All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Saturday, 5 May 2012

Do you believe in (Man Made) Global Warming?

Do you still believe in man made global warming? As Heartland points out,

Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski

aka The Unabomber is a believer. 

Heartland wrote on their site:
“What these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the ‘mainstream’ media, and liberal politicians say about global warming.  They are so similar, in fact, that a web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his ‘Manifesto’ and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.”

Jim Lakely, Heartland’s spokesman, told The Daily Caller that the ad is “deliberately provocative,” despite the fact that the outfit “doesn’t often do provocative marketing or communication.”

“Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change. In return, we’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine,” Lakely explained. “The other side seems to be playing by different rules. So I find all this outrage at Heartland for a single billboard a little puzzling since there seems to be little public outrage at those who constantly attack us for speaking the truth about the climate.”

Before the self-righteous alarmists start crying foul, remember the 10:10 video with exploding children 

 Finnish ecologist  Pentti Linkola advocates killing, also:
Linkola is one of the few voices who advocates:
1) No immigration
2) Downsize population
3) Kill defectives
4) Stop rampant technology

On the other hand ~

From Donna Lafromboise on her blog No Frakking Consensus.
But my participation in the upcoming Heartland conference has now become untenable. I’m a Canadian who has never been a member of any political party. Sometimes I agree with the left, sometimes I agree with the right. Many people base their climate opinions on the political tribe to which they belong. I’m not one of them.
I believe in pragmatism and common sense. I believe in cold, hard facts – and in treating people with whom I disagree with courtesy and respect.
Over a 24-hour period late this week, Heartland ran an ad on an electronic billboard along a highway in suburban Chicago. It featured a photo of Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, who is currently serving a life sentence in a Colorado penitentiary for killing three people and injuring 23 more. The billboard read: “I still believe in global warming. Do you?”
And from Ross McKittick who exposed the fraudulent "hockey stick."
I am absolutely dismayed. This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation, hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.
And  From Heartland's Joe Bast:
“The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.”
By 4 p.m. Eastern time, an outcry from allies and opponents alike led the Heartland Institute’s president, Joe Bast, to say he would switch off the sign within the hour.
Perhaps Heartland would have been wiser to offer something like this:
I still believe in 

making millions 

from carbon credits

  Don't you?  



A last word.

Let us not forget the despicable actions of Peter Gleick in trying to discredit The Heartland Institute.

As Ed Feulner writes:

What could be more American than encouraging a robust debate on one of the most controversial issues of the day? The answer -- for some on the left, anyway -- is: lie about your opponents and make a pathetic effort to discredit them. 
That, at least, is what an activist named Peter Gleick decided to do in a backwards attempt to promote his view that global warming is unquestionably and primarily a man-made phenomenon -- one that will cause calamitous changes in the environment.

Why Heartland? Because this free-market non-profit group has been at the forefront of the climate-change debate. They’ve published books, articles and reports, held conferences, and debunked the hysterical claims of the radical environmental movement. Their efforts have earned them the scorn of liberal activists who would rather smear their opponents than debate them.

The centerpiece of Gleick’s counterfeit cornucopia was an alleged insider memo outlining plans to stop teachers from “teaching science,” and to “undermine” reports from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The memo also claimed the Charles G. Koch Foundation was funding Heartland’s climate-change efforts.
None of this was true, but it didn’t stop Gleick from loading his “smoking gun.” 
Unfortunately for him, his ammunition turned out to be blanks. Computer forensic work showed that the memo couldn’t have come from any Heartland computers. It references only the documents that Gleick stole (a theft which he later was forced to admit).



  1. I think this means that if you don't accept global warming science, you're crazier than Ted Kaczynski.

  2. Oh, Brian, I don't accept the "dodgy" science of the alarmists, the hide the decline. the falsification of data etc.

    Do you believe that scientists should corrupt science to get a political point across, Brian?

  3. Oh Geoff - Ted Kaczynski still believes that the earth is round. Should I stop believing that just because Ted does?
    Unless you're as mad as he is, you can't "believe" in climate change (natural or man-made): it just is. Do you "believe" in rain, sunshine, winter, cyclones and bushfires? They just are. This Heartland billboard is the dopiest piece of false logic and most offensive propaganda I have seen in a long, long while. And you ARE crazy to support, endorse or defend it. No self-respecting sceptic wants to be tarred with this brush. Think again.

  4. Hang on, what's your logic here?

    The entire denier industry cried foul over the exploding children video, as did many in the environmental movement and others. The advert was withdrawn, with apologies issued.

    So if that was such a bad thing, why is it suddenly ok for Heartland to do something similar? You yourself point out that the Heartland ad campaign is just as bad as the exploding children one.

    Indeed, Heartland itself has withdrawn its adverts after everyone including a keynote speakers its conference, s Senator Jim Sensenbrenner, condemned them.

    Never mind that the Climate Sceptics Party seems to think it's ok! Incredible.

