bit less of the moral fauxtrage and a bit more rationality would be a good idea.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Mr Farnish

    For an obviously educated person you seem quite naive about the implications of chosen words, words are bullets as they say.
    Take your paragraph about “constructive anger” for instance.
    If a follower of yours was to blow-up a dam resulting in the death of people and or the ruination of lives, will you take responsibility or will you hide behind the “I didn’t mean that” defence?
    I notice you replied with “meanings” of your words rather than the implications. A deliberate ploy.
    I contend that you are an eco terrorist and a liar.

    If I was to shout “bomb” at an airport. I’d be hauled off by the authorities. You are shouting “terrorism” in your book. You should be hauled off as you are a danger to society.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB that’s just silly. There is a world of difference between CO2 emissions and blowing up dams power stations and garages.

    We know EXACTLY what will happen if a bomb goes off. Do you know exactly what will happen with continuimg emissions? If so you better hurry up and show everybody your proof. The fate of the planet rests in your hands.

    (I’m so disapointed in you Matt, I didn’t think you’d approve of this dangerous rubbish. But then again, you are a compulsive obsessive arguer)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mattb: hears no evil, sees no evil, speaks no evil………………


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    MattB and Mr. Farnish,
    Please set the example for us and reduce your footprints to 0.
    As to undermining technology, get caught here in my community coming into blow a power line, or pipeline, or dam, and our laws permit us to use deadly force against clear and violent threats like yours.
    Trespass onto a rancher’s property to do it, and you can become a symbolic target for their symbolic rifle.
    You are both pathetic. Calling you trolls would be to insult trolls.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, that’s interesting, Hunter – essentially you are happy to kill people if they trespass on “your” property (do you actually own the land or was it stolen from the indigenous people?), but somehow I am the “terrorist” and the enemy of everything you hold dear.

    Morally you are on very shaky ground. And congratulations for fully justifying my letter to Jo – you make her look quite reasonable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Farnish:

    Rule Two: Only act if the rewards far outweigh the risks.

    EVERY sane criminal does exactly that. Every rapist, murderer, robber, or thief feels the rewards far outweigh the risks. So how does that make you any different than them? Perhaps in scope only. You advocate a systemic approach, they are dealing with just the next crime.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Mr. Farnish,
    You are not someone that reasonable people would look to for moral guidance.
    did you deliberately misread what I said, or perhaps you suffer from a comprehension problem?
    I would not use deadly force on a mere trespasser. Nor did I suggest that.
    I would employ deadly force on someone who posed an immediate and deadly threat to myself or others. And where I live, it does not have to be my property to enable me to use deadly force in the defense of myself or others.
    You or those inspired by you, showing up with explosives or other means to destroy a powerline that people depend on for life and safety and health, would pose exactly that kind of immediate, and deadly threat.
    As to your ” ” around my property, again, in your delusion you think that your interpretation of history justifies you to use deadly force to deprive others of their lives, liberty and property in the name of your political goal.
    You have no moral standing at all to pontificate about anything.
    But there is another dimension to your pathology that is worth exposing: Your arrogant belief that now, right now, we know all there is to know about how environments and climate systems work. And that your interpretation of that understanding jsutifies you to call for the destruction of a system that enables billions of people to live, and the destruction of which will kill many of those billions.
    That, Mr. Farnish, is hubris beyond hubris.
    Just yesterday, a peer reviewed paper was published which shows that the positive feedbacks that global warming theory depends on to predict a climate catastrophe, have been up until now vastly over stated.
    There will be no climate crisis.
    It has been called off.
    Are you willing to suspend your call for the destruction of civilization as we know to at least study the issue a bit further?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    MattB:

    And then we could all be shocked at Lomborg who says adaptation is cheaper than abatement… cheaper for who??? maybe rich westerners but not the poverty stricken 3rd world whi will starve in large numbers.

    If you refer to Lomborg you should know something about him, apart from his Name and that he’s Wrong. He accepts AGW (or did) but argues that the vast sums proposed to “deal” with it would be better spent on programs such as fresh water to African villages. He’s saying exactly the opposite to what you imply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    MattB,
    Listen, if you can:
    AGW is wrong. We are not facing a climate crisis caused by CO2.
    Lomborg is not wrong. He is right.
    By the way , bin Laden agrees with you and Farnish and Hansen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Hunter, very well said.

    To restate: The law of our land permits use of deadly force to protect life in imminent peril. Therefore this killing is morally justified and acceptable under law.

    Where this discussion stands:

    Farnish has repeatedly implied that he believes that he knows better than our courts and legal system. Further, that laws can be determined by him to be unjust and invalid at his choosing. Whats more he believes that anyone has the same authority to also judge what laws are unjust and invalid.

    He has represented that he “cares deeply” for humanity such that “innocent” people will not be harmed. He has not publicly defined who is innocent, but based upon the above, by inference, that too will be at his discretion. (don’t worry though because he cares deeply for humanity).

    He plays semantics games with words to rationalize his thinking.

    We are expected to see his brilliant reasoning and come over to his Dark Side. (in fact he seems off-put that he even needs to explain his position).

    From Wiki:
    Psychopaths gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions.

    Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.

    Psychopaths have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth

    Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behavior.

