JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Andy Hoffman admits they’re losing: Fighting skeptics is like fighting slave traders

Andy Hoffman has flown from Michigan to deliver the pop science solution to our atmospheric catastrophe.

You may have thought it was about planetary radiation, or moist adiabatic lapse rates, but Hoffman is here to save you from the waste-of-time science debate. Discussing science with “climate deniers”  is like “talking to a wall” he says. We agree — anyone who denies we have a climate is thick-as-a-brick. Have you ever met one? No, neither have I. The mythical climate denier seems to be causing global warming through their inaction, but no one as yet, can name a single person who denies the climate.

I’m sure Hoffman wouldn’t want to be loose and inaccurate with his words — so no doubt he will find an actual “climate denier” or start to speak English instead.

Perhaps the debate he says he wants, will start when we speak the same language?

It’s obvious the Great Global Warming Scare is unravelling when the losing team turn into sour-puss-psychologists — finding dark mental failings in those too stupid to understand their Gift with The Weather.

When it comes to pop-psychology anyone can play…

Hoffman thinks skeptics aren’t convinced because they are afraid:

MANY climate sceptics do not trust environmentalists because they consider them “borderline communists” who want to curtail people’s freedom, a leading US social scientist says.

Speaking on Wednesday night, the University of Michigan’s Andy Hoffman said US global warming sceptics had “a serious distrust of the political ideology behind its proponents”.

“The fear is that environmentalists are left-leaning, they are socialist, borderline communists, and they are using the government to try to control your freedom,” Prof Hoffman said in the Sydney Ideas lecture at the University of Sydney.

“The expression for environmentalists is watermelons, they’re green on the outside, but they’re red on the inside. That really represents their feeling.”

We think Hoffman is using pop-psychology because he doesn’t have the science. (He will disagree. All he needs to do is phone-a-friend and find that mystery paper — the one that finally shows the models assumptions about relative humidity in the upper troposphere were right?)

Though he seems confused:

“It’s not about CO2, it’s not about climate models, it’s about values, it’s about world views,” the business and environment academic said.

If  it’s not about CO2, that explains why the carbon tax doesn’t work. Will it cool the planet if I drive my  SUV with a different world-view instead?

I can do that… :-)

Once again, those-without-persuasive arguments resort to character assassination and confounding slurs:

Professor Hoffman said a “social consensus” to fight climate change needed to be built, similar to that created in the past to combat smoking and slavery.

(So does that mean finding some evidence to support your case Andy, or were you thinking “Civil War”?)

This about sums up the current state of play:

The losing team are plain flummoxed and confused. They tried to convince the unconvinced by calling them “Deniers” but that didn’t work. Then they declared that 97% of the anointed Gods-of-Climate-Science had seen the light through unvalidated climate simulations.  When skeptics pointed out the models were wrong, the upper tropospheric hot spot was not there, and 7000 quintillion joules of energy were missing, the climate scientists responded that the skeptics were oil funded renegades from the tobacco movement.

At this point the dumb punters became more skeptical.

Not so coincidentally, about then, the pop-psychologists appeared to try to pretend they are not losing.

My favourite line

“One of the most important first steps in engaging the debate is not to blame or mock or ridicule,” he said.

Which is why he calls us deniers right?

 

—————————————————–

h/t To Geoff Derrick

PS: Sorry to Barry. I know we talked about being nice.

PPS: Thanks to the good souls who’ve been donating to my personal account. I didn’t realize it was so busy. Cheers to Keith (x 3!), Rodney, MaxL, and especially Mal, Tom K, and Wes. :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (78 votes cast)
Andy Hoffman admits they're losing: Fighting skeptics is like fighting slave traders, 9.6 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/d2nj5pg

189 comments to Andy Hoffman admits they’re losing: Fighting skeptics is like fighting slave traders

  • #
    Carbon500

    ‘It’s obvious the great global warming scare is unravelling when the losing team turn into sour-puss-psychologists — finding dark mental failings in those too stupid to understand their Gift with The Weather.’
    Ah yes – ‘cherry picking’, ‘strawman’, ‘deniers’, ‘ad hominem’, ‘debunking’ – all terms I’d never come across in all my years in science and technology until I began looking at a certain website which claims to be the font of all wisdom on the subject.
    And the man behind it has even written a book about the psychology of ‘deniers’.
    Need I say more?

    211

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      A commentator on today’s Andrew Bolt website links a “skeptical” argument at the top of which is this quote:

      “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

      Vaclav Klaus
      Blue Planet in Green Shackles

      I once sent an email to the “skeptic” Galileo Movement and recieved a reply thanking me for my interest pointing out that the movement stood for free markets, anti regulation etc etc.

      Most of the so called “think tanks” leading the “skeptic” cause are primarily free market, anti regulation in character.

      If the debate really were about just science there would be very little debate at all.

      217

      • #
        Backslider

        Most of the so called “think tanks” leading the “skeptic” cause

        Most of the skeptic cause is in fact made up of very independent individuals, unlike the green/CAGW movements.

        If the debate really were about just science there would be very little debate at all

        That’s quite correct, considering the lack of science behind the CAGW movement.

        Tell me Philip, what exactly, in your own opinion, is wrong with “free market, anti regulation”…?

        191

        • #
          bobl

          Actually, most of the skeptic base is made up of Engineers, other “Applied Science” fields, and learned amateurs, who have sufficient nous to do a few sums for themselves. I have never yet met a person that has done any real checking of the Math that accepts the consensus view.

          I have raised the point soooo many times with environmentalists that even if solar panels were PERFECT, they still can generate an average (Baseload equivalent)output of maybe 8 Watts (maybe 200 Wh/day) per square meter and you would have to plate hundreds of square kilometers with wildlife, and vegetation killing solar arrays in order to replace one small coal plant, creating an enormous blot on the ecology of the planet. They never, ever get it….

          It’s all Moonbeams and Rainbows with some people.

          Best just to describe how expensive energy, and burning food for fuel kills the poor and how immoral they are, mind you one eco-nut I spoke to said, “Good – The world is overpopulated”…

          Morality… Nah, so old fashioned

          Bob

          220

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Bobl, just what does the efficiency of solar panels or any other engineering or economic or maoral question have to do with the science of climate change?

            The answer, as with whether or not free markets are a good thing, is absolutely nothing.

            114

          • #
            ian hilliar

            Bobl, it is not about moonbeams and rainbows, its about “sunshine from cucumbers”. Have you not read Jonathon Swift’s excellent “Gullivers Travels”? Still very relevant,……after all these years.

            10

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          It has nothing to do with science.

          011

          • #
            Mark D.

            I disagree. One can recognize two simultaneous and synergistic phenomenon.

            Well maybe you cannot, but you could just ask a scientist with no sociopolitical axe to grind like, say, James Hansen…..

            It has nothing to do with science.

            EXACTLY!

            60

          • #
            ian hilliar

            Why dont you actually read Vaclav Klaus’ excellent “Blue Planet, Green Shackles”. It is an invaluable primer from someone who has lived under a real socialist system,and clearly shows the imensity of environmental degradation spawned by that system. All Australian socialists should be forced to read it.

            40

            • #
              Backslider

              But Ian, Tim Flannery wants to throw sulphur up into the sky to combat this very nasty global warming. This is saving the planet!!

              How could that possibly do any harm, he’s is green after all?

              10

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Because Ian, it has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

              You have backed up my point perfectly.

              Klaus was brought out here by the free market, antiregulation IPA. He fronted the National Press Club in Canberra and declared that he did not know about science but knew all about the evils of socialism and regulation etc etc.

              I have no argument with Klaus’s comment on politics and social science or economics, but as he admitted it is not science.

              Yet this is what the IPA is reduced to in its crusade against the science of climate change.

              01

              • #
                Backslider

                So Philip, what exactly is the Australian Climate Commission reduced to with its “Angry Summer”.

                Please explain that, its not science either.

                10

      • #
        cohenite

        Shehan says:

        If the debate really were about just science there would be very little debate at all.

        The science is against AGW; AGW science is based on defective computer models; everyone agrees that CO2 is a Photoluminescent gas under Earth conditions. But that Photoluminescence is governed by Beers Law which means any CO2 ‘heating’ effect is basically exhausted at concentrations of about 100ppm.

        The point is AGW MISUSES science which is why its leading exponents resort to non-scientific methods such as lying, insulting arguing from authority etc.

        200

        • #
          Jon

          CAGW and climate models are based on the UNFCCC. UNFCCC is political desided and that is why CAGW and the models are mostly policy based UNscience.

          80

        • #
          • #
            Backslider

            I asked you a question.

            00

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Backslider.

              My statement was that the IPA is reduced to bringing out someone who admits he does not know about the science of climate change so talks about politics instead.

              The angry summer report discusses scince. Here is a summary.

              http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/

              Key facts:

              1.The Australian summer over 2012 and 2013 has been defined by extreme weather events across much of the continent, including record-breaking heat, severe bushfires, extreme rainfall and damaging flooding. Extreme heatwaves and catastrophic bushfire conditions during the Angry Summer were made worse by climate change.

