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

Bloomberg tells business leaders to say climate change is real or risk “survival”

The 6th richest guy in the US and the head of a major media corporation made it clear last December:

No CEO could survive if they tried to say climate change isn’t real,” Bloomberg said, offering a suggestion for why Fox News rarely features business leaders to tout climate sceptic positions.                |      BusinessGreen Dec 4th 2015

What about business leaders who just have a few doubts? He’s got that covered too:

“You don’t sit there and say ‘I’m not sure it’s a real risk’. Bloomberg said.

Apparently the Big Fear of  Michael Bloomberg and Mark Carney (head of the Bank of England) is that a few business leaders will start asking questions or speaking their minds, and we can’t have that.

Successful entrepreneurs could be quite a scary force if many of them started speaking out. They have clout. They are not the gullible types and if they paid attention to this debate or even asked good questions, the whole House of Carbon would come undone so easily. That’s why it’s a big No No  for leaders to ask questions, the believers know they don’t have the answers.

These kinds of warnings need to be unpacked and discussed or they work. Business leaders who are willing to pander to the meme will still issue press releases and earn Bloomberg brownie points (or at least stay of the target), but those with doubts may feel intimidated and silenced. This stops those annoying independent thinkers from congregating and cooperating.

But real leaders speak their minds. They don’t fall for this naked gambit.

The message to CEO’s — Call their bluff… ask smart questions because investors can spot the fakes.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (73 votes cast)
Bloomberg tells business leaders to say climate change is real or risk "survival", 9.6 out of 10 based on 73 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/j75ntez

128 comments to Bloomberg tells business leaders to say climate change is real or risk “survival”

  • #
    observa

    “You don’t sit there and say ‘I’m not sure it’s a real risk’. “
    No you get on with running a successful business, just as if a giant asteroid isn’t going to slam into earth in your lifetime and you’re going the way of the dinosaurs. Besides you might get killed in a road accident tomorrow but that still doesn’t stop you getting your snout in the trough today with any climate change taxpayer largesse that’s going around. What’s your point Mr Bloomberg?

    142

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Mr Bloomberg’s point, is that a lot of investments have been made, in industries that solely exist because of the artificial and irrational fear of a three-one hundredths of a degree celsius increase in average global temperature. These industries exist, in a bubble of fabricated fear that must be maintained, for the industries to survive at all.

      The fact that Mr Bloomberg has found it necessary to come out and express an opinion at all, is a good indication that he is worried. He is worried about the rise in sceptism and the degree of indifference being shown by the “person in the street”. In his view, a coordinated response is required, on all fronts, to maintain the degree of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

      The whole meme is based on the precautionary principle that, if it might happen, then eventually it will happen. But the precautionary principle works both ways. If the meme might collapse, then it will collapse, unless it is constantly supported by ever increasing levels of alarm, and calls to action.

      To quote the late George Carlin, “People are tired of this sh*t, tired of it.”

      382

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And RW, anyone having built his house on this foundation of sand should expect it to be washed away someday. The rain always comes eventually, usually just when you think you’re nicely secure and bulletproof.

        222

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          And on which foundation of sand has Mr Bloomberg built his castle?

          If an association of Attorneys General can sue people for expressing scepticism to “mislead” the people, then surely another association can sue people for expressing untruths to mislead the people.

          He should be worried.

          161

          • #
            Analitik

            The sand is The Third Way – an economic theory based on circular application Keynesian stimulus. Since it has been embraced by the governing leaders of many nations, I see small (or rather no) chance of lawsuits being applied let alone being successful until radical changes to government have taken place.

            The ultimate arbiter is history – the books to come that will review and analyse this period will quickly point out the corruptive institutions and individuals involved in fostering this fairytale and foisting it upon the world. Unfortunately, we will have to ride out the economic (and electrical grid) collapses when the actual wealth underpinning the subsidies run out (and the technical capabilities of major grids has been sufficiently undermined). I don’t think we have that long to wait, though.

            I hope to see Nuremberg style international trials for crimes against humanity in the aftermath but this may be too optimistic.

            81

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              No, no ,no! The foundation of sand is simply the biblical parable of the foolish man who built his house on sand and when the rain came it was washed away and he was ruined. Whereas the wise man who built his house upon the rock, stood firmly through the storm, completely unscathed.

              Life has a tendency to be like that. Your mistakes come back to bite you where it’s most painful.

              50

      • #
        Dennis

        The Australian

        MICHAEL OWEN
        Wind turbines in South Australia were using more power than they generated during the state’s electricity crisis.

        161

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          And isn’t there a storm in the comments in The Australian over the failure of SA wind turbines.

          91

          • #
            Analitik

            link here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/business-blows-up-as-turbines-suck-more-power-than-they-generate/news-story/76f0fdb110c998fe959bfb343c1d370a

            Almost 400 hundred comments, many if not most of them angry – the public are waking up so the war on truth is being rolled back. We need to keep spreading the message.

            151

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              What I find interesting is the claim that when none of the SA turbines were operating they were drawing 50MW.
              That works out at 82-83kW per turbine, a lot more than thought.

              81

              • #

                You’d be surprised just how much power wind towers do ….. consume, when they are not operational, or in the process of becoming operational after periods of not turning.

                After my initial (long) Series ended after 5 Months, I thought I was tapped out. The site owner told me to keep going on what I had been, and I thought I had already said most of it, but as I have said, the more I looked the more I found.

                I was still only in the formative stages of knowledge, and sometimes, I had to go and check thoroughly before I let an article appear.

                I wanted to show some of the (many as I have now found) limitations of renewable power, and to do that I needed to really be thorough.

                In the Post linked to below for Wind power from August of 2009, I have a schematic diagram for a Wind Nacelle, and as I mention you can click on the small image and it will open in a new page at a larger size.

                Here’s just some of the areas of consumption.

                The blades are feathered in high winds or when stopped, and when they are to start up again, they must be rotated out of the feathered state.

                The nacelle will just stop when the wind does, at its last setting.

                Power is consumed to keep all the workings in readiness for operation. Power is needed for the system which gauges when the wind is at the correct speed for starting. Once that is reached, the whole nacelle has to be turned into the direction of the wind, and that’s not a small amount as those electric drive motors have to turn the huge weight of the nacelle with the blades, which then have to be turned out of the feathered state so the wind can take over.