    NEED I SAY ANY MORE?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Mark D,
    Thanks.
    Good summation on your part.
    It is clear that Mr. Farnish’s real wickedness is not that he will do anything- he is clearly just a sniveling coward. It is the idiots I refer to as ‘sociopathetic’ who will actually think he is offering something heroic good and achievable, who think his particular delusion is not xenocidal in scope, and who think, as they blow themselves and others up, that they are actually achieiving something good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    To the people Reading and defending Mr Farnish’s book:

    If you look to people like keith to understand the way you feel so isolated and why you feel so frustrated, you will invariably aggravate your problems no end.

    As for the people who are trying to defend Mr Farnish in anyway, I would suggest you get some professional help. I really mean it.

    Please talk to someone who can help you. Mr Farnish will only make your mindset worse, in my non professional, humble opinion.

    And yes, that goes for Matt B also.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Feedback please?

    OPEN LETTER TO:
    Dr. James Hanson
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    2880 Broadway
    New York, NY 10025 USA
    James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov

    Dr. Hanson, I am a citizen of the United States of America. It has come to my attention by third party, that you may have promoted, commented on, or endorsed a book or books written by one Keith Farnish. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to publicly confirm or refute this allegation. I Wish to inform you that I intend to petition members of the US Congress and Senate with a transcript of this communication herein, including comments made by a person claiming to be Mr. Farnish. I wish to offer here your opportunity to append, clarify or make your own statement (including a retraction if you desire) of the third party information linking you to Mr. Farnish. Your statement will be included with the transcript sent to the aforementioned representatives.
    It is my contention that Mr. Farnish has written in such a fashion as to be suspicious of inciting illegal acts that may constitute terrorism, inducement to terrorist acts, and domestic violence on US soil. Certainly you will recognize the seriousness of my assertion.

    Sincerely


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    A little explanation. I like many of you struggle with internal questions of “what can I do” in the context of world struggles. After several days of communication with and around Keith Farnish I know what I can do. It may be insignificant, it may be a waste of time. I am convinced that our elected officials must know about these things. I invite others to feedback and even borrow this post to forward to their US elected officials.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark,

    Hansen is likely to ignore this since he ignores everything else.

    The one senator who might look into the matter is Inhofe. His contact web form can be found at senate.gov.

    I would not email him from your personal email account. I would not want that information in his hands.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Postscript:

    When Hansen stood up and demanded that oil company executives be prosecuted for crimes against humanity I sent messages to my two senators representative asking if they would go along with such a thing or not. I got no answer, not even from my representative who is a Republican.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    The lack of wisdom, nous, intelligence, call it what you will from a supposedly highly educated person is astounding. I can only put it down to the pressure Farnish is feeling right now. How else do you explain this…

    trespass on “your” property (do you actually own the land or was it stolen from the indigenous people?),

    “own” the land…”stolen” ????
    Where do you live Farnish? Do you own your own house? Then you are a hypocrite of the highest order and a thief (according to you).
    You don’t own but just rent? Then you are supporting your landlord who is a thief. Again a hypocrite of the highest order.

    What an astoundingly stupid comment to make.
    Farnish, before you post, take a minute to hit the “preview” button and read what you’ve written. Then go get a coffee, come back and read again before hitting the submit button lest people think you’re a moron.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    And speaking of hypocrasy, what about that dangerous idiot Hansen. He has a go at “governments” all the while grabbing a nice tidy sum in the employ of the US Govt.
    What an assinine hypocrite. No wonder he endorses Farnish. Birds of a feather.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    We’ve all seen the general type of the “august” Mr. Farnish here before. Farnish is the worst of them by a long way. But the degree of wrong/evil notwithstanding, no matter what you point out to them they screw their position around to make themselves right and you wrong.

    Given their pathology, the best thing is probably to ignore what they post. Sadly I’ve violated my own advice. But there should come a time when we just don’t respond anymore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mr Farnish, Jon,

    Congratulations, it looks like Osama Bin Laden may have read your book Keith.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHDH582.html

    To Quote the article:

    He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for “drastic solutions” to global warming, and “not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”

    and

    “We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible,” he said. “I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.”

    Mattb, still ready to try and defend their position?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Miraculous, isn’t it, that such an iconic figure a OBL, dead for 5 years from kidney failure, suddenly comes to life to rail against industrial civilization only a week after the Hansen-Farnish-Delingpole furore hits the blogs.

    If a genuine hoax (if you know what I mean), in a strange way I’m rather flattered that this is considered important enough for someone to go to all that effort.

    On the other hand, maybe it is just another old video being dragged out to try to have a pop at any un-American activity, with a bit of global warming mixed in to add interest.

    :-D

    P.S. I’m a really terrible civilian, I know I am; never doing what I’m told, tut, tut!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jon

    I want to lift the debate above the mud-slinging, pathetic ad hominem attacks, and specious argument by authority. The basic rules of logic and reasoning have been known since the Greeks. Educated adults ought to do better.

    No, that’s not true, Joanne. You do not wish to lift the debate. You obviously prefer the debate remain in the gutter, (or maybe under the wheels of Mark D.’s twice-mentioned V8 truck.) This entire blog post is a long, extended exercise in the use of both the ad hominem and the association fallacies, both from you and from your cheerleaders in the comments. “Silence is tacit approval;” you must be silent about your commentors’ use of the ad hominem and other fallacies, least you be an obvious hypocrit on your own website. Climate science is abandoned here to smear a well-known scientific voice on AGW (Hansen), via his tenuous association with a writer in the UK (Farnish), after said writer has been smeared (even using religious appellations, such as “Enviro-Jihad, and “fundamentalist“) as a dangerous, violent terrorist. Farnish, through a hasty conclusion, becomes a “terrorist,” yet to the best of anyone’s knowledge here, he’s not broken any laws, and he’s certainly not killed anyone. Jo, you even allege in one of your most recent comments here that Keith Farnish is a “pot smoking paranoid “activist.”” That’s just a cheap shot, Jo. You might as well call his mum a few names, too, just for good measure. Shoot the messenger again, Jo. Your readers will eat it up.