              2.All weather, including extreme weather events is influenced by climate change. All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago. This influences the nature, impact and intensity of extreme weather events.

              3.Australia’s Angry Summer shows that climate change is already adversely affecting Australians. The significant impacts of extreme weather on people, property, communities and the environment highlight the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.

              4.It is highly likely that extreme hot weather will become even more frequent and severe in Australia and around the globe, over the coming decades. The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events for our grandchildren.

              5.It is critical that we are aware of the influence of climate change on many types of extreme weather so that communities, emergency services and governments prepare for the risk of increasingly severe and frequent extreme weather.

              The emphasis is on the science of climate change, except for section 5 which has a political dimension.

              You may wish to dispute the science, but that would be an argument about the science, not an argument about the evils or otherwise of regulation, which is what Klaus is reduced to arguing about as a result of his self confessed ignorance.

              03

              • #
                Backslider

                Its not science let me give you an example:

                bushfire conditions during the Angry Summer were made worse by climate change

                There is no scientific evidence for this. The fact is that bushfires are worse due to green policies, which prohibit back burning.

                I won’t bother arguing the rest….

                20

      • #
        observa

        For your info from self confessed fraudster and would be board member of the Heartland Institute peter Gleick in his own words-

        “In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.

        This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing.

        For two decades the Institute has been providing unbiased, thoughtful, and innovative analysis and solutions.
        Through our efforts and commitment, the Pacific Institute has become a place where we work effectively with the
        residents of West Oakland one day and the Secretary General of the United Nations the next.”

        Global warming/climate change/climate disruption and now their angry weather certainly wasn’t ever about real science but their new Gaia religion and the politics of it all to gain the commanding heights and get their usual snouts in the taxpayer trough by another means. Same old leftists, different means to the same end and whatever it takes.

        30

        • #
          gai

          And Good ole’ Peter has a SHELL OIL president on board as one of his consultants. Sell Oil’s Ged Davis wrote some of Agenda 21.

          00

      • #
        llew Jones

        “If the debate really were about just science there would be very little debate at all.”

        There is not much debate from the alarmists, scientists or cheer leaders, about the science presumably because the little bit of valid climate science that exists, as distinct from endless debates about inconclusive temperature data, gives no support to climate change alarmism.

        20

  • #
    john s

    I don’t really care if he calls folks deniers, it is in his genes. The statement suggesting that people see fear that AGW is a communist plot is an attempt to paint people’s beliefs as paranoid and nonsensical. I can see where he might want to do that since in his own words it is not about CO2, it is about “values, it’s about world views”. Nope nothing to see here folks.

    250

  • #
    Barry Woods

    there is a risk they enjoy all the attention!!

    ie see Lewandowsky’s response to ‘moon paper’, they might even use it to get more funding :( !

    Focussing on things like Marcott paper, and maybe energy policies, probably better for a more onfence audience..

    Having ‘words’ with my kids (infants) school about Earth Hour tomorrow….. :(

    Barry

    60

    • #
      Robert of Ottawa

      Is it Earth Hour tomorrow? Hasn’t been mentioned at all in Canada. Possibly, hopefully, all that BS has been dropped.

      60

      • #
        Senex Bibax

        You haven’t been watching The Weather Network this week?

        20

      • #
        Senex Bibax

        If you have any children in the OCDSB’s schools, they are getting a full dose of it this week as well (I’m also currently living in Ottawa).

        20

      • #
        ian hilliar

        Nice artcle in The Australian by Bjorn Lomborg on Earth Hour. Dont forget to turn all the lights on to remind people about how much our civilization has achieved. My only problem with that is. whenever I flick the switch and have to wait a few seconds for my light bulbs to slowly generate a dim glow, I always think of Malcolm Turnbull. Thanks TVRNVS MAXIMVS, I for one wont forget you.

        20

  • #
    Backslider

    It’s not about CO2, it’s not about climate models, it’s about values, it’s about world views

    Talk about letting the cat out of the bag!

    We have all known for a very long time that there is an agenda. So it is, with such a huge lack of science they continue down the same path, now openly prepared to attack our values and World views…. bring it on buster.

    290

    • #
      Senex Bibax

      And at the same time, he says US global warming sceptics had “a serious distrust of the political ideology behind its proponents”. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

      70

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        And it’s more than political ideology — I don’t trust the leading identities in the Climatology movement as far as I could throw a polar bear, regardless of their political ideology (about which I have never inquired and know very little).

        They have visibly behaved, time and again, in a devious, underhand, dishonest, deceitful, unethical and amoral way in both their science and their career activities in general.

        I would rather trust Laughing Leo the second-hand car salesman.

        50

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Funny, I’ve always found that trying to talk to a CAGW-advocate is like talking to a “brick wall”.

    Except the brick wall actually listens … … …

    Mark H.

    100

  • #

    “It’s not about CO2, it’s not about climate models, it’s about values, it’s about world views,” the business and environment academic said.

    Right. Exactly what I’ve said, it’s not about the climate at all. Climate is a pretense. My Real Science comment: If this AGW scare doesn’t work, the leftist elites will rebrand and repackage and reposition. Obama’s Science Czar’s John Holdren’s past call (in 1973, before any trumped up AGW crisis existed) to “de-develop the United States” and create a “stable low consumption economy” is the political expression of the leftist dream, and they will push and push for that. Driving it all is secular guilt, and the dream of their own Eden. But the raw feeling of their pastoral fantasy is not dressed in wonkish words such “a stable low consumption economy,” but in a moment of rare candor it is THIS:
    “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt-free at last.” –Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
    They see draconian CO2 cuts as the ticket to fold up industrial civilization, if all goes “well.” But unfortunately, for them, and everybody else, it wouldn’t lead to this Utopian Eden. An Alabanian told the story of what happened to their country with the collapse of communism (and just some supply systems): “Even the trees lining the roads were chopped down.”
    It would be no Garden of Eden. I could say that instead it would be like a Mad Max world — but it’d be much worse. No desert idealism of clean and clean-cut ruffians. Tons of people (at first), and just cutting discomfort, cold, disease, dirtiness, hunger, and violence.
    You’d think at some point, let’s say after severe CO2 caps are implemented, and other problems ensued, people would see it coming, and repeal… But there would possibly be too much inertia, and once a series of collapses begin, it may be impossible to halt the descent.

    120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt-free at last.

      And what happened last time we tried that?

      The occupants of one valley, climbed onto the ridge and looked down on their neighbours, and decided that they had more water, or cows, or something, than they did, so they organised themselves and went raiding. This led to all-out war between the valleys, which required more sophisticated ways of fighting than hitting each other with sticks, and so the technological cycle is born.

      And anybody who thinks that wouldn’t happen, I suggest they look at the recent history of Africa over the last few decades, and the massacres that have occurred.

      250

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi RW

        Yes Africa.

        Ruanda – tens and tens and hundreds of thousands massacred, by their neighbours; the noble savages.

        The first European contact with indigenous natives of southern PNG gave a strong picture of violent raids between groups and this was later re-enforced by revelations in PNG of the activities of the Kooka Kookas.

        The greenie fable of the noble savage living in harmony with nature may have been true , but he sure as hell didn’t always live in harmony with his neighbour and I am sure that any Greenie would not last too long in company of the “noble Savage” so beloved of their dream-time stories; The non white past and environmental bliss.

        We must, by now, know the deal: we are being scammed with the CO2 con .

        The big problem is to stop the madness and get Governments on track to give us a better future, not one chained to a mad dream designed to enslave us.
        KK

        191

        • #

          @KinkyKeith, I have to counter the view on PNG and the “Kooka Kookas”. Spent some time in a Kukukuku village back in the 1980s. Very peaceful and civilised, like most places in PNG away from roads and urban centres. True, while Kukukuku tend to be quite small, even child-like, people probably still avoid getting on the wrong side of them. Japanese were terrified of them. In my time, guy walking down an urban street with a wheel-barrow full of money and two Kukukuku alongside – nobody game to try anything :-) Best people to guard car yards at night as well …
          Back then, “Tribal fights” tended to be more show than lethal. If there was a road in the way, there would be warriors on traffic duty, complete with spear and corrugated iron shield, holding up cars until the volley had gone over, then waving the traffic on with a smile and an “abinoon”.
          One place where, I hope, they haven’t lost their talent for noble savage.
          “Western” societies don’t seem to have any of the required skills. Greenies and urban eco-warriors need to be careful what they wish for …

          41

          • #
            Ace

            If the Japanese were terrified of them wouldnt that be not because they were tiny people but they thought they were gigantic monkeys!

            03

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            I take your point Martin.

            My comment above was from memories of stuff I heard forty four years ago but I remember that, I think it was the kookas who ate human brains and went a little troppo.

            The comment about southern PNG life was based on Missionary reports from I think the late 1800s.

            My father spent time in the islands , TI etc and New Britain and Wewak during WW11 and spoke highly of those native to PNG that he worked with.