                While idle, there are also electrics involved in keeping the whole unit lubricated, and that proved a problem in Canada in the early days when the lubrication froze up, so they then had to add (electrically operated) heaters for the lubricating fluid.

                Once operational the unit itself supplies the power for each towers electrics, turning the nacelle, rotating the blade angle etc etc etc, so again, while the unit says that it has a (nominal) Nameplate of 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 MW or more, part of that power is lost as part of the internal operation of each tower. I’ve actually gotten into trouble for saying that as the comeback was that even a coal fired generator unit consumes fractional amounts of power, barely even noticeable when you have a 660MW generator, but this guy was adamant. He didn’t come back when I said that one coal fired generator had minute overall losses, while here you have some wind plants with anything up to 150 plus individual nacelles, all sucking power.

                Never try to put down what green urgers view as the saviour. They get antsy.

                Link to Post: The Limitations Of Renewable Power (Part 3)

                Tony.
                PLEASE — Move this discussion to the new thread. Thanks for the info, h/t to dennis, but this is Off Topic here. – Jo

                50

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Whats coming out of bloombergs mouth is just Leftism….climate change is pure leftism

        He is also very pro gun control…
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/micha-bloomberg-candidates-guns_n_5563239.html

        “WASHINGTON, July 7 (Reuters) – The gun-control group founded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg …”

        Nuff said.

        [No more gun control stuff up at #1. Please reply at the bottom of the thread - Jo]

        60

      • #
        Frank

        Bloomberg is just going with the science as any rational person would do. If the science is wrong then prove it – so far zero progress.
        And please dont trot out the logical fallacies excuse , renders this whole site a waste of bytes.

        37

        • #

          True… talking about logical fallacies only works when talking to logical people.

          82

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Frank,

          A rational person would adopt the Royal Society’s motto, “Nullius in verba”, or in English, “Take nobody’s word for it”.

          So just accepting and, “going with the science”, is diametrically opposed to the actuality of real science. Another failure of understanding on your part.

          And asking us to not, “trot out the logical fallacies excuse”, is a cute tactic, but it does not avoid the point that you are asking us to prove a negative, which is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

          But hey, don’t let me stop you digging yourself into an even deeper hole, than you are in already.

          82

          • #
            Frank

            RW
            So, here you are stuck here in limbo unable to come up with any evidence, claiming the evidence is unfalsifiable.
            A convenient excuse for your failures.

            35

            • #
              observa

              Here let me help you with some evidence on sea level rise Frank from the geology of Hallet Cove-

              During the Recent ice age about 20 000 years ago,
              sea level was about 130 metres lower than today
              and South Australia’s coastline was about 150
              kilometres south of where Victor Harbor now is.
              The ice cap started to melt about 15 000 years ago.
              Sea level began to rise and reached its present level
              about 6000–7000 years ago.

              OK so I’ll save you the arithmetic and that can be an average sea level rise of 16.25mm/year for 8000 years and yet none other than the CSIRO/s best estimate for global sea level rise in the 20th century is 1.6mm/year-

              We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1880 to 2014. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose about 23 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.6 mm/yr over the 20th Century.

              So what was that more ten times sea level rise for 8000 years compared to last century’s piddling rise caused by Frank? Aboriginal cooking fires and burnoffs to flush out game, or are you denying the science?

              41

            • #
              AndyG55

              You still seem extremely adverse to presenting ONE SINGLE LITTLE SCRAP of this “evidence”.

              That’s because you know that ANYTHING you post will be torn apart.

              You have NO EVIDENCE, do you Fronk.

              NONE, NADA, zip… …… just empty bluster and rhetoric.

              42

            • #
              AndyG55

              Produce a paper that proves that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming in the Earth’s open atmosphere. We are waiting, Fronk.


              There is NO mechanism for CO2 to cause atmospheric warming

              CO2 absorbs a narrow band of radiation, within a very short distance of the surface, then passes that energy to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere where it is dealt with by convection.

              There is no “blanket”… blankets do not cool you when you get hot… but the atmosphere does.

              CO2 does not actually re-radiant until about 11km above the surface, where it acts to radiate energy to space.

              32

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              So, here you are stuck here in limbo unable to come up with any evidence, claiming the evidence is unfalsifiable.
              A convenient excuse for your failures

              Look in a mirror Frank. It is you who have failed to present any substantive, and repeatable evidence to support your bluster, which seems to be based on a premise that all modern variations in climatic conditions must be because of the activities of mankind, because mankind “invented” fire.

              We adopt the null hypothesis, that climate variation continues to be due to natural forces that were existent before the anthropogene, and that this situation has not significantly altered, in any significant way, during the period of the industrial age.

              The onus of proof, that variablity in climate patterns is solely due to anthropogenic influences, which is what you claim, lies entirely at your feet.

              Bluster is not scientific evidence, Frank. We are not first-year arts, or social studies, students who can be frightened and bullied into a belief system. Many here are working scientists and/or engineers – pragmatic people who say, “Show us the evidence of the cause and effect, then you might get our attention”.

              32

            • #
              observa

              You see Frank I’ve got a head for figures and when I happened to see that 130 metres, etc on a Gummint info signboard while sojourning through Hallet Cove Conservation Park like generations of geology students have, I went Wow! and did a bit more digging and lo and behold there was the CSIRO info. Huh! That just doesn’t gel with all the Tim Flannerys and Al Gores with the vapours and how we’re all gunna drown in the apocalypse but they’re buying waterfront homes to keep an eye on it all for me and flying around the world in fossil fuel jets to make us all more aware.

              How does that gel for you Frank? Frank, are you out there mate? Can you explain that science and causality for us? If you’re too busy mate just call me when the sea level starts rising 16.25mm/yr and Ian Plimer and I will stock up on the woollies no doubt.

              00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “If the science is wrong then prove it “

          What science..????

          You haven’t offered up one tiny skerrick, for destruction.

          Waiting for your “science”, Fronk.

          tick, tock.

          42

  • #
    James in Perth

    The left has done a great job injecting fear into the public debate. Unfortunately where does that leave the sceptics who are willing to debate the science? Yup.

    102

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … where does that leave the sceptics who are willing to debate the science?

      Where it has always left us … in debating the science, and showing how the fear is unfounded, and only created by using tricks of logic and the emotionality of words used in press releases.

      It is literally just smoke and mirrors.