    “pathetic ad hominem attacks…educated adults ought to know better….”

    If guilt by association were actually valid according to “the basic rules of logic and reasoning,” as strong a case (or stronger) could easily be made for you, Joanne Nova (via Shell and ExxonMobil), being called a terrorist as for James Hansen (via UK writer Keith Farnish) being called a terrorist; I knew no one would call me on any flaw in that reasoning, since that is precisely the reasoning being used to smear Hansen. If you were nearly as honest a communicator as you pretend to be, this blog post wouldn’t exist.

    I’ll wager that I’ll be called “lazy, rude, or mindless,” (do the rules even remotely matter here, so long as we agree with you?) and that my comment will be removed, before anyone here rethinks their position on this Hansen-via-Farnish smear campaign. I mean, now that bin Laden has supposedly chimed in on global warming, the debate is over, right? If I agree with bin Laden…..
    Keep sliding down that slippery slope, you wise and “educated adult.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    America is at war with militant Islam, and he’s advocating domestic sabotage in a time of war. Pretty serious stuff, as in TREASON.

    Americans should be SCREAMING at our elected officials to at the very least fire him, without pay, from NASA, and begin legal proceedings ASAP.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Farnish, Define: Innocent? (only the third time asked)

    Jon, if I may speculate; the “nice gloves” came off somewhere between sociopath and blowing up dams.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ok, Mark D. “Innocent” is an interesting concept I’ll admit – but rather than post a huge lump of text, I’ll ask you to read the last bit of Chapter 13 (“Who Is In Charge?”) along with the chapter called “You Are The System”. Essentially, we are all guilty to a certain extent – following the logic of Chapter 14/15 (depending on the text you are reading) we *are* the system, but we have been inculcated in this, so are innocent by any reasonable sense of the word. At the end of Chapter 13, I do not point the finger at any particular “leaders”, merely point out that it’s a treadmill which most of us would willingly step on if we had the chance. Thus, by implication, by doing what you do, you are innocent – just another player in the system.

    Agreed, I could have been more explicit in defining “innocent”: on the other hand, the legal eagles at my publishers didn’t consider this to be significantly inciteful to worry about (they have to follow the law, even if I don’t like it). After all, if you see an advert saying: “It’s a driver’s car, so DRIVE IT!” you don’t think “Right, I’m going to DRIVE IT into a queue of people!”

    The link people are making between bringing down the Tools of Disconnection, and killing people is tenuous, to say the least. This is my last word on the “terrorism” matter.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    P.S. *I* never suggested blowing up dams or razing cities to the ground. In fact *no one* who had read the book (as opposed to read a hatchet-job article) up to the Delingpole article made this point to me, in any review or on any blog. Considering the book has been out for a year, and the web version 18 months, this suggests that the recent hype is working wonders on all sorts of people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ll wager that I’ll be called “lazy, rude, or mindless,” (do the rules even remotely matter here, so long as we agree with you?) and that my comment will be removed, before anyone here rethinks their position on this Hansen-via-Farnish smear campaign.

    Jon,

    Looks like your comment is still here. And if you don’t like what you see you’re quite welcome to leave.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    “… *no one* who had read the book (as opposed to read a hatchet-job article) up to the Delingpole article made this point to me, in any review or on any blog. Considering the book has been out for a year, and the web version 18 months, this suggests that the recent hype is working wonders on all sorts of people.” — “Keith Farnish”

    Real scholars give references for assertions they make, so others can check their work. Only phony and/or sloppy “researchers” make unsupported claims (sound familiar?), expecting us to take them at their word.

    So, now’s your opportunity (actually it’s passed – this is just the make-up) to “put up, or shut up,” by producing references for a selection of favorable reviews (NOTE – a real scholar would also provide unfavorable ones and explain why they are wrong, but I don’t want you to be unduly demanding, …yet), and providing us the link for the “web version.” Since you undoubtedly have those links at your fingertips, you will have no difficult providing them. Then we can evaluate the material ourselves.

    I do trust you will be more forthcoming with that than you have been with a definition of “innocent?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Louis Hissink: January 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Thanks for that link to Keynes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mr Farnish, anyone reading your book starting at around page 228 would have little difficulty understanding your thinly veiled (legally borderline) intent. If you didn’t mean to promote terrorism why did you write about “sabotage” (including 4 rules for prospective saboteurs to follow) at all?

    Even here in this blog you failed to clearly distance yourself from the assertion of terrorism:

    Keith Farnish #120

    Another commentator was partly right – perhaps I am a terrorist, but not the kind who goes out to kill people, only the systems that keep the destruction machine chugging along. But that’s far worse in the eyes of the law than shooting people or bombing them, which civilization seems to (legally) do a pretty good job at all year round…

    Your post in #210 above that you “never suggested blowing up dams or razing cities to the ground” sounds like back peddling to me. I think the heat might be getting to you? Perhaps your publishers attorneys are calling?