            He taught me a bit of pidgin and I went to visit a bloke in Nuku for 3 weeks 44 years back so am familiar with some of PNG but not since they gained their “freedom’.

            While in Nuku locals had a tribal fight: one group walked up from the Sepik and then they all played a game of soccer, before the visitors took off on foot for home; tough people.

            Soccer is obviously a better way to let off steam than the old way.

            No doubt we could learn something from them as we appear to be moving away from reality at a rapid pace.

            KK

            20

        • #
          Winston

          The Utopian fantasy beloved of the Green movement is intellectual masturbation which is attractive only to those who lack analytical skills or insight, are deficient in pragmatic realism, and have no appreciation of history or of consequences of actions. This weakness of cognitive ability was responsible directly or indirectly for the deaths of over 100 million people last century, all formed from a distorted world view and a tragic misunderstanding of human nature.

          This misunderstanding and misanthropy will lead to more deaths from hunger, disease and privation in this century than the last. The only cold comfort one can gain is that those who fervently wish for this social annihilation are likely to be the first to die when recriminations come, which they inevitably will. Sociologists, psychologists, lawyers, and humanities academics have nothing to offer in such a social deconstruction and are therefore unlikely to survive in a dog eat dog survival of the fittest- not an alpha male among them.

          Of course China and Russia will not buy into the ideology either, so what do the eco-nuts expect will occur in the power vacuum when the house of cards collapses? Mass slaughter in the death spiral of our civilisation is highly likely unless the common people in the West can wake up from hypersleep and come to their senses very soon, or the momentum shift will be impossible to overcome. The irony of all this is that humanity was, IMHO, on course toward technological advancement away from heavily polluting industrialisation and fossil fuels within the next 50 years without impractical Green interventions, which are blind alleys away from advancement. No wonder the Big Oil interests are pro CAGW, because they know that solar and wind power will not replace their markets in any more than a token fashion, ever.

          I think, however, that the eco-zealots have underestimated the intelligence of the broader community, who have become inured to relentless alarmism and also intuitively know a scam when they see one, even when reinforced by a compliant and conspiratorial media. Their panic stricken ramblings of late suggest a level of desperation that give one a level of optimism that their meme has unravelled and they have hoisted themselves on their own petard. A return to sensible progress and good environmental stewardship and governance remains a possibility, after looking a forlorn hope only 12 months ago.

          161

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          any Greenie would not last too long in company of the “noble Savage”

          because the tofu and organic mung beans they live on make the taste awful.

          60

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            I meant to contradict you. Greenie’s would be too unpalatable for the noble savage to bother with cooking.

            50

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Grant

              There is a story here on Australia, but can’t vouch for its truth, that Aborigines up north in Qld found white men did not taste too good because they were so salty.

              KK :)

              10

    • #
      Robert of Ottawa

      I often think there are three factions within the Watermelon movement.

      1. The idealists who see the early agrarian civilizations as some sort of ideal – you know, Egypt, Ur, Sumer, Babylon – where the peasant farmers and brewers were happy and ruled by Priests and Kings and the middle class scribes were glad not to be peasants.

      2. The Stalinists who really know what’s best for the people.

      3. The extermists who want a return to Eden, where we, all 100 thousand of us, prance merrily naked through nature eating berries and dying in caves. Fire was a bad idea for these people.

      All are romantics; all are Platonists. They believe the Republic should be composed of the ignorant but happy masses ruled by the Philosophers.

      I could rant further, but I don’t want to bore you all.

      140

      • #
        crakar24

        RoO,

        Feel free to bore us with your rants its better than reading between the lines of GA’s riddles.

        I think you are pretty close with your 3 points above except above them are another group of people controlling them. These people are commonly known as money junkies, they want total control of the system, total control of the money and total control of the power.

        They use or have used the watermelon movement to get what they want and also use them as a disconnect so nothing can be traced back. Think about this, do you think people like Gore and Soros give a shit about the environment?

        80

  • #

    “One of the most important first steps in engaging the debate is not to blame or mock or ridicule.”

    Good advice. He should tell it to Professor Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales and Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland. See them in the first four comments at
    http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract
    getting all excited about the new paper by fellow professor Stephan Lewandowsky (which is nothing but 50 pages of mockery and ridicule) before ridiculing the deniers who they know are going to come along and comment soon.
    Watching a couple of university professors having a giggle about how clever they are … It’s beyond criticism. I’m embarrassed for them.

    181

  • #
    Bob Koss

    OT
    Perhaps someone down under might have some locally acquired information.

    I just followed a link to http://www.john-daly.com/ and it seems to have been suspended. Does anyone know if this will be permanent? John passed away in 2004, but his family has kept his site active. Those who have been around for awhile will remember John as one of the early dedicated GW skeptics.

    30

    • #

      Bob, I received the message, “This Account Has Been Suspended”

      You may want to check Tallbloke’s site. The person who continued John Daly’s work used to post information there on Roger Tattersall’s blog.

      31

    • #

      Bob, it is indeed suspended. It has been for about a week. I’ve already been in touch with someone who lives near where Daly used to, and he is following the trail. Sadly Daly’s wife died about a year ago. He is hoping to find one of Daly’s children. I hope we can get the account restored.

      60

      • #
        Bob Koss

        Thanks for the information, Jo. I also hope it gets restored, though I realize at some point it will not happen.

        00

    • #

      I just heard about this loss at WUWT. I’m taking the initiative, at least state-side, to recover the site. At the very least, I think I can get stuff pretty well through the Wayback machine.

      See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/the-pitfalls-of-data-smoothing/ for comments there.

      00

    • #

      I’m in contact with the content provider for john-daly.com and they have very kindly reenabled the account while we sort things out.

      20

      • #

        Good on you Ric, we’re indebted to you.

        If it’s a matter of fee payment (to keep the site alive) I’m more than happy to contribute whatever is necessary.
        I love that site. I learned so much from it.

        00

  • #

    I don’t care what they do or think – I just like to see them panic. :D

    50

  • #
    Jungle Jim

    “the climate scientists responded that the skeptics were oil funded renegades from the tobacco movement”

    And then when I point out to a warmist that the Sierra Club received funding from Chesapeake Energy, they first try to deny it, and when you confront them with the evidence, they come unglued!
    [If you want to avoid descending into a you-said-they-said argument, I suggest you qualify your statement with a reference or two - it gives you the moral high ground] Fly

    40

  • #

    Please convey my regards to Andy Hoffman and my suggestion that he take the time to read and study for himself the sordid history of the corruption of government science:

    Government policies that were intended only to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Aug 1945 inadvertently ended up trying to hide the source of energy that

    a.) Made our elements
    b.) Birthed the solar system 5 Gyr ago
    c.) Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.5 Gyr ago
    d.) Controls a volume of space greater than ten billion, billion Earths

    http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/fear-and-loathing-of-humans-the-pathology-behind-the-climate-change-movement/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/papp-lenr-superatoms-fusion/

    I.e., post-1945 astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, space and solar science became opponents of religions in trying to hide the energy of the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of elements, lives and worlds in the solar system:

    http://tinyurl.com/ahfx8kl

    Here are recent images of Earth’s heat source – the Sun:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/19/science/space/0319-solar.html?_r=0

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    http://www.omatumr.com

    00

  • #
    johninoxley

    When have the Warmanista’s ever engaged in debate. This is is the first time in their lives anyone has ever listened to their collective psychobabble. Their day in the sun will be short lived.

    70

  • #
    Foxgoose

    At least he got this bit right -

    The fear is that environmentalists are left-leaning, they are socialist, borderline communists, and they are using the government to try to control your freedom

    I’ve lost count of the number of Guardian comment threads where the regulars start out arguing about climate sensitivity & ocean warming – before sliding seamlessly into the urgent need for the overthrow of capitalism.

    200

  • #
    Nice One

    “Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.”

    “I say you are Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.”

    218

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nice One,

      Glad you showed up so early.

      Have you got that empirical evidence for me?

      You know, that empirical evidence (not models) that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global climate change?

      You used to be so sure about that. And now you have descended to using snide one-liners. Can it be that you can’t find that evidence? Can it be that you have nothing left in your arsenal other than weak and childish one-line ad hominem attacks?

      So sad.

      220

    • #

      What are you on about? Just trying to misdirect people again?

      70

  • #
    Yonniestone

    First junk science now junk psychology to quote colonel Kilgore “these people never give up” is an understatement, I have seen and encountered these types usually in media and politics and if your not aware or on your toes they can catch you out or drive you to distraction very quickly, that’s their persona and purpose, a borderline psychopath if you will and they are usually attracted to underhanded ventures such as the CAGW scam, “A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit” says it all really.

    100

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      During the Cold War (yes, I know it is not fashionable to talk about that, but I will continue anyway), both sides of the “conflict” employed the services of Psychologists in order to “better understand the mind of the ‘enemy’.”

      It was a total fiasco. I cannot type Projection with a big enough “P” to describe the outcome. Nothing useful was learnt about “the enemy”, but we did end up knowing a great deal about the various psychosis of the psychologists we were working with.

      You would not want one as a flat-mate.

