[4wd]

I'm afraid this will backfire horribly away from the drone blogs.
For example http://dailybayonet....hate-heartland/
How shocking they should have helped Anthony Watts with funding to investigate UHI effects, which are consistently underestimated.
How much has been spent promoting AGW alarmism by the likes of Gore and Greenpeace?
Far more than 6.5million that's for sure.

[Andy Mayhew]

4wd, on 15 February 2012 - 19:23, said:

How much has been spent promoting AGW alarmism by the likes of Gore and Greenpeace?
Far more than 6.5million that's for sure.

You make a valid point

Of course, 2 wrongs do not make a right. And just because one person does something we disagree with does not mean it's okay for someone to do likewise. Though humans being humans it's inevitable.

None of which helps the man in the street understand what is/isn't/might be happening and what we can/cannot/should/should not do about it - if anything. No wonder the public - especially in the face of more immediate worries - are apathetic about the possible (or otherwise) consequences of todays actions on tomorrow.

[John Mason]

4wd, you know full well the result of the Surfacestations project and that it in fact found a bias towards cooling!

The Gore-Greenpeace defence-trench has already been predicted widely as the first response and the prediction is proving correct everywhere I look. Yet the important point is that all of these, from either side, are advocacy-groups, NOT the guys who do the science, who typically earn less than a market-town bank-manager at best. OK I'm in an advocacy-group too, but there's no $11,600/month for me @ Skeptical Science, nor for the other guys - we give our time freely because we think it is important.

It's politics, I tell ya!

Cheers - John

[Flatlander]

John Mason, on 15 February 2012 - 19:38, said:

The Gore-Greenpeace defence-trench has already been predicted widely as the first response and the prediction is proving correct everywhere I look.

Maybe because it is an entirely valid point? The AGW industry is much better funded. They may have more scientific support but some of the alarmist stuff goes way over the top. Greenpeace depend on alarmism for their existence.

[NileQueen]

John Mason, on 15 February 2012 - 13:21, said:

Will do, Dave W!

As I've said before, the battle isn't here at UKww as we are primarily a bunch of weather-enthusiasts, but there are some members who are active in the wider world for whom this item would be of much interest, just as there was when the Climategate story broke over two years ago. Chris, I did not suggest that following my links was compulsory: they were intended for those with an active interest in what has become the Climate Wars. You are more than welcome to scroll past them!

Cheers - John

No battle, you say, John?
Climategate two years ago? You did take a look at Climategate II right?
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2
search on Ed Cook or Keith Briffa. There are some really interesting insights there.

This post has been edited by NileQueen: 16 February 2012 - 00:09

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Jo,

Sorry, personally I find climategate and the associated illegal e-mail hijacking reprehensible and inappropriate. As it is allowed under the guidelines this conversation can continue; however, my preference would be that we either discuss the politics in general or reference legitament political points of evidence. But, hey thats just me carry-on...

[NileQueen]

ldavidcooke, on 16 February 2012 - 01:33, said:

Hey Jo,

Sorry, personally I find climategate and the associated illegal e-mail hijacking reprehensible and inappropriate. As it is allowed under the guidelines this conversation can continue; however, my preference would be that we either discuss the politics in general or reference legitament political points of evidence. But, hey thats just me carry-on...

Hey Day,

Okay sure, I'll carry on. If you took a moment and examined some of those exchanges, you might become enlightened.
There are frank conversations between scientists
about how they try to deal with analyses and problems they struggle with doing the science.
In the Climategate 2 emails it becomes obvious in the emails I looked at that so many scientists worry about what Michael Mann will think if they disagree with him. It is simply remarkable
that one person with an agenda will suppress the facts in order to bring about changes in policy. In science, your findings dictate what you report. You don't manipulate your findings to fit a preconceived scenario.

[John Mason]

Latest:

DeSmog, in its response to Heartland's charges, stood by its initial report.

"DeSmogBlog has received no direct communications from the Heartland Institute identifying any misstatement of fact in the "Climate Strategy" document," it said.

The nature of the "theft" charges by Heartland was also not immediately clear. Lakely, in his statement, explains that a staff member, persuaded by "an unknown person", mistakenly sent the documents to an unfamiliar email address.




Clear as Mississippi mud, in other words! In the meantime, Skeptical Science notes that: Heartland could easily prove the strategy document is a fake by releasing the email which they claim contained the released documents.