    Maybe even Hanson is calling!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    yonason

    Without commerce, and the infrastructure and social order that facilitate it, there is no civilization. Without laws, there is neither commerce nor social order.

    “…perhaps I am a terrorist, but not the kind who goes out to kill people, only the systems that keep the destruction machine chugging along.” — K.F.

    Destroy civilization’s infrastructure, and people die. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t kill them outright. If more deaths will result from your actions, you are still a killer.

    We have a laboratory in which the experiments have already been done ad nauseam. It’s called “war.” During war, if even just buildings and roads and bridges and rails, etc., are bombed, the people who weren’t initially killed, subsequently suffer and some (often many) die. Doing what Famish advocates makes people worse off, not better.

    Keith Farnish’s thesis is falsified by history, and anyone who subscribes to it is as dangerous as Bin Ladin’s ilk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JP

    Amazing that these people think that the way to save humanity, is to destroy it.

    Wait I just missed the point. Their point IS to destroy humanity. Because they’re worried about ice cubes at the poles.

    We live in a world where people want to commit mass murder on biocidal scales, because they’re worried about ice cubes. God forbid we lose some ice cubes. Can we even ASK for something more delusional and irrational? Could someone even write a fiction with more idiocy?

    Oh wait, yes they could: plant food as a biocidal poison.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Recenze Farnishovy knihy s ukázkami zde: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilizati… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Hansen has an extraordinary history of alarmism and dodgy claims: He has testified in support of the destruction of private property in the name of global warming alarmism and referred to coal rail cars as the equivalent of Nazi [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] has an extraordinary history of alarmism and dodgy claims: He has testified in support [1] of the destruction of private property [2] in the name of global warming alarmism and referred to coal rail cars as the equivalent of Nazi [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Hansen has an extraordinary history of alarmism and dodgy claims: He has testified in support of the destruction of private property in the name of global warming alarmism and referred to coal rail cars as the equivalent of Nazi [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John A. Jauregui

    Pay a tax, change the climate??? Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. DEMAND they take you off their donors’ mailing list. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. Senator Inhofe, the only politician to refuse the GREEN KOOL AID. Senator Inhofe, the only senator to stand between us and the collective insanity of the ruling class of elitist hucksters led by Al Gore. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984”. The mendacity of UK’s John Beddington, Robert Watson and Ed Miliband prove the point. The US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=0b32ab55-8d8a-4d0f-acf2-3aefddf5e261


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well said John.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John,

    There’s no chance that there’s any truth in the healthcare monstrosity. Anyone reading the bill will either recoil in horror or be one who thinks that kind of iron fisted control is a good thing. Those in the latter camp have their heads buried in the wrong place.

    I have sent Senator Inhofe several links to things I thought would give him better ammunition against global warming. I’m giving some financial support to Harry Reid’s Republican opponent in Nevada — who is polling way ahead of Reid at the moment — and I intend to support a Republican candidate for California State Assembly from my district who has started his campaign with a very unequivocal statement of his desire to repeal AB32, California’s own home-grown version of cap-and-trade.

    Is Senator Inhofe facing reelection this year? In California we don’t get such news and I have to work so time is limited to go looking for it. In any case, if Inhofe is up for reelection let me know as I will be glad to provide some financial support.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Roy, it looks like Senator Inhofe won re-election Nov 2008 so 6 more years starting 2009-2015


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    Jo – if the Doctor says smoking is killing me and that’s not what I wish, I must address the cause. If the industrial model functions by poisoning the atmosphere and oceans on which ALL life depends at an ever greater rate, and the likelihood of a technofix for global overshoot are small indeed then, hello… If those controlling the industrial model (some media interests included) are not willing to become informed about what is actually happening and facilitate change, isnt it better to take direct action now than later to at least give life a chance? As John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out (The Culture of Contentment), the fortunate and favoured have shown themselves to be much better at responding to immediate comfort and contentment than their own long-run well-being. How many of us are going to voluntarily de-grow our footprint by at least the required 80%? You? Sorry, but Hansen’s assertion deserves deeper, less reactionary analysis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Lain D
    I thought about being polite because this seems to be your first post.

    Then again I re-read your post and well stick it:

    How many of us are going to voluntarily de-grow our footprint by at least the required 80%? You? Sorry, but Hansen’s assertion deserves deeper, less reactionary analysis.

    Required 80%???? You fool, who says “required”? By what authority?

    “Deserves deeper less reactionary analysis”? Let’s see what would be less reactionary than what Farnish’s book suggests?

    You and all your kind should make a good example and run off the nearest >50m cliff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    To Mark D

    Required 80%???? You fool, who says “required”? By what authority?

    There are plenty, but for a conservative example see IPCC Synthesis Report 2007 Table 5.1 which says to stay within 2-2.4 degrees global average temperature increase above pre-industrial (Copenhagen upper “low risk” target) and 425-490ppm CO2-equivalent concentration at stabilisation, the required change in global CO2 emissions in 2050 (percent of 2000 emissions) is decline between 85 to 50 percent. Further, IPCC is consistently conservative (behind the 8 ball), those of us in the affluent category have more to surrender and the news since 2007 re implications and urgency has been nothing but worse.