      140

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Or in a fox hole.

        60

      • #
        Ace

        Rareke…as I recall it was you who expressed dis-fashion upon discussion of the Cold War.

        Actually, military psychology in the 20th century was hugely instructive in various ways. Though I think you are alluding to the late Cold War Game Theory fashion, which isnt psychology anyway. Its a branch of mathematics if conducted by mathematicians and a bunch of shite if conducted by “strategic analysts”.

        But projection, no, because the hall-mark of Cold War popular “analysis” was to ascribe the enemies motives to ones own people. That’s the exact opposite of projection. Its still widely evident today in the determination of “anti patriarchal” (Daddy Hating) campaigners (most of the Left) to ascribe the worst motives of the worst patriarchy in history (its Green, but not in the Eco sense) to their own societies,people and leaders. Ie, Bush and Cheney “did” it.

        00

        • #
          Yonniestone

          I think there’s a movie in this “THE GREENS THAT STARE AT GOATS”

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          as I recall it was you who expressed dis-fashion upon discussion of the Cold War

          True. But if you can’t break your own rules, what are you allowed to do? ;-)

          Perhaps projection is the wrong technical term (I am not a Psychologist), but I remember these “academics” pontificating with, “Well, if I were in General …’s position, I would expect …”,
          when we knew full well that General … was getting advice based on the presumption that we would be getting advice … etc. How do you pick the bones out of that?

          10

          • #
            Ace

            …own rules Rereke…my point was that only you judged your Cold war theme unfashionable, nobody I know of was going to criticise it on that account.

            00

            • #
              Ace

              A good intro to psychology in war is William Sargents “War on The Mind”. He was one of the first psychologists to seriously study battle fatigue. He mapped the paramaters of stress, identified its signs and devised treatments. His sequel “Battle for The Mind” examined Chinese brainwashing and identified how stressors can be used to produce switches of belief, such as Korean POWs returning home ardent Communists.

              00

              • #
                Yonniestone

                Ace, very interesting stuff thanks for the link, people usually don’t link war tactics and such with general life but unfortunately war has bought many revelations and knowledge of human behaviour to the fore.
                Sun Tzu’s musings are taught world wide in military academy’s to good effect, I would like to think of a day when humans don’t have to kill each other to advance our quality of life, maybe we’re fighting towards that?

                00

              • #
                Ace

                Yonniestone…”Battle for The Mind” actually shows how Chinese brainwashing consciously implemented the findings from Pavlovs studies on dogs, specifically circumstances inducing a “paradoxical phase”. Sargent then showed how the Chinese used this on POWs. Then he showed how cults do the same in an un-conscious manner. He used the example of John Wesleys mass conversion techniques. Once you learn to identify the methodology you can discern it wherever it occurs.

                00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    I believe that many of the Green troops at the battle front are very young and inexperienced in the ways of the world and are genuinely Unaware that they are being manipulated by those smarter than themselves.

    I sometimes pass earnest youngsters begging in the street for cash donations to stop carbon pollution by “supporting” greenp$$ce or ww$.

    If these beggars were to become more alert they might pick up that those dollars they collect mainly go towards a relatively privileged few to live life “at the top” making an important contribution to the future.

    In practical terms what this means is that the Executive of places like Greepeace and WWF do not need to actually work like all the rest of us plebs and that the main benefit of the money after “running expenses” is the leave the troops with a warm inner glow at having “Saved the planet’ again.

    I really am sick of being bled by politicians and feel that a real shakeup is needed.

    We have been turned into slaves.

    Can we force the current Federal “Government” to stop borrowing more money to give to their friends and backers.

    This last few months of the current feds is taking on the same smell as the run out of the previous NSW govt that is now appearing in a court near you.

    KK :)

    111

    • #
      Ace

      Remember how many young men went to the trenches of WW1 either because of misplaced idealism or that they feared being one day handed athe dreaded white feather by some daft bitch in the street.

      10

      • #
        Ace

        …if the young are so easily swayed into sacrificing their lives for nothing, then how easily can they be persuaded to sacrifice the lives of others?

        10

  • #

    Why do they worry about whether the climate is changing? Because they (and we too of course) can afford to. It’s a symptom of wealth and leisure. Starving people, as well as ordinary people trying to feed their families, have better things to do than listen to scare-mongers.

    160

  • #
    PUCK

    The Science is settled, thanks to Mr FOIA and skeptical people from all ways of life.
    Skeptics now must extend their concern beyond the small fry, the producers of hockey sticks – mere disinformation props – and look at the real promoters of a totalitarian ideology, of which global warming and CO2 fuss is just a small part, and understand their bent logic and fanatical motivation. Their goal is the control of the world or at least of our Western Civilization.
    A good start would be reading HIGHLIGHTING THE UK ALARMISTS, by moontrekker, blogs Telegraph .co.uk,3/15/13.
    However the real thing is in a publication somehow related to the Club of Rome meeting : The Ecologist Vol 2 No.1 , January 1972 entitled BLUEPRINT FOR SURVIVAL.
    The preface is signed by five dedicated gentlemen and said:” An examination of the relevant information available has impressed upon us the extreme gravity of the global situation today. For, if current trends are allowed to persist the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet, possibly by the end of the century, certainly within the lifetimes of our children, are inevitable “.
    Well, “our children” are middle aged men and woman now,some fighting the good fight and may be called skeptics by the children of the five dedicated gentlemen.

    50

  • #
    Peter P

    “It’s the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe, ah, no that’s it, it’s the vibe. I rest my case.” – The great Dennis Denuto

    00

  • #
    diogenese2

    Is there a link to the full text? What was reported was 3 minutes worth – not much for a flight from Mitchigan. In my experience reporters always miss the best bits because they never understand what is being said and I feel that there was a lot more to this.What is a “social concensus” other than an agreement within the nomenclature.
    It took 30 years of solid nagging in the UK to reduce smoking from 60% to 30% of adults (voters). Even now the there is a conflict between Health and Inland revenue on the issue. Slavery was abolished (in the British Empire) through minority lobbying by a few
    activists – the great unwashed were never involved. There was never a concensus “against” slavery ( of other peoples) anywhere.
    “I do not care if not another slave is ever freed as long as the union is preserved” Abraham Lincoln

    [If you are quoting someone please be certain you have it right. Context is very important particularly with your botched and incomplete quote. Please read:

    I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free

    In the above, Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery] ED

    05

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Nice catch, ED!

      History gets bent only too often and by letting it go we lose things we should preserve and remember.

      I would change one word, “…what he must do in his official capacity…,” sticking to his oath and his job description.

      I wish the current president, who claims to be a student and admirer of Lincoln, actually understood Lincoln and would stick to his oath and job description. But that would be asking for too much I think.

      30

  • #
    handjive

    Quote Hoffman:

    The expression for environmentalists is watermelons, they’re green on the outside, but they’re red on the inside. ❞

    Lewandowsky’s website, “Shaping Tomorrows World” has contributed this timely example:

    We need to design a new kind of democracy where many government decisions are made cooperatively, with multi-party representation and the input of experts.

    Warmist Helen Camakaris suggests that the threat of CO2 is so large that we need “a new kind of democracy” where voters have less power and warmist “experts” have more power.

    (via Tom Nelson)

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have posted this definition before, but here it is again, since it is appropriate:

      An expert is somebody who is cognisant of everything that is currently known about their specialist area.

      Or, to put it another way, an expert is somebody who knows a very great deal about a very narrow field of study.

      And so, the more they know about practically nothing, the more of an expert they become.

      And these are the sort of people whom Hoffman, Lewandowsky, and Camakarsis, would have as our rulers?

      As I mentioned before, you cannot type Projection with a big enough “P”.

      100

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Philosopher Kings – Plato’s Republic is alive and well.

        (How you can have both a republic & Kings is besides me)

        10

      • #
        crakar24

        No RW, the correct definition of an expert is “a person who has made every mistake possible in a very narrow field”.

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Um, if a person has to make every possible mistake before they become an expert, how does that work for skydiving? And what about bomb disposal?

          Just curious …

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Works very well I would think since none but the very few who survive every mistake will make it to expert status. No phonies that way, which is very helpful. ;-)

            10

          • #

            Fools keep making the same mistakes over and over,
            the educated sometimes learn how others have done better than the fools seem to be doing,
            the truly wise learn from the mistakes of others, so they can make better/less damaging mistakes of their own.
            The body of knowledge of how things have gone bad in the past is true wisdom, which is the first thing egocentric people ignore.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            I take your point RW however i believe you are looking at it a little too deeply.

            One cannot be expected to plan for every unforeseeable development if they have not seen it before.

            An “expert” is one who has experienced every possible scenario and therefore can plan for possible events occur.

            To put it in laymans terms RW, there is no such thing as an expert.

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              …there is no such thing as an expert.

              That must be why doctors say they’re “practicing” medicine instead of saying they’re expert doctors. ;-)

              You have it exactly right.