      The good news is, that the more people look past the smoke and mirrors, then the more they understand about the political and idealogical con-job that is being perpetrated on them.

      40

      • #
        Mari C

        I point to things that refute the reasons, when I can – links, lots of links. Or contradictions – like 1st they say the Gulf Coast is losing land because the Mississippi is constrained and artificially routed and dredged, so the silt that repairs the storm damages isn’t being delivered. Thus the bayous and islands are disappearing.

        Then they say that the Louisiana islands are disappearing and we have to move all these poor “climate refugees” from the land because it won’t be there anymore because of – Global Warming.

        And the “refugees” that are there are the natives who were pushed out there in the 1800s. And were doing fairly well, until we meddled and fiddled with the Mississippi.

        And then the rabid watermelon blobbies who can’t deal with actual fact stop listening, some mock, some have tantrums – but a few, a very few, maybe, they take a moment to prove me wrong and bingo – hooked.

        00

  • #

    I can say with absolute certainty that there is no risk from CO2 emissions beyond the damage done by politics.

    252

    • #
      TdeF

      This whole debate has been stolen.

      The original scare was that increased CO2 and CO2 alone produced (rapid) Global Warming and mankind was fossil fuel combustion (solely) responsible for steadily rising CO2. None of these things are true but the argument has now been dropped and now we are just given the absurd conclusion that CO2 is pollution. This is the Green mantra pushed by Green profiteers.

      How does that work again? No temperature increase despite rising CO2, the increase is not man made anyway but CO2 is pollution?

      So without any evidence at all, CO2 is tried, convicted and condemned as pollution? What is the risk from increased CO2? How does CO2 change the weather if it cannot even change the temperature? How does it produce ‘exteme events’? How do people believe this stuff without any evidence at all?

      CO2 is the gas of life from which highly reactive Oxygen is produced thanks to plants, particularly phytoplankton in the ocean which produce half our O2. At least people understand they desperately need oxygen but if we are burning O2 all the time, where does the new O2 come from? Then people and plants are made almost entirely from CO2 and there is precious little of the stuff. Without CO2, there is no life on earth. With no life on earth, there is no free oxygen. More CO2 please. More plants. What could be more natural than rotted old plant matter?

      Pollution? How does that argument work again? What a travesty. If this is science, the moon is made of green cheese.

      172

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry. and mankind through fossil fuel combustion.

        Whenever we are told CO2 is pollution, ask why? There are no answers at all.

        You may as well say the other product of combustion H2O is far worse pollution. It forms clouds and blocks the sun, cooling the planet. It also blocks infrared, heating the planet. Water is the real problem, pollution, industrial pollution, a very dangerous industrial byproduct. Besides, children could drown in it. Water kills millions each year. Ban water. It is a far more dangerous pollutant than CO2. Cars produce water and water produces tsunamis so cars are responsible for tsunamis, climate change and bushfires. You know it makes sense.

        152

        • #
          TdeF

          Besides, burning fossil fuels is completing the recycling of old plant matter. It is natural. Rotting is just a slower version of combustion using microbes. Fortunately those messy dinosaurs left their rubbish heaps around and they were buried and we are the beneficiaries. However the Greens have decided that all democratic industries are evil, like democracy itself and therefore all industries cause pollution and CO2 is therefore pollution.

          Blookberg advises it is best to just agree and keep the peace. So what if our world reverts to the Middle Ages? Windmills and waterwheels.

          51

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Mosquitoes breed in the stuff too!

          40

        • #
          yonason

          The “Evils” Of Elevated CO2

          Well, if you are a faux environmentalist that’s “evil.”

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            Yes, three ingredients, CO2, sunshine and H2O. In deserts H2O is the problem. In the arctic, sunshine. No one has vilified H2O and sunshine yet. Apparently they are both natural where CO2 is evil pollution.

            41

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nice stream of consciousness there, TdeF. :-)

        20

  • #
    David S

    The irony is that business misreads the public. They assume that consumers make decisions based on the companies social policies. The reality is that the main driver of consumption decisions is price /value and one of the main drivers of price is cost and one of the main drivers of cost is the cost of electricity. It is useful in Australia to have the South Australian showroom which highlights the havoc that renewables play with electricity prices and cost of goods. Basic industries that have high electricity components cannot survive in South Australia without subsidies.

    What power companies should do is turn off all coal fired power plants for 1 week. Measure the change in temperature , have all ectricity supplied by renewables, then propose a debate on climate change and renewables targets. You might finally get some response from both businesses and consumers. Unless businesses are prepared to fight against draconian emissions targets nothing will change. Hopefully the prospect of more sceptical politicians in positions of influence in the UK , hopefully US , Europe and even Australia will give courage to the huge number of sceptical business leaders who have been too timid to call out the global warming scam. With the global movement against political correctness gathering momentum they may be pleasantly surprised what a good business decision that may be.

    262

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      “It is useful in Australia to have the South Australian showroom which highlights the havoc that renewables play with electricity prices and cost of goods.”

      Frame that one and hang it on the wall, David!

      122

      • #
        observa

        Sadly I feel it my duty to be a crowie lab rat to teach the world a lesson but it’s getting harder to keep manning my post.

        00

    • #
      ianl8888

      What power companies should do is turn off all coal fired power plants for 1 week

      As superficially attractive as this notion is, there are two immovable reasons for that not to happen:

      1) people will die unnecessarily; that will lead to others being charged with/convicted of manslaughter.

      2) electrical power in all States is legislated as a public necessity. Removing it is a criminal offence.

      Note that Govts (ie. bureaucrats and politicians) can intervene at will without fear of either 1) or 2).

      The only circumstance I have seen in over 40 years associated with this industry that may cirumvent 1) and 2) is that of the organisation that owns the generator going broke. In that case, there is no more money and jailing people won’t change that. Loy Yang in the early 2000′s is a case in point.

      60

      • #
        Analitik

        We need an injunction by this group of “concerned citizens” (da tovarisch) to force Hazelwood to take all generator units offline.
        http://www.replacehazelwood.com.au/

        Then they (and their backers, The Victorian Greens) can be taken to task for all the damage done and fined/jailed according to their level of involvement.

        I guarantee that the units will not be offline long enough for the boilers to shutdown and cool.