    But my main point was that however dire and depressing some may genuinely believe our situation to be, the stakes are so high it surely behoves us to look at the issues and the merits of different options rather than attack the messengers. Jo does not look at it from that point of view and it seems to me, neither are you. If credible science is right and we dont respond adequately then we are all in deep trouble. And if this mass of scientific information and risk has not persuading us to date, then please tell me what will. That surely is the conundrum that the likes of Hansen and Farnish are bravely struggling with.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’m away for a while and I come back to find someone pushing the “precautionary principle”. Let’s act now just in case…

    If credible science is right and we dont respond adequately then we are all in deep trouble.

    The problem here is that credible science is right. It’s very right. But it doesn’t belong to Hansen or Farnish. Their only struggle is how to make two very small minded completely un noteworthy men into someone with power and authority. And of course lots of money as well.

    When I was an 18 year old kid just out of high school I got screwed over and over until I learned that not everything I was told was the truth. I learned to ask some very pointed questions and look for background information, to examine both sides of an argument. Lo and behold I suddenly wasn’t being screwed anymore.

    Iain you really should try a little honest skepticism. It’ll teach you some valuable lessons and you won’t be coming around here being the umpteenth guy who’s getting it all wrong.

    James Hansen is not honest. He’s a fame and power monger pure and simple.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    lain, Please read and heed my last sentence in post 226

    I don’t have time to “learn” you otherwise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    Roy – As you know, Im a new boy on the block and the apparent depth of antagonism toward Jim Hansen by some at this site is both surprising and confusing to me. My experience of him is only through some of his papers and his mail outs. What has impressed me is the apparent quality and relevance of his work (sometimes with colleagues), the absolute consistency of his position and arguments no matter how unpopular (including for example holding much more extreme views than the IPCC), and his willingness to come down from the ivory tower and try and tell laypeople what the implications are.

    It is of course not easy for most people to be certain of the quality of such specialist science, but what has built my confidence is the relentless swing by other leading centres of climate science to closer alignment with his typically more bleak assessments and predictions. In fact, from my reading, it looks very much as if he has almost single-handedly turned global scientific opinion around to accepting the much greater urgency of the situation we face. So the results of his work make me doubt your accusations of dishonesty. And because he is clearly so concerned for mankind, Id also be very surprised if more power, money and ownership are of much interest. But even if they were, I don’t see the significance to the climate change issue, provided his science seeks to be relevant and reliable.

    As for “honest skeptism” its true I have not read specifically on this subject, but I spend much of my time trying to cross-check climate, fossil fuel and environmental trends from the most credible sources I can find in an effort to determine what appears to provide the truest picture of our situation. In fact what I have learned using this approach makes me skeptical when someone calls me “wrong” with out explanation. Perhaps being a “skeptic” is no guarantee of a mind open to reason either? But then I accept (as Mark implies) that the case may well have been made many times before. I wouldn’t like to be wasting everyones time. Iain


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    lain, if I seem ready to “pounce” here on this thread it is true. I’ll give you the benefit for now that you just came upon the site and are in search of true and good information.

    Let me ask please: Have you read this entire thread including the comments by Mr. Farnish? If not please do so and then we can converse.

    It is of course not easy for most people to be certain of the quality of such specialist science,

    His “specialty” is collecting and “correcting” raw data then applying statistical methods to “extract” a global surface temperature. His mission to save the world is likely to have some influence on the results of his “specialty”.

    but what has built my confidence is the relentless swing by other leading centres of climate science to closer alignment with his typically more bleak assessments and predictions. In fact, from my reading, it looks very much as if he has almost single-handedly turned global scientific opinion around to accepting the much greater urgency of the situation we face.

    The concern SHOULD be why is he single handedly able to do this?

    So the results of his work make me doubt your accusations of dishonesty.

    Why? Just because he appears to be a “nice guy”? Actually this statement lacks logic: if he were dishonest it could make the task of changing peoples minds easier could it not?

    And because he is clearly so concerned for mankind,

    So concerned that he would back the likes of Farnish and what he suggests is legal, and moral? What mankind is he SO concerned for?

    Id also be very surprised if more power, money and ownership are of much interest. But even if they were, I don’t see the significance to the climate change issue, provided his science seeks to be relevant and reliable.

    The “seeks to be” is not the same as “IS”. At a minimum, skeptics seek to keep the discussion about the possibility of AGW open and debated. Hanson has moved off of science into policy and politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As for “honest skeptism” its true I have not read specifically on this subject, but I spend much of my time trying to cross-check climate, fossil fuel and environmental trends from the most credible sources I can find in an effort to determine what appears to provide the truest picture of our situation. In fact what I have learned using this approach makes me skeptical when someone calls me “wrong” with out explanation.

    Iain,

    There aren’t enough hours in the rest of my life to tell you all the things Hansen has going against him. What he sounds like to you — that appears to be our argument — is not relevant to anything (unfortunately). Hansen watchers, including a number who contribute here regularly, have a long history of watching him manipulate data in marvelous and mysterious ways that always make his data show what he wants it to show, when in fact it does not show anything of the kind. Let’s begin with this — original data is the authority on what it means. If that data is massaged in some way to make it show something else then the massaged data is wrong and in conflict with reality. Yet Dr. Hansen has done this over and over. One now needs to ask why and the only possible answer is that he doesn’t like what the original data showed him.

    Reality is what it is and doesn’t care what you think or what I think and for that matter, what anyone thinks. And in no case is agreement on a position a proof, much less evidence that the position is correct. Consensus means nothing.

    You have defended two men who advocate violence against property if not people in order to get their way. Hansen advocates trial of “deniers” for crimes against humanity followed by execution. Are these really men you should trust and believe in?