              00

      • #
        mullumhillbilly

        Or concisely; an expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less until they end up knowing everything about nothing

        00

      • #
        Ace

        By that definition of “expert” anyone who WAS an “expert” suddenly ceases to be an “expert” every moment that anything new on their field is published and, moreover, no-one who is dead can ever be considered retrospectively to have been an expert. So by that definition, Einstein was not an expert mathematician.

        The guys an idiot.

        00

    • #
      diogenese2

      the term is OLIGARCHY coined by Aristotle who recognised it as the inevitable evolution of any kind of democracy unless specific measures were used to halt the process. The Athenians would draw lots to select officials. This was recently suggested here to replace the House of Lords. With all respects to Chris Monkton – the suggestion is not without merit.

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Diogenese,

        I understand your point. Unfortunately when you draft someone — which is what you’re proposing — you run the risk of getting someone who doesn’t want the job and won’t pay attention to the responsibility. At least when you hold an election the responsibility for who becomes a leader is in the right place. Then if the people don’t carry out that responsibility adequately the blame is also in the right place.

        And therein is the problem in a nutshell.

        10

    • #
      Tom

      We need to design a new kind of democracy

      Thanks, Handy. One for the vault. I hadn’t realised this dangerous idiot was quite so brazen.

      We need not just a change of government in September, but a very decisive change of government to make sure that Lewandowsky’s bank account, the Australian Research Council, is subject to a forensic audit and is required to justify its funding decisions – many of which are quite outrageous. I want science to be funded with my money, not anti-democratic activism.

      40

    • #
      Joe V.

      The thing about experts is they should know enough about something to be able to form a view of their own which may differ from other experts in the field. Haven’t you heard the one “… Experts never agree…” ? When experts are reported by others to be in agreement, that’s when you should be worried.
      Experts can be fantastically wrong, which is perhaps indeed why doctors prefer to practise ;-)

      10

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Speak for yourself Andy Hoffman. My great-grandmother was a slave on a sugar plantation. It is a tribute to this country that I can be a scientist. The people in this debate who are enslavers are the ones who would enforce economic hardship on us all for a lie.

    140

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Correction, it was my great-to-the-fifth grandmother who was a slave.

      50

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Bruce

        Interesting but 5 greats?

        You must be very young or the generations were adding very fast.

        Perhaps you were speaking of the US which got an earlier start than us or was it Qld after all

        KK :)

        eg

        my gr gr grandfather was a miner in 1863.

        On my mothers side I could probably squeeze 3 greats here in oz because they were here a bit earlier but would need to check.

        11

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        KK – Late 1700′s or very early 1800′s. Abolition of slavery act in the British Empire was in 1807. She was not in Australia obviously, she ‘married’ the plantation owner. That side of the family emigrated to Oz last century.

        20

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Bruce,

          Interesting

          KK :)

          00

        • #
          Joe V.

          ………, it was my great-to-the-fifth grandmother ……

          I’d never heard that way of putting it before . It makes sense I suppose , though ‘… fifth Great Grandmother …’ should do it’ , like eg 21st. cousin etc.

          10

    • #

      Looking back through my family tree, I see a few relatives in the 19th century who were quasi-serfs. They were the ones without a “trade”. Which they were “free”, their reality for most was that they had nowhere better to go than to work the land and to receive eke out an existence on an arbirary allowance.

      If they got lucky with their superannuation plan (having lots of kids), then one or more of their children got more than the basic schooling, acquired a trade or higher profession. But such escapes were rare because it cost a lot of money to escape quasi-serfdom. (In Prussian-dominated Germany, that was called “order”.) Freedom had to be bought.

      Industrialization changed the picture a little. Concentration of industry led to migration which provided a freedom of sorts; but the flux of technological change as well as mines running out of easy ore meant that business failed often to remain commercially viable, so workers often had to move to another town where there were more “modern” prospects.

      30

  • #
    Mike

    Climate Change Parasites are afraid of losing the jet set celebrity status and the boat loads of money that goes with inaccurate climate studies; robbing the public at large, receiving dubious grant money and the money laundered by environ groups to academia that encourages erroneous data, that benefits all. A win, win for everyone involved, except the public.

    It’s a vicious circle of greed and control, that ironically wants to force socialism on the masses.

    Basically, there is nothing a rent a climate scientist won’t do for both power and financial benefit.

    Anyone need a hockey stick?

    Y’all know where to go and sure ain’t your local sports store.

    90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But the sad thing, Mike, is that they are bringing the rest of the scientific community down with them. Your average punter-in-the-street doesn’t distinguish between the various disciplines.

      So the scientists doing the worthwhile research will end up suffering as well. I hope they wake up to that fact sooner rather than later.

      Perhaps this is just one more round of the ancient battle between religion and rationalism.

      90

      • #
        john robertson

        May the circle be unbroken?

        20

      • #
        Ace

        I resent the insult to religion of being compared to pseudo-science.

        At least the Taleban are consistent.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          At least the Taleban are consistent.

          Yes, it’s easy to be consistent when you’re enforcing a system where women are, in fact, property and you can have the young ones of your choice. The rest of us have to do it the old fashioned hard way by exercising actual personal discipline and respect for others.

          It’s even easier when you can simply order anyone who doesn’t toe the line to be summarily executed, even for the slightest mistake.

          Yes, the Taliban have no trouble being consistent. Preacher, heal thyself first! Then enforce religious doctrine on everyone else. But the dictator has no mirror in which to see his own heart.

          20

  • #
    DougS

    As a tobacco plantation owner and slave trading, climate denying oil shill, I take great exception to Hoffman’s remarks.

    On the upside though, nobody’s better than Jo at debunking these clueless loons, who seem to stumble into the AGW ‘debate’ completely devoid of logic!

    30

  • #
    Ace

    I don’t know who Andy Hoffman is…should I…….but I know that only a fool chooses to fight on ground owned by his enemy.

    If he’s worried about slavery, why the f%$&^ does he waste his time with AGW and not campaign to put an end to slavery? Its still openly practised in large chunks of Africa and in Saudi Arabia. They even refuse to sign the UN prohibition on slavery and some of them even bring their slaves with them, as slaves, to Europe and the USA.

    But I appreciate his candour in admitting that underlying our detestation of A$%^&*( like him is not some grumpy obstinacy but a well-elaborated suspicion of their motives. Kind of hilarious that he flags this up by trying to …ahem…deny it. Kind of like someone running up and down the street with two large holdalls screaming “Im not a thief”. He even creates an excellent metaphor for us to use in future, the water-melon indeed. Green on the outside, red on the inside…and mushy, totally mushy.

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I don’t know who Andy Hoffman is…should I…….but I know that only a fool chooses to fight on ground owned by his enemy.

      Ace, I hate to be a contrarian but I would rather fight on ground owned by my enemy any day than on my ground. Let the carnage damage his teritory. What I don’t want to do is fight on my enemy’s terms. That’s what he’s doing and what makes him a fool I think. :-)

      10

      • #
        Ace

        When I used “owned” I meant as in the sense of being controlled by, known and invested. Where one has all the advantage of knowing the terrain and how to use it to ones advantage.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          When I used “owned” I meant as in the sense of being controlled by, known and invested. Where one has all the advantage of knowing the terrain and how to use it to ones advantage.

          If you mean that the terms of the debate, the rules of engagement, have changed. Yes! Where they once argued that the science was on their side they now look for silly ways to explain skeptics under the rug. It may be unintentional but that shift admits that they can’t stand up and debate the science anymore. They aren’t impressing anyone but themselves with their pop-psychology. And we can still fight with the science, factual observations and sound argument — it’s working.

          10

    • #
      Ace

      As I mentioned elsewhere, in current news a case illustrates that Saudis may even have murdered a US judge in the US in defence of their perceived “right” to keep slaves, in the US even:
      http://kdvr.com/2013/03/20/source-clements-murder-investigation-will-look-at-saudi-prisoner-connection/

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Welcome to reality, a reality of fanatical barbarians with no regard for anything but their own opinion.

        I don’t know enough about this case to make a judgment but there have been cases of honor killing and a young woman fleeing to Florida to escape what she fears would be death if she’s sent back home.

        We have to fight this. Live here, live by our laws. Period.