        20

        • #
          observa

          Hmmm there could be another option-

          Dear Premier,

          As a result of the settled science of global warmening we have forthwith closed the Hazlewood plant now that we have had a light bulb moment regarding the obligation of James Hardie, Big Tobacco, etc, etc not to continue dealing in certain death for our consumers and their offspring. We have duly notified our CFMEU union employees that they are redundant immediately and they have to take up any outstanding entitlements with the administrators who will need to assess any other consumer compensation claims on the assets.

          That is of course unless you can give us your personal waiver in writing to continue with business as usual and the warmening is nothing to worry about.

          Yours Truly
          The Directors.
          Hazlewood

          00

  • #

    The problem for business people speaking their minds against climate alarmism is that the left will trash their reputations and attempt to damage their businesses. What is more, those who side with alarmism can make a fortune, whether in wind turbines, solar panels, carbon trading or electric cars. Let us not also forget that for many established businesses the associated regulations might push up their costs (which can often be passed onto customers) but has the benefit of excluding any potential competition. It was the same with business support for Remain in the British EU Referendum.

    222

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Had they spoken up a long time ago and been willing to weather the storm they stirred up, we might not have the problem we now have.

      Delaying action to solve a problem almost always makes finally solving it more difficult, not easier. Only something so low in priority that it doesn’t matter much one way or the other can be put off and not suffer for it.

      These same business leaders know this themselves, having been through the necessary experience to get into the CEO’s position in the first place.

      91

    • #
      Glen Michel

      As I say to my Greenie friends.”you are supping with your devil.That evil capitalism” of course,they go into meltdown.Maybe they know.Maybe not.

      91

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      It’s a form of extortion.

      20

  • #
    Robert O

    Currently the S.E. Australian wind turbines are producing a total of 250 MW or about 7% of their capacity. Most of this, 200 MW, is coming from the two Tasmanian wind farms, whilst the rest are producing 50 MW or about 1% of their capacity.

    Surely it is not possible to run a business based on the vagaries of renewable energy, so why would one support it?

    152

    • #
      Robert O

      It is now down to about 180 MW. or 5% of capacity.
      S. Aust. 30 MW; NSW 20 MW; Vic. 30 MW, Qld. 25 MW and Tas. 75 MW.

      The only windfarm that is producing something significant is at Musselroe Bay in NE Tas. with 66 MW.

      And the sun is still not up so no solar either

      111

      • #
        Analitik

        Output has been pathetic since about 9am yesterday, especially for South Australia and Victoria.

        The new Hornsdale wind farm is doing a stellar job of providing the ACT with SFA at the contracted rate of $92 / MWh.

        The recently approved Dundonnell wind farm would be providing a similar SFA once operational in times like this. At least the Brolga population would have some chance of survival if the output was always like this but they’ll be decimated if the farm gets built. As the local senator, Richard DiNatale should get every dead brolga delivered to his doorstep.

        50

        • #
          Robert O

          Currently it’s about 150 MW of wind generation and 60 MW from the solar farms. Not a very good return on the billions wasted on renewables! Actually wind got down to 100 MW or 2.7% of its capacity. Hopeless.

          40

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t forget profits built on government/taxpayer subsidies.

      60

  • #
    Tony Porter

    Well at least one country’s new President has the gumption to stand up to them and tell them the truth they hate to hear..
    http://www.thegwpf.com/philippines-wont-honor-paris-agreement/

    With Theresa May’s new portfolio, which clearly appears to ultimately reject this AGW scare campaign for what it is, all we need now is Mr Trump to win in November AND stick to his promises (on what he promised about the climate change [snip]) and it will mark the end of this global lunacy forever.

    Heaven (or something else), help us if the Hildabeast wins though… That WILL mean the end of freedom and of civilisation as we know it.

    PS: I’ve been following this EXCELLENT blog almost religiously every day for the past 12 months or so, about time I contributed…
    I hope you’ll publish my comment for what it’s worth.

    [Welcome aboard. And forgive my snip but Jo would prefer not to use such words, even though they may easily apply (and even though we sometimes allow exceptions).] AZ

    182

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      First comment, and first-time target of moderation. Well done.

      Welcome to the team.

      130

    • #
      Peter C

      We need President Duterte here. We have a job for him!

      41

    • #
      AndyG55

      All first-time comments are moderated.

      But, welcome :-)

      72

    • #

      Hi Tony
      The Country submissions to prior to Paris are worth reading (search on INDC submission + country name). They were mostly good examples of public relations manipulation. On the surface that from the Philippines seemed impressive. It states

      The Philippines intends to undertake GHG (CO2e) emissions reduction of about 70% by 2030 relative to its BAU scenario of 2000-2030. Reduction of CO2e emissions will come from energy, transport, waste, forestry and industry sectors.

      Even allowing for (a) exaggerated economic (& hence GHG emission) growth rates (b) much of this emission constraint coming from stopping deforestation, an implied reduction of 20-40% on 2015 levels is considerable. But under MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION is the statement.

      Full implementation of the Philippines’ INDC requires support in the form of adequate, predictable and sustainable financing.

      In other words, emissions reductions were contingent on lots of foreign aid. Other submissions from emerging countries (e.g neighboring Indonesia) has similar clauses that underpin the thin layer of surface gloss. But COP21 Paris Paris was just about the appearance and not the substance, so none of the 40,000 delegates noticed.

      I would recommend other readers to regular check the GWPF website for all the latest on climate issues.

      111

    • #
      TdeF

      Incredible. Like the Chinese, the argument is not whether CO2 is a pollutant, but about the fact that the rich Western countries want poorer less advanced countries to stop improving their quality of life and limiting industrialization, transport, farming, housing, population. The Chinese go further and actually want compensation for disastrous ‘historic’ pollution effectively admitted by Western politicians.

      Now that’s flipping the tables on the self satisfied, self indulgent and rich Windmill countries. Pay up for the damage you have done. Don’t lecture the third world on our responsibility to not do what you have already done. Ha! You have to love the logic.