    You say you’ve not read specifically on this subject. I think you should correct that oversight because for as long as the global warming idea has been around no one has been able to show any significant warming of the Earth. Consider — CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is steadily rising and the theory says that temperature must steadily rise with it, yet the small warming that has happened in the past has stopped and the planet recently cooled discernibly. It seems that this gives rise to sufficient embarrassment that they switched the term from global warming to climate change so now they can say, well the cooling is predicted by the theory as well. And indeed they do say just that. And the only way that anyone can show any significant increase in temperature is by cherry picking start and end dates on their graphs and then manipulating the data.

    You seem honest to me, so I hope you’ll take the opportunity you have to read this site and the numerous others that contributors provide links to. You can also look at junkscience.com. Remember that just because someone appears credible, the opposite may actually be true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    Roy and Mark – thanks for your responses. Ive had more of a skim of this string and Im afraid I dont feel that much more informed. Like you, I have insufficient time to read such a lot of stuff. What I was looking for though were links that might back up the repeated assertions that Hansen fudges data as it seems to me that’s the core issue in this discussion. You will be well aware that accusing a scientist in his position of a “long history” of such practice is an incredibly serious matter and quite another level to disagreeing with proposed responses/associations. And, given his influence, it’s very important to expose properly if he is indulging in such practice.

    On the other hand, it strikes me that going out on a limb as far as Hansen has on the back of massaged data would be high risk indeed – never mind the fact that other leading scientists seem to be increasingly acknowledging his consistently more dire assessments.

    So is either of you able to tell me where I can see clear evidence of manipulation?

    And Roy, even tho I have not read the skeptic literature, I take heart that you are prepared to assess me as appearing “honest” on the basis of such little information…:-)
    Iain


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Iain,

    I agree, it’s a lot of reading to catch up on. How much math and science background do you have? I know of a better place you might start by looking at the “evidence” that CO2 is causing significant warming. Here on joannenova you can download a relatively short publication called, The Skeptic’s Handbook. It looks at the basic premise of global warming, that CO2 in the atmosphere can cause unlimited warming of the Earth. You will need to understand only some basic math and how to read a graph to make your way through it and I’m sure you can manage that. It exposes the basic problem with all this, which is that the physics of carbon dioxide make it impossible for it to do what it’s being blamed for. It’s this problem that makes it necessary for Hansen and others to massage their data to make it show what they want it to show.

    And yes, Hansen is taking a big risk sticking his neck out! There is no doubt about it.

    Remember something else that I said previously in less direct words — it doesn’t matter how many scientists say something is true. A theory stands or falls only on the strength of the evidence supporting it. To make an observation that ice is melting, for instance and then jump to the conclusion that the Earth must be warming because of CO2 in the atmosphere is just guesswork. There is no connection that anyone has ever been able to show between one and the other. To justify the global warming scare on the basis of the number of scientists who agree on it is a logical fallacy called proof by authority. The Skeptic’s Handbook shows that there is simply no evidence supporting the theory that CO2 in the atmosphere is or even can cause any catastrophic warming.

    You’ll find the link to it at the top of this page. You want volume 1.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Roy, don’t waste your time.

    lian D., Sorry but being a blogger is hard work. After years of doing it you can tell when someone is trouble. I had that hunch before and your last post confirms it.

    If you even “skimmed over this string” you’d know that it has nothing to do with Hanson “fudging” data. It has to do with Hanson lending his name to a book written by one Radical Keith Farnish.

    You chose this post because you thought no one would be watching an old thread and you thought you could slip in some comment which would go unnoticed.

    You are not being honest and therefore you are a troll. Your mission has been exposed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MarkD you’re absolutely correct.

    Ian you’re a troll. You’re tactics have been used here before. You’re part of the concerted effort by a bunch of you from UNSW and or realclimate.

    “I have insufficiant time to read such a lot of stuff” you say. So you want to be spoon fed? You lemming troll.

    You’re targets are the people who read the posts and comments on this blog but don’t necessarily comment.

    So here is one quick bite size of Hansens fraudulent work for those readers..
    wiggle
    The above is from all the way back in 2001. The fraud has changed his “results” numerous times since. So the man is totally incompetent in that he just can’t get it right (even though he has the might of NASA behind him, imagine if they sent men to the moon with this sort of “quality” data, they’d be charged with manslaughter). He is also a dishonest fraud.

    IainD, now POQ and come back with a different screen name. I await discrediting you again, you lemming troll.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    Roy – Thanks for the link and your thoughts. I have had a quick squiz at Jo’s Skeptics Handbooks. There is no doubt that many of the questions she asks are important and fundamental to an understanding of the mechanisms of climate change and humans role in it. However my view is that they are not “evidence” and really amount to list of questions about the science and opinion on what might be an alternative explanation. If one wants to check sources then its necessary to either look at the list on her website or do some independent research.

    Two points that emerged from the Handbook for me were
    1. The questions tend to be “first order” and climate science could not have gone far if it had not addressed them
    2. The questions are therefore well canvassed in the scientific literature so if one does some research there are plenty of scientifically-based responses based on objective and quantitative methods and analysis, and statistics (ie sufficient evidence is there).

    For example, the scientific explanation that temperatures have not risen since 2001 is because an “upward push by anthropogenic forces was temporarily offset by a downward pull as solar activity decreased and the oceans absorbed more heat than usual from the atmosphere (sea water temperatures continued to rise)”.
    See
    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/warmingfacts.pdf – Figure 1 is graph comparing NASA global temperature with that from the Hadley centre in blue.