Cheers - John

[JohnG]

All of this political mud slinging and propoganda is exactly why I don't know what to think any more when it comes to AGW. I was a firm believer, then I was a firm denier and now I've decided I'm not convinced either way and I'm just going to sit back and watch it all unfold.

IMHO there are a lot of things out there that are more certain and more important in my eyes such as protecting and enhancing biodiveristy and preventing further ecosystem degredation.

If we focus more on caring for and protected the environment then surely that will benefit everyone and everything. We are still placing too much emphasis on CO2 and I'm affraid that it is just being used as both a cash cow for governments and big business and as a scapegoat to hide more important damage being done to our world.

It is sad that as a society we seem to have taken our eye off the ball due to a (frankly rather ugly) streaker on the pitch.

It would be a sad indictment of our times if projects like HS-2 (a project I'd like to succeed) and the Thames Estuary airport (a project I am against) were allowed to proceed without proper environmental assessments.

Granted that even wildlife protection is rife with mud slinging, propoganda and in-fighting but at least the waters are far less muddy. The problems can be seen by scientists and none scientists alike, unlike with AGW and CO2.

This post has been edited by JohnG: 16 February 2012 - 08:24

[John Mason]

JohnG, on 16 February 2012 - 08:23, said:

It would be a sad indictment of our times if projects like HS-2 (a project I'd like to succeed) and the Thames Estuary airport (a project I am against) were allowed to proceed without proper environmental assessments.

Unfortunately John you will have the same general crowd after you for wanting those proper environmental assessments. Totally agree with you, of course, but there is a mindset out there that says we can do what the hell we want and sod the consequences. As we discussed in Chris' thread, AGW is just one of a set of symptoms that indicate that we cannot treat the natural environment with cavalier disregard.

Cheers - John

[JohnG]

John Mason, on 16 February 2012 - 08:45, said:

Unfortunately John you will have the same general crowd after you for wanting those proper environmental assessments. Totally agree with you, of course, but there is a mindset out there that says we can do what the hell we want and sod the consequences. As we discussed in Chris' thread, AGW is just one of a set of symptoms that indicate that we cannot treat the natural environment with cavalier disregard.

Cheers - John

Yes I am just in the process of reading Chris' thread. I missed it until just now. It certainly echoes a lot of my sentiments.

I might have a lot of the same crowd after me but at least I'd feel like I was on firmer and higher ground while trying to fight my corner than with AGW.

Thanks, John

[andre]

It's just framing.

http://heartland.org...-fake-documents

Maybe somebody realises that this demonizing the opponent is what I mean by the dominating species

Quote

the real problem with this planet is that it is dominated by a non-rational species, unable to do an objective analysis of the main problems due to something called politics, but actually due to the prevailing instincts that this species needed to survive a hostile environment, but that stands in the way now he succeeeded doing that..

For a group to thrive, you need an enemy -a basic instinct- and if you don't have one you make one. That's what you see happening here.

Quote

The existence or perceived existence of a collective enemy tends to increase the cohesiveness of the group.^[3] However, the identification and treatment of other entities as enemies may be irrational, and a sign of a psychological dysfunction. For example, group polarization may devolve into groupthink, which may lead members of the "in" group to perceive nonmembers or other groups as enemies even where the others present neither antagonism nor an actual threat.^[4] Paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by the irrational belief that other people, ranging from family members and personal acquaintances to celebrities seen on television, are personal enemies plotting harm to the sufferer.^[5][6] Irrational approaches may extend to treating impersonal phenomena not merely as conceptual enemies, but as sentient actors intentionally bringing strife to the sufferer.

The concept of the enemy is well covered in the field of Peace and conflict studies, which is available as a major at many major universities. In Peace studies, enemies are those entities who are perceived as frustrating or preventing achievement of a goal. The enemy may not even know they are being regarded as such, since the concept is one-sided.

Thus, in order to achieve peace, one must eliminate the enemy. This can be achieved by either by:

• destroying the enemy
• changing one's perception of an entity as enemy
• achieving the goal the enemy is frustrating

Personal conflicts are frequently either unexamined (one's goals are not well defined) or examined only from one point of view. This means it is often possible to resolve conflict (to 'eliminate' the enemy) by redefining goals such that the frustration (not the person) is either eliminated, obvious, negotiated away, or decided upon.