      81

      • #
        Tony Porter

        TdeF
        Indeed, as I read more into that story, it seems he’s not exactly a ‘CAGW sceptic’: He in fact named a ‘leading environmental activist’ – the head of his new environment ministry, who in just after 4 weeks in office, has already ‘shuttered 5 minining operations’ for ‘irresponsible’ practices…
        I’d have been more impressed if he’d retorted to the unidentified ‘ambassador’ with something along the lines of: “Well if you want to believe in and waste billions of your nation’s dollars on trying to mitigate nothing, you are free to make such an unwise choice, but count me out. Filipinos have better, more productive projects that will benefit us all, to invest our money in, rather than that nonsense, so you can forget it sir, I will not sign”…

        62

        • #
          Tony Porter

          Oops… I meant ‘mining operations’. Don’t know how I missed that one, proof-read it about 3 times!

          50

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            Easily done, Tony. Use the “preview” button first. It makes it easier for my 76 year old eyes to see that which will be posted and one can easily make changes. Enjoy.
            PS – I made three changes this in “preview”.

            20

    • #
      Tony Porter

      Thanks to all of you for such a warm welcome to ‘The Team’. :)
      I feel it’s quite an honour to be considered a member.
      I look forward to more great articles along with the lively discourse that typically follows them and yes, I will certainly bear in mind that my choice of words should not be too confrontational, should I feel the urge to contribute anything to such discussions.
      (Hope this reply turns out okay – I’m doing it from my smart phone with a very slow 2G data service)…

      Best Regards,
      Tony

      72

      • #
        TdeF

        You were instantly welcomed by the red hander too.

        21

        • #
          AndyG55

          And don’t worry about the red thumbs. It means you have upset some brainless twerp who is lacking the ability to respond with words.

          Just add the red and the green thumbs together, like I do. :-)

          43

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The answer is what type of business leader they are.

    One could say Bloomberg, Strong, Soros, Gore are good business leaders based on monetary success but what type of investors would accept the collateral damage of their methods, decisions and type of investments to the end of a great bottom line?

    The moral dilemma of investments will always be a question considering most things produced could or will harm other people as highlighted in Should You Invest In Weapon Stocks?

    The big difference between traded commodities/products and climate change is tangibility and the original source of funds.

    72

  • #

    Climate has always changed . . . naturally. The last change is it stopped warming.

    142

    • #
      Dennis

      During the Copenhagen Conference the delegates from China referred to three warmer periods during 3,600 years of civilisation in China, each warmer period brought greater prosperity as crop yields increased, etc.

      80

  • #
    Athelstan.

    I make a distinction, between, the giant conglomerates and SME’s ie: small and medium sized businesses.

    The corporate blob, as it is known [oop here in T'north/Blighty] are nailed on supporters and apologists, promulgators, advertizers for the great green [[snip] untruth].

    Worse still, the knot of CEO’s move between the revolving doors of corporate top jobs its world and intermingle like conspiratorial schoolboys and the old boy network is what counts too.
    Honestly speaking, not one of them [corporate CEO's] would ever come clean about telling the real truth and thus is the Bloomberg/Goldman Sachs money tree maintained. CEO’s of major corporate giants, they know it’s [[snip] an untruth] and we know that they know but we all play this stupid dance………the reality is, as long as there are taxpayer’s pockets to be rifled – the great green [[snip] untruth] has legs. Defund it and Bloomberg et al: bows out.

    Small business hates, disdains, rails against; the imposed costs and consequent red tape bureaucratic miasma of ‘carbon reports’ and carbon footprints and all that the great CO2 [[snip] untruth] entails. SME’s, particularly small business is strapped down by idiot costs and the green agenda is a poison, as with the HMRC [taxman] – it all goes down like a cup of cold vomit.

    Release small business from the red tape and carbon floor costs – and watch Britain GO.

    [You were caught in moderation because of what I replaced with something less confrontational. Jo prefers not to use such words, even though we sometimes make exceptions. Sorry.] AZ

    82

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I wonder what happened to having the courage of your convictions, Mr. Bloomberg. Maybe you can explain that so I can understand it. Is your advice what’s best for you, best for CEOs or best for the country?

    That so many have followed your advice is why we have the problem we now have. I can’t understand why, in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of free speech, we should be afraid to call a spade a spade. Not only is the Justice Department now ready to violate the constitution but you advise hiding behind some imagined security from burying heads in the sand (or elsewhere as may be appropriate).

    There are no words sufficient to describe how angry I am at the august Mr. Bloomberg, a (supposedly) respected business leader. :-(

    102

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … a (supposedly) respected business leader.

      It is a thin line between respect (which is earnt), and fear (which is imposed).

      The line can only be crossed in one direction, and there is no turning back.

      82

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        OK, RW, let’s be picky about the difference. Since he cannot impose fear on me in any way, having no regulatory or policing power of any kind, he must earn my respect by his financial advice. He just lost what respect he had with yours truly.

        I will suppose (that word again) that through faulty advice he might hurt my portfolio. But then who hasn’t?

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … having no regulatory or policing power of any kind …

          Degrees of separation. He will know people, who know other people, whom you might not be comfortable with.

          I was simply observing that civilisation is sometimes a very thin veneer.

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I was simply observing that civilisation is sometimes a very thin veneer.

            Spot on, Rereke. Watching politics has had me fearing that the veneer is wearing too thin — much too thin.

            As for knowing people who know people I would not like, can I fall back on this old saying?

            Politics makes strange bedfellows.

            I think that any of us would do whatever we need to do to achieve some goal if it was important enough, including alliances with someone we would otherwise shun for some reason. The alliance with Stalin during WW II is the classical example.

            Ironically I’m in such a situation right now over so small an issue as local street and sidewalk maintenance. It’s hardly an earthshaking matter until you consider that the cost of maintaining the public right of way is being passed down directly to the homeowners who are already being taxed to support that maintenance. Then it becomes a matter of principle and considerable importance.

            I’m reminded of climate change, also costing us a lot of money and yet so many who disagree with the prevailing opinion are not standing up and speaking against it. Instead they look to their own advantage and support that with which they do not agree.

            It makes life a lot of fun, doesn’t it? I suppose Bloomberg has his own set of such alliances. But we still ought to stand up and fight our problems sooner rather than later.

            00

  • #
    Sean

    There is real risk for business. We live in a world where government permission is necessary to get anything done, particularly if you are a big corporation. There is also real risk is in the climate regulatory environment where a simple regulation giving preference to a solution can give your competitor a price advantage and resulting in loss of market share for your product.(look no further than German energy companies RWE and Eon.) We also live in a world with tremendous prosecutorial discretion. Stir the hornet’s nest with a non-sanctioned opinion and suddenly regulatory agencies come down on you like a ton of bricks. Alternatively, you can buy a lot of good will by towing the government’s line such as Walmarts energy saving initiative (which I actually think is quite smart) or Coca Cola’s climate change propaganda (cheap good will for a sugar water company toward a government taking aim at excess carbohydrates in diets). If your primary responsibility is to your shareholders, you don’t go tilting at the governments windmills.