    Its also evident that the particularly warm 1998 coincided with an El Nino year. If you take that anomalous year out of the graph in the Handbook, an eye ball of the data is not inconsistent with a steady upward trend (bearing in mind that the slope on the CO2 trend is independent of the temperature data).

    There is also a specific section addressing questions from Skeptics like Jo.

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf

    I did some research to try and find out more about the question on whether carbon leads or lags temperature change and found some interesting historical information showing that CO2 effects on temperature were predicted from theory long before they were observed. See for example
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_0242
    This suggests that the link between CO2 and temperature change is more than the “guess work” you feel it is. While I can see the logic of suggesting that it only takes one person to disprove a theory, the chances of that occurring now have got to be very small given the level of independent corroboration between scientists/joint statements on the fundamentals. Regarding proof by authority, its interesting to me that even Jo still uses that method siting in her handbook supposedly growing and authoritive numbers of individuals who are now skeptical.

    So from the point of view of making some practical progress where does that leave us? A friend of mine said the other day that we still don’t have agreement on Darwin, so what hope is there for anthropogenic climate change. The 30 lag effect on climate change is a deadly trap in this respect.

    So my conclusion to all this is that trying to convince others one way or the other on AGW is now counter productive and we all need to move on. All we need to do is accept that there is now sufficient information supporting AGW (with its ultimately disastrous consequences for life on earth) to pose a significant risk – no more.

    While such risk is clearly much higher, given the consequences of failing to avoid it, even 1 in 10 would be excessive. Personally, I am not willing to take that risk for my children and if all life is at stake, the kind of considerations that Jo lists in her Handbook critique of the “precautionary principle” pale into insignificance (eg less vaccine, more wood fires, more expensive food and electric trucks, lost opportunity etc).

    Increasingly I feel social factors are the issue. I came across the term “identity project” the other day and now I seem them all over the place – including mine. Does my willingness to write this arise from a genuine concern for us all or is it another “project”? Does Jo still genuinely believe the questions she asks are all still valid or are there other motives? Unfortunately, many people cant tell the difference between a climate scientist, a scientist and a science reporter and we all just would love this issue to be a scam. Anyway Roy – thanks again for your trouble – I have learned a fair bit one way or another.
    Iain


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    To Mark and Baa Humbug

    To me the credibility of Hansen as a scientist has a direct bearing on whether it is of any consequence what action he feels is our best option. As I said before, if he is manipulating data then it’s crucial he is exposed. But one graph which jumps between two sets of data without any reference from a site assembled by a merchant sailor is unlikely to convince many that Hansen is dishonest. I also find it difficult to believe that he could keep such practice from his collegues, as it would be normal for teams to work on data and follow up with internal peer review before publication.

    Even if it is Hansen’s data and an example of what he has done, then I would want to know why. Anyone who has worked with environmental data knows that it quite frequently needs to be adjusted to take account of confounding variables to make it more representative, not less. For example, with climate data, I read that the urban stations that Jo is so critical of are thus corrected.

    Jos Skeptics Handbook encourages the seeking of evidence and warns against name callers. So far my guess is she would fail both of you on both counts!

    If you are interested my thoughts on the way forward are outlined in my post to Roy above. Now I might just slope off and find myself a cliff to jump off or a bridge to crawl under..:-)

    And for the record, Baa (if its important), I’m not linked in any way to the organizations you fear.
    Cheers
    Iain


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    IanD you’re not fooling anybody with your bullchit. “I’ve learned a fair bit one way or the other”. Do you think we were born yesterday you idiot?

    Yes I’m calling you an idiot because you insult my intelligence with your charade.

    By the way troll, I don’t “fear” any organization or person, least of all a troll like you.

    Like I said in the earlier post, pi*s off you offensive twit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    liand. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HANSON AND FARNISH, troll!

    This thread is not about the crap you keep bringing up. Shut up or keep your comments on topic!!! see all the other threads if you want to debate the science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Iain D,

    You’ve struck out here. My first response should have been a warning that I wasn’t going to be friendly. You were defending the completely indefensible and pushing the stupid idea of taking action as a precaution. The offensiveness of the precautionary principle didn’t ring any bells. It should have. It’s the stupidest idea there is for policy making. But since you didn’t come on condemning, calling names and pointing fingers I decided to give you a little “benefit of the doubt” and see where you would go.

    When I laid out the extreme position of Hansen and Farnish…

    You have defended two men who advocate violence against property if not people in order to get their way. Hansen advocates trial of “deniers” for crimes against humanity followed by execution. Are these really men you should trust and believe in?

    and asked the question you didn’t even address the question in your reply. And of course you couldn’t. You are firmly in bed with them. You couldn’t agree with me and risk offending whoever is pulling your strings and you couldn’t disagree for fear of offending someone who might just give you whatever you wanted if you played it right. STRIKE 1.

    I called your attention to the opportunity you have here to learn something but you were having none of that either. An honest questioner would do some homework to see what the other side has to say. But not you! STRIKE 2.

    So then I led you to the one little bit of hard science that this whole global warming fraud hangs on and, lets see here…

    Two points that emerged from the Handbook for me were
    1. The questions tend to be “first order” and climate science could not have gone far if it had not addressed them
    2. The questions are therefore well canvassed in the scientific literature so if one does some research there are plenty of scientifically-based responses based on objective and quantitative methods and analysis, and statistics (ie sufficient evidence is there).