        10

  • #
    pat

    hoffman is just another propagandist, desperately trying to keep the fake left/right paradigm going, whilst ignoring that the rightwing-dominated EU is the only bloc (australia/NZ are subsidiaries) that is implementing suicidal CAGW policies, in particular CO2 emissions trading:

    Andrew (Andy) J. Hoffman
    PHD, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
    MS, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
    BS, University Of Massachusetts At Amherst
    He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of
    Prior to academics, Andy worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency (Region 1), Metcalf & Eddy Environmental Consultants, T&T Construction & Design and the Amoco Corporation…
    http://www.bus.umich.edu/FacultyBios/FacultyBio.asp?id=000642602

    Wikipedia: William Flynn Martin
    As a graduate student at MIT, he was part of a team that prepared ten days of Congressional hearings chaired by Congressman John Dingell on Growth and Its Implications for the Future (Roundtable Press, 1973) [2]. The hearings were in response to the Club of Rome’s report, The Limits to Growth and were aimed at providing the first Congressional hearings on the world economic, energy and environmental outlook and the need for sustainable growth strategies. He was also part of an MIT engineering group that produced a volume for the United Nations Environmental Program on resource materials for studies in environmental management. He is co-author of the report, Professional Materials for Environmental Management Education (MIT Press, 1975). These publications were induced by the first United Nations conference on the environment held in Stockholm in 1972 and headed by Maurice Strong who said of Growth and Its Implications for the Future, “This small volume summarizes much of the important work going on today with regard to global survival…I know of no other publication to date which emphasizes more systematically or extensively, and in such readable form, the interacting relationships amongst diverse fields.”…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Flynn_Martin

    CSIRO: Examining the limits to growth
    The Limits to Growth, published in 1972, was a landmark publication when first released, one of the first studies to link the world economy with the state of the environment. In this podcast, Dr Graham Turner talks about his recent study that validates one of the book’s key scenarios.
    11 November 2008 | Updated 24 November 2011
    The book ‘The Limits to Growth’, grew from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study commissioned by world think-tank The Club of Rome to model scenarios for the future global economy and environment and recommend far reaching changes to the way we live to avoid disaster…
    A new study from the CSIRO examines the then ground-breaking modelling used for the book, which forecasts a global ecological and economic collapse coming up in the middle of the 21st Century, and finds the forecasts to be on-track…
    Read more about Reducing consumption key to a sustainable future (Media release 11 Nov 08)…
    http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Growth-Limits.aspx

    20

  • #
    pat

    May 2012: Guardian: With 20 EU member states now under varying degrees of rightwing government, Europe has rarely been more blue
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/jul/28/europe-politics-interactive-map-left-right

    Euromed Management: The Club of Rome to the UN… history of a concept
    In 1972, based on research work carried out at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology the Club of Rome – comprised of intellectuals, humanists and scientists – presented the first method to determine the dynamic behaviour of complex systems (System Dynamics Model)…
    Promoting a zero growth policy, the Club of Rome also warns against uncontrolled progress: “Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress”. During the same period, Ignacy Sachs and Maurice Strong introduced the concept of eco-development, which integrated the notions of social equity and ecological prudence to the commonly admitted concept of purely economic development. During the 1972 Stockholm Conference, these different works and surveys led to the creation of the United Nations Programme for the Environment, complementing the UNPD (Development).Several environmentally focused NGOs, such as Greenpeace, were also created in the ’70s, and many national associations joined forces to form larger organisations.
    Together with industry, these NGOs are amongst those who have most benefited from globalisation. Taking advantage of the development of new communication means, NGOs quickly gained important economic and political power: the number of NGOs recognised by UNO soared from an initial 40 when the United Nations was created, to 180 in 1968, 744 in 1992, and approximately 3000 today. Even though their objectives are quite different, their structure and budgets are nowadays, in many ways, comparable to those of multinational companies. The annual budget for the 15 largest NGOs is in the order of several thousand million dollars! For 2005, associations such as Greenpeace, the WWF or Nature Conservancy possessed budgets ranging between 200 and 600 million dollars, enabling them to spread their influence throughout the world.The general public is beginning to grasp the consequences of the development of Northern countries to the detriment of emerging countries, as well as the first industrial pollutions (oil slicks, river pollution, etc.)…
    http://www.euromed-management.com/en/RESEARCH%20%2526%20VISION/Responsible%20Managers/We%20are%20all%20concerned/The%20Club%20of%20Rome%20to%20the%20UN…%20history%20of%20a%20concept

    10

  • #
    Ace

    You are all so sure the Green era is ending.

    Why?

    I don’t see any evidence for it.

    30

    • #
      crakar24

      Ace good comment, i think from a scientific perspective the era is over, well it was over some years ago but the acknowledgement has finally arrived.

      However as we all know the science got left behind many years ago, i believe the tether was cut with the change of name from global warming to climate change. AGW inferred a scientific approach whereas CC was more a religious approach the planners have been very clever and a lot of ground work has been done to ensure a smooth transition.

      A possibly scenario might play out like this:

      Warmist preacher: Yeah so what if we got the CO2 causes warming theory wrong, CO2 still causes acidification, still causes climate extremes etc…etc…etc.

      So if the science changed everything else remains the same and the bandwagon rolls on. A good example is myself and a fellow contributor are having a debate with others away from this site about the merits of wind farms etc and no matter how much evidence you provide their mindsets are not changed until a point where they lose the plot and revert to smears and assertions.

      Nothing will change the era will be extended………….

      40

      • #
        Ace

        I havent watched TV in many years but back awhile I saw a fabulous illustration of this. Jonathan Miller and some other biologists (I cant remember now, but they were famous figures I recognised at the time, I think Susan Greenfield was one) shared a TV round-table with some moonbat who had written one of THOSE books. First we all saw the little film precis of her argument, all the usual crap about Mother Earth. Then the egg-heads sat there and ever so politely explained how everything she believed was rubbish. She brought up point after point and each point, very politely they explained the errors in.

        Each time she acknowledged the mistake she had made. It was an exceptional programme, first for allowing these figures to put the scientific view. I think because Jonathan Miller isnt just a scientist but, this is the daft way the media world works, an artist. Also, back then, Greenfield had nice legs or something like that. So Miller was allowed to speak scientifically in detail because he is best known to the producer as an opera director. Secondly it was amazing how the moonbat gave up on every substantive point.

        Then, finally, having taken her argument and everything she believed apart, all they could do was shake their heads (literally) and roll their eyes, smiling, as the moonbat said…BUT, I still believe we are killing Mother Earth (or words to that effect).

        10

        • #
          Ace

          …I think she was called John Brookes.

          00

        • #
          crakar24

          Maybe Conroy can bring in a law to stop fictional books from being published until a government appointed independant body can re write it to fit the government agenda?

          Oh……….yeah i see the flaw in that statement, never mind.

          10

  • #
    pat

    jail for some:

    19 March: UK Daily Mail: Leon Watson: ‘Black Dragon’ cyber-criminal who tried to hack into UN computers to steal £6.5million of carbon credits is jailed for three years
    In one deal, he stole credits for a broker who sold $89,000 worth to BP
    Matthew Beddoes, 32, created a rogue ‘Trojan’ programme he called Zeus to transfer 426,108 Certified Emission Reduction credits from an account on the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism Registry in Bonn, Germany…
    Beddoes then targeted the Spanish Carbon Credit Registry and 350,000 European Union Allowances were transferred to a UK broker, who sold $89,000 worth to BP before the remainder were frozen…
    Beddoes received £6,250 for the smaller sale of carbon credits to BP…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2295948/Black-Dragon-cyber-criminal-tried-hack-UN-computers-steal-6-5million-carbon-credits-jailed-years.html

    no jail time for those cheering on the “fixing” of the CO2 trading market:

    EU carbon jumps 13 pct as support builds for ETS fix
    LONDON, March 20 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon rose 13 percent on Wednesday after Hungary’s support for market intervention and a relative dearth of fresh auction supply encouraged speculative buying, traders said…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2230680?&ref=searchlist

    00

  • #
    Tim

    If Monckton can regularly address Agenda 21 as the basic driving force behind the warmist movement – why doesn’t Hoffman utter the words?

    Surely this critical subject came up at one of his meetings with consultants / psychologists/ PR experts when defining his media strategy?

    30

    • #

      Hoffman is probably leaving Monckton alone as a plot to ridicule sceptics without having to do the work himself.

      23

      • #
        crakar24

        I dont understand GA, is Hoffman intentionally not mentioning A21 because it is a non existent fallacy concocted by non believers and promoted by Monkton or is he not mentioning it because it is too difficult to explain away as a non event?

        Please explain.

        Cheers

        41

        • #
          Tim

          Crakar

          Suggest you check out your ‘non existent fallacy’ on You Tube:

          ‘Agenda 21 for Dummies’

          10

          • #
            crakar24

            Tim,

            I was suggesting to GA that Hoffman might think of it as a non existent fallacy, i believe it to be a fact………..but then again i think there was a second shooter on that fateful day in Dallas.

            Cheers

            10

            • #
              Mark D.

              i think there was a second shooter on that fateful day in Dallas.

              There had to be. A bolt action rifle and at that distance……

              Oops off topic.

              20

            • #
              Tim

              Crakar

              Thanks for sorting that out. I got a bit annoyed with the trolls and scored a home goal.

              00

      • #
        Winston

        And so, Gee Aye,
        Are you
        1. asserting that CAGW and Agenda 21 have nothing to do with one another? And
        2. saying that Agenda 21 is not the natural consequence of, and ramification flowing directly from, belief (or more accurately perhaps the purported belief) in CAGW? And are you also suggesting that
        3. Hoffman would not be an ardent and uncritical advocate for Agenda 21 measures in their entirety?, and that
        4. he would not gladly implement a “new kind of democracy” to achieve it?