    81

  • #
    el gordo

    In Australia very small business (farmers and graziers) have been corrupted by Greg Hunt’s zeal

    ‘In his discussions with local stakeholders, Paul Burke said some recipients of emissions reduction fund money described it as “cream” and “too good to be true”.

    ‘Burke said it was entirely possible some projects would end up, perversely, funding emissions increases. An example of that could be farmers getting a payment not to clear one piece of land, and using that money to fund the clearing of land elsewhere.

    ‘Examining some of the projects that were awarded payments in the first two rounds of the auction, Burke found farmers were often paid more than the value of their land simply not to clear parts of it. In some cases, he said, the incentive for the farmers to clear the land was low, and it would have been expensive, so might not have happened anyway.’

    Michael Slezak / Guardian

    101

    • #
      el gordo

      Taking this a little further, I was unaware that Queensland is a carbon sink.

      ‘Independent sensors on Japan’s IBUKI and NASA’s OCO-2 satellites now both show Queensland is a net annual sink for CO2.

      ‘In other words vegetation is currently removing more CO2 from the air (atmosphere) above this State than is being added to it from the combined impacts of land clearing, plant respiration, fire, fossil fuel use, adjacent ocean outgassing etc.

      ‘It is concluded that arguments for the reintroduction of strict tree/shrub clearing control bans on this State’s rural landholdings are not supported by the evidence.’

      Bill Burrows

      81

  • #
    Dennis

    Can’t have the general business population exposing the man-made global warming fraud, engineered by Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong (deceased) and others, including strange bedfellows from the far-left of politics.

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s now clear as day – it’s all about the money and nothing to do with the climate. I can’t wait for the day when such people and all other AGW protagonists are arrested, charged and put behind bars for a very long time.

    92

    • #
      Dennis

      As far as I can tell there are two sides pushing climate change agenda, the socialists who want to collapse capitalism and the capitalists who want a new China-like communist version of controlled and managed capitalism and picking winners.

      82

      • #
        Dennis

        For the information of the red thumb phantom …

        Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

        At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

        Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

        The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

        Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
        Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
        Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

        71

    • #
      Athelstan.

      I wish.

      41

  • #
    Ruairi

    Climate-change is of course real,
    And acknowledged by skeptics with zeal,
    But a boss,to deny,
    The right to ask why,
    In business, isn’t ideal.

    83

  • #
    pat

    ***on edge…or in full panic mode?

    19 Jul: Financial Times: Wall Street on edge as Republicans warm to Glass-Steagall
    Barney Jopson in Washington and Demetri Sevastopulo in Cleveland, Additional reporting by Ben McLannahan in New York
    The Republican convention has left Wall Street banks ***on edge by embracing a populist proposal to break up big institutions, an idea loved by many Democrats that adds a new twist to the GOP under Donald Trump.
    Defying nearly two decades of party tradition, the Cleveland convention adopted policies that include reining in banks by banning institutions that hold deposits from doing riskier investment banking, mirroring a law from the Great Depression. The policy platform was written by a committee of Republican lawmakers and officials.
    The proposal to cut banks down to size has created an unexpected accord between the Republican and Democratic platforms as Hillary Clinton’s party — under the influence of her bank-bashing former rival Bernie Sanders — had made a similar call…
    Any prohibition barring investment bankers from operating under the same roof as federally insured deposits would pose an existential challenge to Citigroup, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and, to a lesser extent, Goldman Sachs.
    The original Glass-Steagall act was abolished in 1999 when President Bill Clinton signed bank reform legislation that was crafted by Republican lawmakers and backed by many Democrats in Congress…READ ALL
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfd3df44-4d39-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590a.html

    18 Jul: TheLocal, Germany: Deutsche Bank to close almost 200 branches
    http://www.thelocal.de/20160718/deutsche-bank-to-close-almost-200-branches

    19 Jul: Fortune: Stephen Gandel: Goldman Sachs announces its Biggest Layoffs since Financial Crisis
    http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/goldman-sachs-layoffs-3/

    71

    • #
      Angry

      Goldman Sachs & Deutsche Bank no good mongrels supporting the global warming SCAM.

      Both organizations doing poorly financially.

      Couldn’t happen to nicer people !

      92

  • #
    Athelstan.

    x 1000!

    71

  • #

    I am still a ‘go ask’ person, at least locally, for a range of construction and climate-response issues. I guess that makes me some kind of “leader”? I have been outspoken in my opinion on climate alarmism, and in terms that would result in being snipped if repeated here. I have had opposition, but this always had the opposite effect to what was intended. People who have been talking to greenie-afflicted administrators regularly contact me to ask if they are being lied to. I keep a rough log of these enquiries. Maybe I ought to do a write-up of this stuff. I estimate that actual untruths amount to 50%. This goes up to about 80% if half-truths and misdirections are included. (I’ll come back later to see if Robot Redthumb is still around.)

    122

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘This goes up to about 80% if half-truths and misdirections are included.’

      What you observe is the power of propaganda in the modern age.

      61

  • #
    TdeF

    You have to wonder where this Climate fantasy will end.

    South Australia is a wonderful example of public self indulgence to the harm of the entire population, but underneath is an amazing logic free selfishness. No CO2 for South Australia should be the banner. The only CO2 free state. So no food, no plants, no agriculture. Soon they will be buying their grapes and wheat from Victoria.

    98% of CO2 comes from overseas but in South Australia, they are paying ridiculous amounts for imported electricity to minimize their local CO2 despite the severe consequences. When did reason stop? How can people do this to themselves? Or is a Green IQ much lower than a normal IQ?

    At least despite Bloomberg, real business people in Olympic dam and Arrium in Whyalla are calling this one. They will close and demand fortunes in compensation. Then there are South Australians in teaching, medicine and the public service who would like to get rid of ugly polluting industries and just go to the pub.