    For example, the scientific explanation that temperatures have not risen since 2001 is because an “upward push by anthropogenic forces was temporarily offset by a downward pull as solar activity decreased and the oceans absorbed more heat than usual from the atmosphere (sea water temperatures continued to rise)”.

    You can’t or will not understand physics or even ask a question about it. You just launch off on a lot of nonsense about how many scientists have taken it all into account.

    And then this…

    Does Jo still genuinely believe the questions she asks are all still valid or are there other motives? Unfortunately, many people cant tell the difference between a climate scientist, a scientist and a science reporter and we all just would love this issue to be a scam. Anyway Roy – thanks again for your trouble – I have learned a fair bit one way or another.

    So we see that you’re nothing more than one more attack on Joanne Nova. STRIKE 3 AND YOU’RE OUT!

    It might interest you to know that the material in The Skeptic’s Handbook is not original with Jo. Others who are not your “dreaded science reporters” have published it long before she did.

    Are you familiar with this? Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself. That’s what I did and that’s what you did. So go back to whoever is leading you around with a ring through your nose and say you flunked the test.

    As you go consider this — if Hansen and Farnish get their way how much concern do you think they’ll have for you? Those two will watch you go down with the rest of us and never even notice it. And no, I don’t think you’ve…

    learned a fair bit one way or another.

    You’ve closed your mind and that’s that. Do remember what I just said about Hansen and Farnish. At least learn that.

    Have a nice day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iain D

    Im getting comments back that Im not on topic here when surely the primary criterion for determining what proposed action is reasonable and appropriate depends on our common perception of what is real. As long as the underlying assumption is that anthropogenic GW is not of any consequence, then no sacrifice at all is perfectly rational. It follows there can be no agreement about Hansen and Farnish unless there is sufficient agreement on the level of risk posed by AGM and what is causing it. In that respect, in my post to Roy (# 237) I meant to specifically reference the graph at the American Institute of Physics site (www.aip.org/history/climate). The graph is at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm It shows neatly the relative influence the primary climate forcing factors are having. Persistently rising anthropogenic forcing is clearly evident as are the short term changes in El Nino and solar radition. There is a detailed explanation above the graph which ends with “In particular, the global heating since the 1970s can be explained only by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. Note, for example, how the temperature trend in the first decade of the 21st century was generally flat because an upward push by anthropogenic forces was temporarily offset by a downward pull as solar activity decreased and the oceans absorbed more heat than usual from the atmosphere (sea water temperatures continued to rise).” The graph is from a paper jointly authored by Judith L. Lean, Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, and David H. Rind, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    Now, if we accept that science, what do we need to change to reduce the anthropogenic effect? Will it be more recycling or smaller cars or will it be a fundamental change in the way we live and what we demand? If it’s the latter, realistically, (given the time constraint and deeply imbeded resistance in business and Govt) what will it take to get there? Under this scenario, is Hansen’s call for a system change so unreasonable when the lives of literally billions are at stake?
    Iain


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    lain D. the graph you link to is preceded with this:

    Theorists can calculate the actual influence of each factor, but only approximately. The authors of this model adjusted the weights to give the best fit to the observations.

    Translated this mean “we guessed”. You then claim:

    “the lives of literally billions are at stake?”

    So you think that billions of lives are at stake over a guess? For a while quit reading the IPCC reports. There is more out there than the IPCC.

    Take the time to read more about history, about the rise and fall of great world powers, Read about what propaganda is, read “proof” really means. Then spend several hundred hours reading here and at the several other skeptical sites. After that come back here and play “thoughtful” with us.

    Here are so easy to watch / read sites which will help you if you are willing to learn.

    4 parts utube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DikirPLhHY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related

    Then read this 3 meg PDF and see if you find anything interesting: http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW.Science.2.pdf

    After those come back and speak your mind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    PS the rest can be found here. This is by no means meant to be the whole story. It is a good start. http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Iain D,

    You’ve sure learned a lot of complicated drivel from someone and you’ve shown yourself to be in bed with Hansen and Farnish. I think that just about finishes anything we can do for you.

    The truth about all of this is easy to state in just one sentence. Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all it can and there is no chance that it can do more than a trivial little bit of additional warming.

    End of story. If you keep coming back you’ll just get more like the stuff above.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark D,

    Without knowing where you live I’ll bet you the most expensive steak dinner for two in the most expensive restaurant anywhere near where you live that he’ll not ever be convinced.

    Deal?

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Roy, I believe that is what is called a sucker bet. Besides you know what happened to MattB when he wagered don’t you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark D,

    Couldn’t resist! I’ve never seen a more complicated line of bull than this guy’s. He’s a real dilettante. An elephant couldn’t pull his head out of the middle of that mess. He must study the tealeaves day and night.

    Does he remind you of anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    PS, for the record; the most expensive steak dinner here (which I am fond of) is around $50 USD.

    That may , or may not be the same as the great state of …..where you live.

    And by the way if I win a future steak bet, I’d be happy to travel to your location (On my dime) to experience really good steak!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The best steak house here went out of business when hard times hit and so did the next best. A really fine French restaurant also went by-by.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] – parce que les objectifs n’étaient pas assez ambitieux! (Pour en savoir plus, voyez ici, ici et [...]


    Report this

    00