This desire to have enemies is also the first stage that leads to genocide, and obviously this step is clearly accomplished.

It's beyond words that UKww is instrumental for this kind of practice.

http://judithcurry.c...2/15/heartland/
http://www.climatedepot.com/

[John Mason]

Strong stuff there, Andre.

Meanwhile, the Guardian notes this apparent contradiction:

The exchanges over the provenance of the documents are bound to deepen the comparisons to the 2009 hacking of scientists' email at the University of East Anglia's climate research unit. At the time, Heartland said the theft of those personal emails created "an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians" to revise their belief in climate change.

On Wednesday, however, Heartland said DeSmog and others should be "ashamed" of writing about the documents before the thinktank could comment. Lakely also asked bloggers and journalists to take down the documents and refrain from quoting them.

Cheers - John

[andre]

John Mason, on 16 February 2012 - 09:24, said:

Strong stuff there, Andre.

When I was a little kid the holocaust memory of the second world war was very fresh for every adult, and most conversations came down to the question, how on earth could it have happened? How can normal persons, joined in a nation can go so low that they massacre another group, being dead sure that they have to do that to make the world a better place. Everybody was flabbergasted and so was I.

But not anymore. Now I understand that mechanism.

[John Mason]

Andre, it's further from home I know but I felt the same about the genocide in Rwanda, and of course about the goings-on in the Balkans in the early 1990s.

Cheers - John

[Peter H]

andre, on 16 February 2012 - 09:13, said:

This desire to have enemies is also the first stage that leads to genocide, and obviously this step is clearly accomplished.

It's beyond words that UKww is instrumental for this kind of practice.

http://judithcurry.c...2/15/heartland/
http://www.climatedepot.com/

Instrumental in what practice? What are you alleging UKww is promoting?

Honestly, we see people's private emails stolen, we've seen a decade of vile allegations (including death threats) hurled at climate scientists and there's not a whisper of condemnation from your ilk and yet when the boot is on the other foot (and for the very first time) you play the 'you lot want mass murder' card. Get real man!

This post has been edited by Peter H: 16 February 2012 - 09:56

[andre]

John Mason, on 16 February 2012 - 09:39, said:

Andre, it's further from home I know but I felt the same about the genocide in Rwanda, and of course about the goings-on in the Balkans in the early 1990s.

Cheers - John

Now is it so hard to understand that we see exactly that same mechanism here? Demonizing the out group, those who are different and do not agree. You need a good enemy to make friends, and the louder you shout, the more preparedness you show to anihilate that enemy, the higher you climb in the pecking order. That's where we are in the climate war. And everything is allowed in war, creating some fake papers is nothing. But will it stop there? Can we stop this madness?

[Peter H]

andre, on 16 February 2012 - 10:09, said:

Now is it so hard to understand that we see exactly that same mechanism here? Demonizing the out group, those who are different and do not agree. You need a good enemy to make friends, and the louder you shout, the more preparedness you show to anihilate that enemy, the higher you climb in the pecking order. That's where we are in the climate war. And everything is allowed in war, creating some fake papers is nothing. But will it stop there? Can we stop this madness?

Yes! Start first by condemning all the vile allegations people like Dr Michael Mann have faced for more than a decade. Then condemn the insults Dr James Hansen faces on a routine basis.

Me? I condemn it all, whoever it's directed at.

[John Mason]

I have no desire to anihilate anybody, Andre. But as Peter points out above, this is hardly new, or one-sided, is it?

Cheers - John

[andre]

John Mason, on 16 February 2012 - 10:15, said:

I have no desire to anihilate anybody, ..

...Cheers - John

Not a lot of mid-European had the desire to anihilate anybody back in the 1930s, but with the constant cross fire of demagogery speeches slowly but inevibly the message came through that there was a horrendus sub-human enemy out there that needed to be ausradiert.

Now we hear constantly that there is a vile group of deniers, who seem to smoke with cancer or something, who successfully prevent that we save the world from global warming. If we want to save the world, they must be ausradiert.

Meanwhile with the evidence from AGW exposed and refuted that urge appears to become stronger and stronger. So the science is no longer the issue, we desperately need that war. There mst be an enemy somewhere.