Mangled Thoughts

The claim man causes climate change is a deliberate fraud. Originally pushed by the thugs in the Greens, why did Western politicians and bureaucrats accept the lie?

It was a good wheeze to justify empire building and ram down measures that are incipiently totalitarian in force. Rudd is building on what the “Watermelon Red” Rightwing former “Liberal” Ministers, Malcolm Turnbull, Ian Campbell and David Kemp established. The Right had over a decade in office and instead of eviscerating the charlatanism purveyed as ’science’, they proliferated it. They did their bit to corrupt science, and institutes engaged in pursuit of science and its impartation. The credibility of, for example, the CSIRO is shredded. This is what the Right also did, not only the Left, ably assisted by the CIS and the IPA.

With the general debasement of the function of schools (and not just under States’ and Federal ALP administrations) science was trivialised to, at best, as ‘another way of looking at truth’. What truth? The truth of charlatans and liars. Science cannot be imparted, and promising young scientists identified when science is locked into a pack of lies summed up in the garbage of ‘environmental science’. The “Liberal” Ministers oversaw the introduction of what is nothing less than an overt progrom of indoctrination into the Greens’ beliefs in schools. In Victoria, for example, school children berate parents ( thus they are also being turned into nasty little tyrants for good measure) for collecting firewood. Why? Here’s the sort of ‘reasons’ they give:

“They are homes of little animals”.

There was a day when a child would have been given a clip over the ear for both the insolence and the stupidity.

Who is the source of such infantile, moronic rubbish? The Greens. Who is drilling it into youngsters? Kommissars of not schools but brainwashing camps. It is understandable why so many illiterate, juvenile ignoramuses are ‘employed as teachers’. Bright adults would refuse to purvey such monstrous perversions; they would be punished for white-anting the progrom by teaching science.

A lecturer in Physics, an acquaintance, has no undergraduates to tutor. The reason is, the schools are producing raw talent in physics in fast diminishing numbers. Mr. Louis Hissink has observed the same of Western Australia - a dire consequence is the shortage of geologists. Now, these remarks encapsulate what the whole great lie turns on, exemplified by that monstrosity the IPCC. Let’s turn aside to other interesting observations.

Having mentioned even Wikipedia could not altogether ignore the hard truths about Bob Brown’s best pal, Chavez, there are limits to its capacity for truth. Wikipedia has smeared Britannica, and for good reasons and here is one of them:

Wikipedia’s Zealots

The Wikipedia page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego…is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science magazine published, called “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” This paper…is nonsense.

….it was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike, one of them being Benny Peiser, a prominent UK scientist and publisher of CCNet…

when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have…and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page…

Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits (who)…explained why. “Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!”

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?

Tabletop parried: “we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”

(Tabletop is) Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams…of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further…

I checked the pages too, and yes, that is what they have done - suppressed science and promoted fraud. They are propaganda sheets.The Oreskes’ paper served one good job, it exposed the formerly respected science journals Science and Nature for suppressing papers which contradicted fabricated claims and papers supporting the Lie. The Telegraph happily published on the scandal, in 2005:

Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’

Turning to another article by Lawrence Solomon,

How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.

…1992 and the United Nations…Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as — and was — the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations…118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world’s environmental groups came too…some 30,000 (of them)…7,000 journalists converged on Rio…

In February …to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming,” decrying “the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.”

To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world’s most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.

Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal…

(Next)The Oregon petition…an astounding 17,800 signatures…The petition drew media attention, but little of it was for revealing to the world that an extraordinary number of scientists hold views on global warming diametrically opposite to those they are expected to hold. Instead, the press focussed on presumed flaws that critics found in the petition…

Some claimed the petition had phonies. There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and soon removed. Other names that seemed to be phony — such as Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series — were actually bona fide scientists, properly credentialled.

Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto’s corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back:

“E-mails started coming in every day…The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. “We decided to …

Solomon could be summing up the situation in Australia. Now this;

Monday, May 19, 2008

Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to release names of over 30,000 scientists rejecting global warming hypothesis
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science — including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

Here’s a site written by scientists, ICECAP - for example, this:

The simple truth is…our research at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does not support predictions of an impending disaster-the regulations proposed to date and promoted by the green agenda will have no measurable effect…May 13, 2008

What is not in dispute is climate change can occur as a regular physical phenomenon. Whether it is occurring now is a different question. What is rejected is the Greens’ claim that man produced Co2 emissions causes climate change.

The scientists are not sceptics in the pejorative sense that not only Peter Garrett has used to smear scientists but also the likes of Campbell, Kemp, and ABC’s ‘Science Show’ Robyn Williams. The overwhelming arguments against the Greens’ great Lie are not ‘consensus’; they are sound scientific arguments mounted not by some collective but by individuals engaged in science. Their objections run from solid theory. They include a very large number of Nobel Prize winners. The assertion the Greens’ lie is good science is an overt fraud and corruption of science, reflected in their capricious habits:

When the original Greens’ claim of man causes global warming by Co2 emission was smashed, they shifted the ground. They altered it to; man causes climate change through Co2 emissions. As this claim is being eviscerated for the lie it is, they are altering it again. They now simply assert, climate change is occurring and C02 is the mechanism. In other words, they have never even bothered to meet a primitive requirement in science, to put a valid, testable hypothesis. They merely assert their claim is established theory.

If it were theory, bye they bye, what exactly in physics is explained? Nothing; there is no explanatory power in their assertion. To make this plain, what laws of physics are involved? What laws of physics, which distinguished scientists have not fathomed, have the Greens advanced as the ground of their claims and, no less crucially, take the weight their claims requires? Zip, absolutely nothing. It is worse than a travesty of physics.

As for evidence, they have never produced scientific evidence indicative of events and interactions that might be suggestive of their claim and any laws involved. Computer modelling is asserted to be evidence. It is not. It is merely playing with written programmes. So, even the attempts of the IPCC to cover itself for the fraud they have perpetrated with good news ‘projections’ are entirely worthless -

NOAA: Global Warming Means Fewer, Not More Hurricanes (Monday, May 19, 2008)

It would be just as effective to consult the Delphic Oracle. Hmmm, it’s also why ‘economic modelling’ is rubbish. Computer modelling is a very expensive fraud committed against taxpayers.

The Greens’ lie is a grotesque violation of the laws of physics, corruption of scientific inquiry, perversion of the quest for truth in science. This is why Australians have to endure the likes of Tim Flannery, whose latest fantasy is to “change sky colour“. There I was, impressed “Professor” Garnaut could be one of the most deranged of Greenies In Australia. Is Flannery who takes the completely insane cake or has large slice of Brown’s apple crumble. “Pump the atmosphere with sulphur!” Flannery is totally deranged, as his other demands manifests. Ha, Bob Brown will be jealous.

Then, there is The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who blame fat people for the (ethonal caused) cut in food supply, and global warming.

If it were confined to the Greens and other madmen it would not be a problem, but it’s not. Politicians have proliferated it, with the propaganda machine called media, and brainwashing camps drumming it in day and night. It’s not these liars either, who are so much the worry as the fact they have succeeded with their disgusting efforts. It’s the voting man in the street parroting the inanities that is the realised danger - the sheer numbers of them who believe the Great Lie.

Anglers can be heard blaming ‘climate change’ if they don’t catch a fish. Drought! Why, ‘curse that Co2′. Storms, they are “wild weather” and this means Co2. It’s not simply the numbingly inane slogans littering everyday speech, it’s the fact that very many Australians accept ’something ought to be done about it’ that is the final straw. That, they are willing to accept all the punishment the increasingly totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats can dream up. It’s the final sign we are in deep shite.

The Right are as culpable for the systematic corruption as are the Greens and the ALP. They, after all, entrenched it in the course of over a decade in office. What an appalling record. The Right should stop pretending to the public and cease calling themselves Liberals, they are not and it shows also in - they have all but destroyed the Liberal Party too. It is testament to their intellectual sloth, laziness, and self-satisfied mendacity. Thus, Kevin Rudd and his Cabinet of “Brown Pantalooned Morons”.