    92

  • #
    A C, of Adelaide

    Het Jo, surely its time to feature a big article ofn the South Australian wind fiasco.
    I just saw a new article in the Australian (Im sure everyone here has seen it) about wind power using more power than it generates as it draws power to keep the blades turning so they can find the wind and swing to it in very low wind conditions.
    It just gets better and better except if you are trying to keep a house warm in this cold weather.

    72

  • #
    TdeF

    Then you get people like Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie, passionately fighting gambling without understanding the problem.
    The problem is worst in poor people and that is because in Green states like Tasmania and South Australia, poor people are under fierce pressure with no jobs and trying to feed families.

    If Xenophon really wants to help fight gambling at its cause, fight against the Green insanity which is driving jobs and people out of the state. Mendicant South Australia has double the GST income of hard working WA, so they will just ask for more handouts from everyone else, if only to pay for their electricity to run their hospitals and schools. Green destroys jobs, hope and the future and this is the core problem in gambling, not the machines or the race courses. You can bet on two flies going up a wall. You cannot stop gambling but stressed workers turn to gambling as their only hope in a destitute economy. Green insanity is destroying these states.

    82

    • #
      Angry

      They should be fighting the ETS (EMPLOYEMNT TERMINATION SCHEME) introduced by TURNCOAT TURNBULL on 1st July 2016 !

      20

  • #
    King Geo

    In the USA a lot of these wealthy entrepreneurs are promoting the GW scam e.g. Bloomberg. I wonder what the growing numbers of “Strugglers in US Society” are thinking? Some no doubt are skeptics like us Jo Nova fans, but I suspect a lot are not all that excited by the higher cost of energy resulting from their Govt demonising “fossil fuels” and promoting RE to “Save the Planet”. Come November this issue may well see Trump get over the line if he continues to make it “an Election Issue”. And this coupled with his other “Trump Card – Immigration” could well prove decisive. The latter issue certainly was the driving force behind the recent “Brexit Vote”.

    62

    • #
      el gordo

      I’m not confident Trump can win, but I applaud his determination to seek the truth at any cost.

      ‘Four of the five Republican senators with a record of supporting climate action are skipping this year’s Republican National Convention.’

      Mother Jones

      42

  • #
    Tony Porter

    Thanks to all of you for such a warm welcome to ‘The Team’. :)
    I feel it’s quite an honour to be considered a member.
    I look forward to more great articles along with the lively discourse that typically follows them and yes, I will certainly bear in mind that my choice of words should not be too confrontational, should I feel the urge to contribute anything to such discussions.
    (Hope this reply turns out okay – I’m doing it from my smart phone with a very slow 2G data service).

    Best Regards,
    Tony

    41

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    The woderful thing about economics.

    It will take but a very small dose of unemployment for many to forget about CO2.
    unfortunately for politicians we have yet to design a more painful method of facing a reality check.

    41

  • #
    pat

    ***caring about the poor…again:

    20 Jul: AFR: Bloomberg: Soaring temperatures to cost $2 trillion as it becomes too hot to work, says UN
    by Jessica Shankleman and Kambiz Foroohar
    Searing temperatures caused by climate change may cost global economies more than $US2 trillion ($2.7 trillion) by 2030, restricting working hours in some of the poorest parts of the world, according to United Nations research.
    As many as 43 countries, especially those in Asia, including China, Indonesia, and Malaysia, will experience declines in their economies because of heat stress, says Tord Kjellstrom, a director at the Health and Environment International Trust, based in New Zealand…
    Extreme heat in South-East Asia already curbs annual working hours by 15 to 20 per cent, and that figure could double by 2050 as climate change progresses, according to the paper published in Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health on Tuesday.
    The study was one of six papers published by the UN university in Kuala Lumpur detailing the impact of climate change on human health…
    “We need to think more carefully about patterns of urban development,” said Anthony Capon, a professor at the UN university. “As it is, high income countries have more capacity to insulate their people from health impacts of climate change. ***People in the poorer countries are the most effected.”
    http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/soaring-temperatures-to-cost-2-trillion-as-it-becomes-too-hot-to-work-says-un-20160719-gq9dwz

    10

  • #
    yonason

    “Successful entrepreneurs could be quite a scary force if many of them started speaking out.”

    Burt Rutan, winner of the “X-Prise,” unequivocally states that human caused gullible, uh, global warming is horse hockey!
    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

    Now are there any others who aren’t afraid of the big bad hot air blowhards?

    31

  • #
    yonason

    “Successful entrepreneurs could be quite a scary force if many of them started speaking out.”

    Burt Rutan, winner of the “X-Prize,” unequivocally states that human caused gullible, uh, global warming is horse hockey!
    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

    Now are there any others who aren’t afraid of the big bad hot air blowhards?

    41

  • #
    handjive

    If VW doesn’t ask questions, will it survive?

    US states sue Volkswagen over emission scandal
    “New York’s Attorney-General called the use of “defeat devices” a “widespread conspiracy” and a “cunningly cynical fraud” committed by all levels of VW management.”
    . . .
    $14 Billion+ of shareholder money surrendered.
    Why wouldn’t you ask questions like where is the projected warming for the un-explained emissions, or the settled ‘science’ after 2010:

    In 2006, the UN-IPCC In its report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, estimated the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from every aspect of raising meat.

    The U.N. did not do the same when estimating the greenhouse gases from cars.

    The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the report to forecast that Himalayan glaciers might vanish within 25 years.

    The report ignored greenhouse gases actually created during the car’s production and instead zeroed in on tailpipe emissions.”

    The U.N. recanted its claim in 2010.

    40

  • #
    handjive

    Oops.
    Apologies mods.
    Didn’t self-censor that f-word.

    20

  • #
    Ross

    Clearly Bloomberg and Carney have too many mates who have been too slow to unwind their investments in the wrong side of the issue.

    There appears to be so much going on that the MSM don’t understand or don’t want to report on.

    One of the first things Theresa May does is basically abolish the DECC ( folding it into the business department is the next best thing to removing it altogether).This has to be highly significant. The Danes have removed subsidies on solar panel installation and they have halted all new wind mills until 2025( ie. basically for good), Germany has made similar moves to the Danes, REW the biggest German electricity supplier is on the brink of bankruptcy , Japan is funding scores of coal fired power stations in SE Asia, the Philippines President has said the Paris agreement is trash and will not sign it …… the list could go on and seems to be growing daily.

    No wonder Carney and Bloomberg are having sleepless nights.