        PS. Try being explicit for a change, rather than merely ridiculing the opinion of others without having the decency to assert your true beliefs on this important subject for the rest of us to scrutinise. I would suggest that is intellectually dishonest (much as Hoffman is being) to not put your cards on the table in that regard and enlighten us with your wisdom, since you clearly must have thoughts on these important societal topics. All CAGW advocates, including your good self Gee Aye, that I’ve seen seem curiously to lack the ability when pressed to fully express precisely what they propose as an alternative social construction to existing Western democracy, instead couching it in the vaguest terms lest anyone might actually guess what change they might actually advocate. Is it “the love that dare not speak its name”, to paraphrase Queen Victoria?

        70

        • #

          Seriously. The man gave a speech and didn’t mention one conspiracy theory. He didn’t mention hundreds of others. I wonder if that had to do with time and relevance?

          05

          • #
            crakar24

            Seriously, the man gave a speech about why most of the worlds population think AGW is a non existent entity and he did not mention one scientific fact in support of his proclimations. It must have been due to time constraints because surely it would have been relevant.

            50

          • #
            Winston

            Seriously,
            A man who evades direct and pertinent questions, does not have the courage of his own convictions, nor the honesty to expose them in a forthright manner to others lest he be ridiculed, is barely a man- seriously!

            So, from your response then, might I infer that you are suggesting that there is no such entity or regulatory framework as UN Agenda 21, it has nothing to do with sustainable development and a low carbon economy, and it is conspiracy theory to discuss its objectives, let alone whether it has validity or whether adequate safeguards as to its potential misuse have been undertaken?

            You really are a piece of work, buddy.

            20

            • #
              Gee Aye

              Show me the conspiracy.

              04

              • #
                Winston

                You are the one asserting a conspiracy, Gee Aye, not I. To suggest that Agenda 21 as it is formulated is a seductive paradigm that is inherently attracive to sociologists like Hoffman, other tenured left wing academics and many extreme environmentalist Malthusians by its very nature requires no conspiracy theory ideology, just observational skills and personality assessment.

                All it requires rather than a conspiracy per se is a supranational governmental body ( the UN – do you deny it exists?) with designs to increase its sphere of influence ( do you deny the UN has designs to increase its dominion?), and an inherent desire common to all socialists to gravitate to totalitarianism takes care of the rest.

                Any cursory examination of history will reveal this tendency is the common denominator among all Marxist ideologues and their various succeedents. Agenda 21 via ICLEI has infiltrated and influenced local councils across Australia including my own – do you deny this is a form of governance and influence by unelected officials with no democratic mandate? This information is freely available on the Internet so no need to be obtuse. So, what examination and due diligence assessments have been performed on these initiatives and why are they not transparent, open and honestly discussed in public fora?

                So, I say to you Gee Aye, show me whether you are in favour of Agenda 21 initiatives or not, and do you see any potential at all for such initiatives to be open to abuse or malfeasance by unelected, unaccountable and largely invisible bureaucrats who may or may not have our health and welfare at heart?

                40

              • #
                Streetcred

                … Show me the empirical data supporting your warmistas theories. Please no model output / projections / predictions / etc.

                10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Gee Whiz

        I’m disappointed that you have gone below the belt.

        Shame GA

        KK

        20

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Sorry but it was a parody. The statements about conspiracy were all about what was not said. Putting significance on what was not said so as to support your own beliefs is sure to bring derision. My point was to point out how easy it is to dismiss, rightly, such stupid and weak arguments. My point was that, not saying something in a talk is not evidence of anything.

          21

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Well, it might take me day or two to unravel all of the double negatives but I’ll give it a go.

            KK :)

            30

            • #

              when you do, don’t be surprised if you find that as a result of my late night (for me)writing there are some internal inconsistencies!

              10

  • #
    RoHa

    The Royal Navy did most of the hard work in the supression of slavery. Does Hoffman want to send it out against us?

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    Hoffman blathers of US skeptics having:

    “a serious distrust of the political ideology behind its proponents.”

    He is perhaps partially accurate as fervent and unquestioning belief is a required feature of post modern scientific methodology, which it appears is more readily shown by a political elite more willing to embrace philosophies desirous of redistributive impoverishment.

    Nevertheless, one cannot deny the permeating odour of truth. Hoffman and his ilk are loosing hearts and minds and the threat drum is all but broken – or the threatened are suffering from noise induced hearing loss. So, the ‘left of centre and vaguely progressive’ Grauniad would naturally spin the European Mega-state to be ‘rarely more blue’in the face of the current economic collapse characterised ather well as ‘running out of someone else’s money’. Predictably, The Grauniad would need to ratchet up political fear in its typical readership as the climate fear mantra continues to stall ever more steeply.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    The good thing about the denizens of this blog is that if global warming becomes a serious problem, you guys will change your minds and join the effort to reduce the warming and minimise the harm.

    But right now, its all agenda 21,misguided zealots, useful idiots, and corrupt scientists. Hope my paraphrasing of your position hasn’t omitted any important detail :-)

    119

    • #
      crakar24

      Ah so WATTS kicked you out and now you come crawling back here to smear and denigrate oh to walk a mile in your shoes.

      Actually John the biggest problem with your comment is not the smears and the denigration but the use of the word “IF”.

      IF the dog did not stop for a shit he would not have been hit by the car whilst crossing the road.

      IF AGW becomes a serious problem…………….so you acknowledge it is not a serious problem and for all you know may not even be a problem in the foreseeable future.

      And yet after making this admission you still find the time to abuse, just for the record.

      Misguided zealots are the Labor and Green MP’s.
      Corrupt scientists work at the UEA and GISS to name a few and,
      The useful idiots………. well thats you John.

      Now crawl back into that dingy office of yours over there in Perth to continue corrupting the youthful minds that happen to pass by.

      132

      • #
        Streetcred

        “dingy office” ? No, crak’ you mean get back behind your counter ! Only academics get offices, some anyway.

        00

    • #
      Manfred

      if global warming becomes a serious problem

      Is ‘serious’ less than catastrophic and greater than ‘small’?
      Could a definition in quantitative terms of: ‘serious’, ‘warming’ and ‘harm’ be offered please?

      You ‘identify’, ‘reduce’ and ‘minimise’…. sounds very like the health and safety mantra of another Ministry-of-We-Know-Best…. are you by any chance an H&S rep?

      40

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        I am and I can assure you I dont subscribe to that mantra.

        The workers know best and good safety management is about consultation. Talk to the workers, see how they do things and how they think safety is best managed, then put their thoughts into procedures they can work with and that ensure their safety.

        HSE management is NOT about being dictatorial, in fact thats the road to failure and injuries. Let people think for themselves and provide them with the support and resources to work safely.

        40

    • #
      Backslider

      JB – you missed one very important one: Lack of science.

      if global warming becomes a serious problem

      That’s a big IF JB, so my questions to you are:

      What warming? (besides natural)

      What harm? (You do know that the World is seriously greening, don’t you?)

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        “You do know that the World is seriously greening, don’t you?)”

        Come off it.. the only thing JB ever reads is his inane scrawlings on his padded office walls.

        30

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      Mr. Brookes:

      Just curious: are you aware of the various atmospheric parameters which the common GCM’s set to zero?

      O/T:

      Rereke: Many apologies to you, but being on the wrong side of the Big Pond, I am at a loss on how one pronounces your name. Are you able to supply a phonetic for it? (native English speaker)

      Thanks,

      Mark H.

      40

      • #
        crakar24

        I am bored so i will have a go, spent 6 months in NZ so here goes.

        Rereke Whakaaro

        Re-ree-key, thats the easy part, there is a town in NZ called Whakatana or something but it is pronounced Phukatana as is Phuket but could be spelt with an F when i first heard this pronunciation on the radio i thought the guy said a swear word but apparently not (very funny at the time).

        However i believe RW’s last name would be pronounced Wuk-car-ro, of course i may be wrong, people get my name wrong all the time and it is a very old Irish/Scottish name.

        20

        • #
          Mark D.

          I always though it was a sport with a stick and those critters with a pouch were the game.

          Whack a roo?

          Sorry, I’m on the wrong side of the pond too.

          10

          • #
            crakar24

            There is no sport in whacking a roo they will just sit there or slowing hop away (not the brightest) although i would be reluctant to hit a big male red roo with anything they stand about 8 feet tall and have big claws.

            No roos in NZ………….

            20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Crakar is close.

          Maori had no written language (but several spoken dialects) prior to the early missionaries arriving in Aotearoa (Ay o tea ar o are).

          The missionaries wrote down the Maori spoken language phonetically — as they heard it. The Wh should therefore be pronounced as a soft blowing sound from the back of the throat, as in the English who where why and what. Prior to colonisation, the English “f” sound, as formed by blowing air through the front teeth, was not used by Maori. Some modern-day Phoneticists dispute this.

          But common usage over the intervening century and a half, and the difficulty that some Pakeha (Pa key ha), otherwise generically known as Europeans, have in pronouncing Maori, has changed the pronunciation of the Wh into the extended “fa” sound. Now, both pronunciations are used.