    Very strange logic and extremely bad judgement - but oh, hang on, maybe it's the same logic that has you missing the conclusions of the mainstream climate science?

    1. "the same logic that has you missing the conclusions of the mainstream climate science?"

      Do you mean the warping of the science by the crooked Climategate CRU?

      Do you support hide the decline?

      Do you support the fraudulent hockey stick?

      Do you support the Australian Scientists lying about death threats?

      If you do, you show "Very strange logic and extremely bad judgement."

    2. answer the main point here, Geoff. If you thought the exploding children video was so bad, why are you endorsing Heartland's?
      Even Heartland has taken it down...

    3. Isn't it amazing that you people who believe in climate alarmism are so skewed in your thoughts that you warp what you read. Or do you just try to warp what people say for political reasons.

      Where in the post do I say that I approve or disapprove?

      It was a report of the facts as they stood at the time.

    4. Oh Geoff, you're really getting tied up in knots here, diverting attention away from your own post. This ain't the way, mate. You raised the subject in the first place.
      Please give us a straight, specific answer, without pointing the finger somewhere else at what so-and-so said about such-and-such, and without raising red herrings and going off at tangents:
      * Question: Does the Climate Sceptics Party endorse or support the Heartland Institute billboard? Yes or no?
      * If so, please explain why you think this IS a fruitful way to advance the debate.
      * If not, explain why you think this is NOT a fruitful way to advance debate and how your party intends to do so.

  5. Nice work. The more kooks that jump on the sceptic bandwagon the more normal people will realise how idiotic your logic is.

    1. And isn't it amazing that the kooks are coming out of the alarmist woodwork. See the comments above and below.

  6. Geoff Brown, you're a liar and a fraud, but given the whole denier movement is based on lies and falsehoods paid for by fronts for polluters (like the Heartland Institute) it's not surprising:

    Even some of your climate liar mates think it went too far (see last para of

    1. Oh really! Do you support the crooked climategate cru.

      The whole alarmist movement is based on lies and falsehoods.

      Another kook!

    2. Um, excuse me for wondering about this in a public-relations sense, but aren't you representing a political party that wants to be elected?

      Is this the sort of treatment voters what we can expect from you if you were to be elected - name-calling, accusations, aggression and invective?

      Looks that way from the tone of this blog. Just a thought.

  7. Question: Do you endorse or in any way support Heartland's billboard campaign?

    One could read it that you do, given that you posted a blog about it.
    Do you think it's a good campaign?
    Why did you post a blog about it?

  8. The ones you and your liar mates tried distort for your own ends and failed?

    The amount of repeated distortions and outright lies coming from the anti-science "denialist" crowd would put the Iraqi Information Minister to shame.

    Where's the irrefutable proof of your "warmist" conspiracies then? You don't have any? Then p*iss off and let the sentient people run the show.

    You would have more luck pushing geocentricism, phrenology or a flat Earth.

  9. The amount of repeated distortions and outright lies coming from the alarmist crowd would put the Iraqi Information Minister to shame.

    Where's the irrefutable proof of the "warmist's" hypothesis that CO2 is causing runaway global warming?

    You don't have any? Then quietly and politely leave.

    1. I repeat my questions Geoff:

      Do you endorse or in any way support Heartland's billboard campaign?

      One could read it that you do, given that you posted a blog about it.
      Do you think it's a good campaign?
      Why did you post a blog about it?

    2. Wow: "irrefutable proof"? Set the bar as high as it can possibly go and everything falls short. Hope I never get you on a jury.

      Okay, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: where's the irrefutable proof that climate science is wrong? Where's the irrefutable proof that you are right? Where's the irrefutable proof that if we accept and adopt your position, no harm will come of it?

    3. "Why did you post a blog about it?"

      It is big news in the Climate Science arena. As is Donna and Ross’ responses/

      Where's the irrefutable proof that climate science is wrong?

      Not all climate science is wrong, there are very good papers – but the hypothesis the CO2 causes runaway warming has been falsified. More than once, although once is enough.

    4. "has been falsified. More than once, although once is enough."

      This is complete bullshit. Saying that "once is enough" for anything having to do with science shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works. Science does not, and has never worked, by showing something once. It works by showing things in a repeatable consistent fashion.

    5. "This is complete bulldust."

      Watch your language, please. Refer to the rules of posting.
      "Saying that 'once is enough' for anything having to do with science shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works."

      In fact, it shows that you seem to have no idea of how science works.

      From the not always perfect Wikipedia ~ For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

      Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

      Google AGW - A falsified hypothesis.

  10. I repeat my questions Geoff:

    Do you endorse or in any way support Heartland's billboard campaign?

    One could read it that you do, given that you posted a blog about it.
    Do you think it's a good campaign?
    Why did you post a blog about it?

    1. I do not speak for the party.

      Whether I support or denigrate the Heartland's billboard campaign is not relevant.

      "One could read it that you do, given that you posted a blog about it."

      That is rather a stupid remark. There is no opinion in the above post for or against the billboard.