    30

  • #
    pat

    an orgy of CAGW at ABC today:

    20 Jul: ABC: Canberra records warmest July minimum overnight
    by 666 ABC Canberra
    The average minimum for the month of July is 0c and the lowest temperature so far this month has been -5.2C.
    The overnight temperature, 11.1C, was so high it almost matched the mean maximum temperature for daytime in July of 11.4C…
    Ms Coot said Tuggeranong may have also seen its warmest July temperature on record yesterday — with a maximum of 18.5C.
    Nationally, last month was the hottest June on record according to meteorologists, marking the 14th consecutive month that global heat records have been broken…
    July has been an eventful month for the national capital, which was last week treated to the unusual sight of snow in the suburbs.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/canberra-records-warmest-july-minimum/7643978

    20 Jul: ABC: #HottestDayOfTheYear gets Brits sobbing, sweating, stripping off
    Last month may have been the hottest June in modern history, but one scorching July day had Britons pining for their early summer nights.
    Tuesday was the hottest day of the year across the UK, where temperatures soared past 30 degrees Celsius in several cities, with the maximum of 33.5 recorded in Oxfordshire, north-west of London…
    TWEETS TWEETS TWEETS TWEETS TWEETS
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottestdayoftheyear-brits-take-to-twitter-to-complain-about-heat/7643718

    20 Jul: ABC: Climate: Last month was hottest June on record, scientists say
    Meteorologists say last month was the hottest June in modern history, marking the 14th consecutive month that global heat records have been broken.
    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has also said the global temperature for the first six months of 2016 was the hottest on record…
    Experts have said global warming is at least partially to blame for a number of environmental disasters around the world, from the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to wildfires raging across Canada.
    Last year marked the hottest on record, beating 2014, which previously held the title…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june-in-modern-times-scientists-say/7643240

    20

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Bloomberg is another CAGW racketeer with a destiny for the rock pile in leg irons.

    Why do we tolerate these thieving imbeciles?

    Why are so many suckered into this crap?

    Why are so many, taken advantage of and ruled by so few?

    Why are the same few intent on destroying prosperity for the many?

    Something has to change, and change soon before the same ratbags take us to yet another World War…..the endgame…their endgame.

    When all else fails, ‘they’(our un esteemed leaders) take you to war.

    Vote 1 ‘the Donald’ for Pres, vote 2 ‘Hitlery for Jail’.

    And locally support ‘One Nation’, ‘Rise Up Australia’, and any other party and or individual/s that are openly against the CAGW global racket.

    And remember: CAGW = BS, Always.

    32

    • #

      OK, OK for AU consumers!
      “Why do we tolerate these thieving imbeciles?”

      Because we are stupid!

      “Why are so many suckered into this crap?”

      Because so many are stupid!

      “Why are so many, taken advantage of and ruled by so few?”

      Because so many are stupid!

      “Why are the same few intent on destroying prosperity for the many?”

      Because the few are not stupid, they are wealthy!

      They are not the problem, you are! Stupidity like entropy always increases!
      Now STFU and keep sharpening your pitchforks, and re-oiling your torches! Bind straw into look alike resemblances of your few, then practice every day with your pitchforks and torches!
      All the best! -will-

      10

    • #
      Angry

      Follow the money……..

      20

    • #

      Perhaps it was the capitalized four letter acronym for the universal local military imperative. Can anyone explain?

      10

  • #
    Amber

    Bloomberg, no one says climate doesn’t change so why won’t you start talking plain English instead of the politically correct media speak .

    Do you mean you believe in the scary global warming religion and you want everyone else to nod yes master ? We are so scared ? Sounds like it when you have to hide behind fluff language .
    Maybe you believe in UK banker Carney’s spin about a $7 Trillion dollar “opportunity “? As in Hedge Fund where the other half of the trade
    is misfortune ,difficulty and waste . As in subprime bankers opportunity .

    No wonder the MSM is in a death spiral . The public no longer wants to buy scary global warming hype although it has lasted longer than the 70′s cooling scare.

    The fact is those alarmist climate model projections are a proven inaccurate joke along with a 20 year list of BS climate fear mongering stories .

    Grow up Bloomberg or go find something else to do with your fading talents . If you really believe what you are trying to sell
    quit using fossil fuels and leave more of those fine EXXON products for the rest of us . Till then bugger off .

    21

    • #

      Amber July 20, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      “Bloomberg, no one says climate doesn’t change so why won’t you start talking plain English instead of the politically correct media speak.”

      Amber,
      you are buying into the SCAM. The scammers refuse to say what ‘climate’ is; let alone any changing. In the 1900s ‘climate’ was a realtor promo to sell his desirable property! Always this was a rejection of boring ‘same-ness’, everywhere!
      Please tell us what you think ‘climate’ is, and why such should be feared! Inclement weather, with flashes and bangs, gets puppies and kittens to wish to be in your lap! What is wrong with that?
      All the best! -will-

      20

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘What is wrong with that?’

        Global cooling is gathering pace, should we be concerned?

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6.jpg

        10

      • #
        el gordo

        This vid reckons we are almost there.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_-OxwNEFj4

        10

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘The Antarctic Peninsula, among the fastest warming places on Earth last century, has since cooled due to natural swings in the local climate, scientists say, but researchers have cautioned this does not imply warming of the planet has stopped.’

        ABC

        10

      • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        “Bloomberg, no one says climate doesn’t change so why won’t you start talking plain English instead of the politically correct media speak.””

        That’s just it, Bloomers, the climate really hasn’t change much for quite a long time.

        We have thankfully had some warming out of the Little Ice Age, but that seems to have ended.

        In the Antarctic, according to satellite data, there has been no warming for some 38 years, a slight cooling actually.

        The only warming in the whole of the satellite era has come form NATURAL events such as solar/wind driven El Ninos, and from NATURAL ocean oscillations.

        22

        • #
          el gordo

          Referring back to the ABC story on cooling West Antarctica, mixing truths with half truths begets propaganda.

          ‘Since about 1998, local air temperatures have fallen about 0.5 degree Celsius a decade, roughly the rate at which they had previously been warming since about 1950.

          ‘Stabilisation of the ozone hole over Antarctica may partly explain the shift in winds that led to the cooling, the study said.’

          20

  • #
    Anton

    “No CEO could survive if they tried to say climate change isn’t real”

    How about the next CEO of the USA?

    30