          So the short answer to the question is: “Rey-rey-kay Wha-kar-ro”, with the “Wha” coming from the back of the mouth, as it does in the English word “What”.

          Now there will be other New Zealanders, of both races, who will disagree with me over this, which is why I have been reluctant to explain. If there are, can I suggest that we defer that discussion to the next Unthreaded Weekend? As a guest, I do not want to annoy, or be rude, to our host on this blog — it is a Maori thing.

          (This comment postdates my comment at 32.4.2, which was a flippant response for which I apologise. In my defence, it was late, and I was tired, and did not exactly know how to answer the question put.)

          10

          • #
            Mark Hladik

            Many thanks! Excellent explanation. I admire many of your posts and “thumbs-up” them when I can.

            Mark H.

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        When I am writing it, I pronounce it as Rereke Whakaaro, as would most Maori, and other New Zealanders of european extraction. I don’t see any problem with that. :-)

        00

    • #

      Hmm John, you say here:

      But right now, its all agenda 21,misguided zealots, useful idiots, and corrupt scientists.

      I guess that makes me a misguided zealot, and that being the case, it would surely be the duty of people like you to come in and refute anything I have to offer.

      Hmm! I wonder why that hasn’t happened.

      Tony.

      40

    • #
      Sonny

      It’s climate change now you twit. Get with the program.

      10

  • #
    old44

    Does Andy Hoffman’s comments mean that he sees the warming lobby as slaves, rather than the morally correct English middle class who fought and then brought down slavery?

    20

  • #
    George Daddis

    Backslider and Eric
    You beat me to it. I am not a psychologist (although my wife is one) I think the relevant term here is “projection”.
    My own uneducated view is that “social consensus” has nothing to do with science.

    20

    • #
      Backslider

      “social consensus”

      Now there is a dangerous concept…. think about it (especially you John Brookes). This is the core principle of the CAGW movement, to ensure that all think and believe the same, or otherwise be appropriately ostracised.

      40

  • #
    macha

    This whole CAGW issue is about energy. and now I see the alternatives might cost more – even to those that signed up to the supposedly “greener” option.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/16410796/solar-panels-may-cost-all-households/

    oh, the irony.
    PS anyone tell me how they clean their solar panels? especially if installed on a two storey house? imagine the up keep if living close to the coast (evening salt spray). oh, wait…that’s a high proportion of the Perth population…doh!

    20

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “It’s obvious the Great Global Warming Scare is unravelling when the losing team turn into sour-puss-psychologists”

    So well said and I have always found the signature of someone losing an argument is when they turn it to personal attack as with John Christy et al. Forget the message, forget his qualifications, just bash him for being religious or having a non conventional (by their standards) opinion.

    Solid evidence doesnt need much argument, thin evidence requires all sorts of side tracks and bunkers to disguise it. So weasle words and personal attacks are the stock and trade of warmists with a political agenda trying to make scientific arguments.

    Great article, thanks Jo.

    20

  • #

    The leadership battle is on.
    Who will be Australia’s PM tomorrow.

    Comments on that moved to this new thread.

    40

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Will it cool the planet if I drive my SUV with a different world-view instead?

    Of course it will Jo. Greenies get away with it all the time ;)

    30

  • #

    Social science was invented so that the feeble minded could play at being scientists. Allegedly from The Devils Dictionary.

    10

  • #

    “The fear is that environmentalists are left-leaning, they are socialist, borderline communists,..”

    Really? I wonder how many AGW alarmists would sign onto the following observations – and how many “deniers”:

    Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive appearance of things.

    All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.

    The product of mental labor — science — always stands far below its value, because the labor-time necessary to reproduce it has no relation at all to the labor-time required for its original production.

    In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific inquiry meets not merely the same enemies as in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the material it deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest.

    (Incidentally, all the quotes are from Karl Marx)

    00

  • #
    thingodonta

    Yeah when I first read this, I could add that there is another thing Professor Hoffman failed to mention that, besides distrust of those from the left, skeptics think that alarmists seem totally unable to see the inherent WEAKNESSES in their arguments, much the same as communists once did, or for that matter religious people.

    Communists were so sure of their cause that they were willing to bankrupt and destroy their own countries in order to promote communism, which was never based on any understanding of economics or human culture to begin with, and religious people are so sure of themselves that they…well where does one start. The point is, in which Professor Hoffman seems totally unable to understand, is that the science is NOT at all clear that anything about c02 emissions needs to be curtailed or changed. Variations in climate to date may be almost entirely natural (and mostly caused by changes in the sun since the Little Ice Age, including multi-decadal oceanic and heat lag effects), something that most alarmists fail to see as even a possibility.

    And until their science is less muddled, less politicised, and more in accord with observations, such as the current pause in warming coinciding with lower solar output since the late 20th century, and also with the fact that the Pacific Ocean has now gone into a negative cooler phase, which are both natural and entirely consistent with observations, whereas the alarmists models which emphasise human activities are NOT consistent with observations, and have failed to predict the current temperature standstill; as long as these sort of empirical and verifiable observations are not in accord with alarmist climate models, the skeptics of human caused climate catastrope will remain skeptical of the degree of dangerous human influence on climate, for entirely good and scientific reasons.

    If climate sensitivity is low, around 1 degrees per doubling of C02, then one doesn’t need to do ANYTHING about curtailing human greenhouse gas emissions.

    Skeptics also have a different perspective on human nature, human bias, and human history; they think that the alarmists have put the ‘ought’ before the ‘is’, that is, they think alarmists view something as true because it has a moral or social value, and that if is only partly true, or difficult to prove, then it is ok to upgrade it to be much greater in significance then it really is, and not because it is indepedantly true. Skeptics also think alarmists are wedded to socio-political causes, and tend to think that is is ok to alter or direct the ‘science’ so as to match a moral cause.

    Well, skeptics see things very differently, and quite rightly point out that such a process is a political process and not science at all, and that science’s strength has always been based on empirical, verifiable and reproducable observations and the experimental method, not far flung models and non verifiable scenarios, and also that empirical science cuts through such political processes and supposed ‘moral’ and ‘social’ values, which too easily masquarade as political gain. Skeptics moreover think that humans are inherantly biased and can’t be trusted, and relying on people guided by the moral ‘ought’ is a process that sometimes only leads to human catastrophe, which they think in this case is much more likely than any climate catastrophe.

    But I wouldnt expect Professor Hoffman to go into this sort of detail, much simpler and easier to just assume the science is already correct, and argue about some sort of vague ‘values’.

    80

  • #
    tckev

    “Andy Hoffman admits they’re losing: Fighting skeptics is like fighting slave traders”

    This comment from someone that wishes to enslave the developed world by reason of an unproven hypothesis of CO2 causing climate problems.

    Andy Hoffman – it’s an unproven hypothesis driving your slave trade to poverty for the many.

    00

  • #
    lurker passing through, laughing

    ““It’s not about CO2, it’s not about climate models, it’s about values, it’s about world views,” the business and environment academic said.”
    AGW is a social movement that has gone very rancid.
    Physics does not care about one’s values or views.
    The AGW clowns have had control of the mic long enough.

    20

    • #
      Sonny

      “It’s not about science, it’s about politics and ideology”,

      Finally an alarmist who is making some gosh darn sense!

      30

  • #
    Another Ian

    From http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/nothing-borderline-about-it/


    Nothing Borderline About It
    Posted on March 20, 2013 by stevengoddard

    “MANY climate sceptics do not trust environmentalists because they consider them “borderline communists” who want to curtail people’s freedom, a leading US social scientist says. Speaking on Wednesday night, the University of Michigan’s Andy Hoffman said US global warming sceptics had “a serious distrust of the political ideology behind its proponents”.

    Climate change a values problem: expert | The Australian”

    Nothing borderline about it. These people fantasize about human extermination.

    h/t to JunkScience.com”

    10

  • #
    Backslider

    he said giving climate deniers more scientific evidence was like “finding yourself talking to a wall, they’re not going to hear it”.

    Here we go, more “climate deniers”. I suppose that yes, if somebody is so crazy to not believe in such a thing as climate, its going to be difficult to convince them of anything.

    Oh, I know who you mean really, its us, the “CAGW Skeptics”. Thank you.

    The problem for you sonny is this: We are in fact screaming for scientific evidence, but it is not forthcoming from the alarmists. Show us some real science and we are more than happy to look at it.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Ace

    I think his biggest own-gaol is still to bring up slavery.

    Slavery never ended. It thrives in much of the world. Why doesnt Hoffman direct his efforts at that? The left will not, because of the cultural identity of those responsible. Thousands of girls have been made into sex slaves in Britain over the past decade and it took many years of campaigning to get the police to address the issue. They feared the charge of “racism”. People like Hoffman do not want such cases ever to come to light. Indeed, Hoffman and his pals are SLAVERY DENIERS.

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Slavery

    20

  • #

    [...] contrarians such as Jo Nova lost no time rejecting Professor Hoffman’s argument as ‘pop psychology‘! Ironically, perusal of her blog and its commentators (with reference to ‘losing [...]

    00