      The closest thing to an opinion is the suggested "Al Gore Billboard."

      As I have written above, it was posted because - "It is big news in the Climate Science arena. As is Donna and Ross’ responses."

      You might ask: Do I support Donna and Ross' responses but that would through your oft repeated question into turmoil, wouldn't it.

      Tell me, do YOU support the fraudulent hockeystick and the decline-hiding scientists of the Climategate CABAL?

  11. So you're just speaking for yourself here, and we should ignore the thingy at the top of the page stating that this is "The Official blog of Australia's NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS)".

    Should it say instead that this is "The Official Blog of Geoff Brown Who in No Way is Speaking for the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party, It Just Looks That Way"?

    1. So were the questions too hard for you?

      (Step 4: criticise and smear anyone who dares ask questions.)

  12. I am almost certain that no amount of science will shift your opinion, since it is ideological in origin: you believe the implications of climate change science must require some coercive takeover of conservative capitalism, rather than allowing market forces to do the job. You see Green where the Cold War saw Red. I really do understand that.
    Anyhow, since you do go on about the alleged fraudulent hockey stick in such a way as to suggest you think there that's established fact, and that there is only one hockey stick graph that counts - I can assure you that Mann's original 1998 paper has been shown repeatedly to be essentially correct and that there are now dozens of other "hockey sticks" saying pretty much the same thing. They can't all be frauds.
    Mann found that global temperature over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.
    Steve McIntyre published a critique in 2004 claiming that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
    An independent assessment of Mann's data by the National Center for Atmospheric Research reconstructed his data using different stats techniques and found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century, but confirmed the principal results - i.e. that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
    While you continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies all find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).

    So my answer is NO - I do not support any fraudulent hockey stick. Then again, I don't accept that there is one.

    1. I think that perhaps you are Mike, frequent comment maker on another Mike's blog WtFDeniers.

      If you are, why are you creeping around in the blurry anonymous area?

      If you are Mike, then you will know that I have pointed out that one on the leading alarmists back in the late nineties -Jonathan Overpeck - in the link below called Jay Overpeck, said that to scare the pants off the populace they (alarmists) had to get rid of the Medieval Warmi Period (and presumably the little ice age).

      Not long after that we were hit with the fraudulent MBH98.


      "This is what McIntyre and McKitrick did using the techniques that Mann had used in the Hockey Stick paper. And the results were staggering.

      What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.'

      McIntyre and McKitrick submitted a letter to Nature about the serious flaws they had uncovered in the methodology used in the Hockey Stick paper. After a long (8-month) reviewing process Nature notified them that they would not publish it. They concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give McIntyre and McKitrick, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers!

      Instead of publishing anything from McIntyre and McKitrick explaining the serious errors that they had found Nature allowed Mann to make a coy correction in an on-line Supplement (but not in the printed text itself) where he revealed the nonstandard method he had used, and added the unsupported claim that it did not affect the results.

      Eventually in 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick published an article entitled “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” in the journal Energy and Environment raising concerns about what they had found in Manns Hockey Stick paper.


  13. I am not Mike and I don't know who Mike is.
    As I said, no amount of science will change your ideological stance, more's the pity: if you are truly sceptical, you have the capacity to revise your opinion subject to new evidence. You are obviously fixated on the 1998 paper and cannot entertain subsequent evidence from many multiple other sources - thus, you are not a sceptic.
    You still have avoided giving a straight answer to a straight question concerning the Heartland billboard, therefore it is time to stop asking and conclude that you are not trying in any way to engage in an honest debate.
    That's it from me. You lose. And you lose a potential supporter, a potential donor and a potential voter. I will look elsewhere I hope others who read this exchange reach the same sensible conclusion. The Heartland Institute has revealed itself as just another propaganda machine, and one with no moral centre and one that has totally lost its compass. Its pathetic efforts to defend this campaign as an "experiment" merely confirm its loss of self-scrutiny.
    Your failure to condemn their appalling lapse of judgement puts you in the same death spiral.
    I wish you no harm, but goodbye.

  14. For McIntyre and McKitrick - see a reproduction -

  15. I don't get this at all. The McIntyre and McKitrick paper went through the scientific eventually got published but in the end it did not survive peer review. There are many criticisms about it, the allegations in it, and in the end the hockey stick was found to hold true in spite of it. All of this can be found in the peer reviewed literature!!!

    While the scientific community did exactly what it should, you are doing the opposite. You take the one paper, use that as a proof of your claims, while simultaneously dismissing all other papers on this matter.

    1. There are MANY peer reviewed papers that show that the Little Ice Age (LIA) happened and that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) happened and that these events were world wide.

      The IPCC, of course recognised the TRUE history of the data until MBH98 and, of course before that when leading IPCC/alarmist Jonathan Overpeck said those now famous words, to "scare the pants off the populace, we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

      MBH98 surfaced a short time later.

      And they call US the deniers!


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!