Click for PDF
UPDATE: Kudos to Andy for linking to my map with the comment “I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are spot on.” [Well, it did say that originally, it’s now been toned down somewhat… and I think Andy may have missed the fact that this is satire – Ed]
Andy Revkin, in the New York Times, indulges in a full frontal denier orgy today, proudly showing a map of “organised climate change denial”. So I thought I would respond with my own Map of the Climate Change Alarmism Machine.
P.S. Check out some of the comments on Revkin’s post… ouch.
Australian Climate Madness 
The AGW context is all about defining who makes money and who pays, by force, while regulating our lives to the Nth detail. In other words, it’s a form of fascism civilization has never previously suffered (fascism, by definition, seeks total control). For the sake of power and profit, corporatists, leftists, so-called academics, and all other Mussolini’s of the world would desire nothing less.
Two Queensland University of Technology investigators, Searle and Gow (2011) say “there is a growing consensus that increased awareness about climate change is leading to negative emotional reactions in certain individuals. (The survey was completed by 275 Australian adults)
Searle and Gow (2009) found that most of the people they studied, “conceptualized climate change as being related to unexpected environmental events such as natural disasters; changes in climate such as extreme weather patterns; and changes to lifestyle … greater social problems in the future such as mass migration, increased food prices, war over natural resources, as well as more extreme and catastrophic climatic events.”
The NIPCC has the full report here titled ‘The Debilitating Disease of Climate Alarmism’.
Shhh … don’t say anything to Andy, but I think he might be suffering this.
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that our current labor government, as let by Julia Gillard and controlled by Bob Brown, is doing whatever it can to turn Australia into a State more like Communism rather than a democracy.
You forgot the influence of the thousands of believers who are not in it for power or money, but because they are gullible sheep with little scientific knowledge who do not question what they have been told. But instead truly believe we are destroying the planet and hence partake in protests and drive the demand for renewable energy products such as solar and wind, all made in china (which by the way has anyone actually done a feasibility study on those technologies to see how much energy it takes to manufacture, transport and install vs actual realistic output)
The Incredible shrinking animals – thanks to global warming!
Lookout! We’re all set to shrink according to a new study at Queen Mary University, London. If it’s not bad enough we’re all likely to die of a catastrophic climate event, now it’s been revealed global warming causes animals to shrink in size.
ScienceDaily (Sep. 27, 2011) ” The way in which global warming causes many of the world’s organisms to shrink has been revealed by new research. Writing in the journal The American Naturalist, Dr Andrew Hirst and colleagues explore this unusual shrinking effect in more detail, and show conclusively how it occurs.”
I think somebody’s brain shrunk investigating this!
I know mine did just reading that paragraph.
Every now and again, someone comes up with a gem. This Pdf is a real gem. Brilliant! Well done!
“But, as with so much of the climate debate, it is an overdrawn, overblown caricature of reality.”
Ripe. Just ripe.
Just checked out the PDF and read your comments, I think you people are living in a dream world. I bet you all sit at home complaining about the price of food, power, fuel etc. I really cant believe there is still people who don’t believe in climate change, yes the world goes through natural climate changes every few thousand years but it has been proven hundreds of times by experts that this cycle is occuring much quicker than ever before. We can all sit in front of our computers and read what the sceptics say, then pick out the points that seem to make sense to you personally, but at the end of the day its time to act now and do something. We all know we dont live in a perfect world and no solution is going to be agreed upon by everyone, sometimes we need to make sacrifices to achieve a common goal. That common goal should be to work towards solutions to protect our earth and all that live upon it, and yes it may cost us more in power, food and fuel but I would rather that then leave a ruined planet for my children and theirs.
Wind-bag, you should be over 13 years old, to write on this blog. Did Julia, or your pre-school teacher told you that: climate change is for real? Next time you should ask them: when the climatic changes were not for real?! If it wasn’t any industrial revolution, would the climate stopped changing? Do you like Australian climate; in which animals and people are burned in big bushfires? Extra CO2 + H2O on the land improves the climate. They are both fire retardant molecules. WHAT DO WE WANT? CLIMATE CHANGE! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!!!
The misleading propaganda cooked the brains on all the Warmist supporters, and on half of the Skeptics. You should take in a ”class action” the leading protagonist, for brains damage. I will be your witness.
Your the one living in a dream world if you think paying more taxes to a lying corrupt goverment is actually going to help the enviroment. When the majority of said money will be going to buy FAKE Carbon Credits from a Rothschild owned bank such as Goldman Sachs, Who will do nothing but take your money & laugh all the way to the bank.
I simply cannot believe there are simpltons out there who actually beileves in Al Gores Scarcemongering lies & Fraudulent data. Real Climatetoligist’s (who are not paid off by the IPCC) reasearch shows that REAL climate change happens becasuse of Solar Raditation from the Sun not because of when living creatures Breath (CO2) or Fart (Methane). Both of which are trace gasses & are naturally occuring in the atmostphere.
If the Government was serious about helping the enviroment they would STOP water pollution, STOP cutting down forests, etc. Is any of that being done? NO, instead a big tax is being put on EVERYTHING.
And your damn right we worry about paying more for petrol, food & power because not everyone has lots of money in the bank like you clearly have. Some of us are struggling to survive as it is, Why dont you pay our tax as well if you so concerned? NO? Well Shut Up.
That’s a great diagram Simon – it shows the scope of political activity all too clearly and brings out the major points succinctly.
I’ll certainly be using that as a reference.
Thanks
How come a good socialist has to have belief – Religions were and are hammered by socialists for their blind belief, and here they all are believing in their own God with no actual proof that he even exists … sounds awfully odd to me.
We know the science has been tweaked to coincide with political desires for those that only want to empower themselves to have power over the rest of us….
….but only socialists with limited marbles could possibly imagine they have all the science and correct conclusions when scientists cannot model more than a fraction of the possibilities that affect the state of the planet.
It’s not just arrogance, its deceit and stupidity on a global scale.
Well Simon, you’ve scored on Andrew Revkin. He’s got another article in the NYT bristling at your diagram. You should ask the NYT for a right of reply…and you might even get it: wouldn’t that be a snorter!
H/T credit again to Tom Nelson the all seeing eye…
Yes, saw that – have just posted on it. Thanks.
G’day and congratulation Skeptic nerds, you made it possible for Julia to pas the carbon rip-off legislation. I told you that CO2 has being substituted for hammer and seacle. You had lots of fun ridiculing Al Gore – for him ridicule is a Viagra, for screwing better the truth. people on the street interpret it as: only behind a good horse is a lots of dust – congratulation.
You all deserve a medal from senator Brown and Flannery – I will be your witness. OR, get on my website and spread the real proofs; if you do, she will never sell one carbon credit. http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com
Good Morning All,
Interested in your thoughts.
Consider these:
1. Lord Monckton:
“Climate Scientists Respond – Leading scientists have filed this document to Congress refuting the claims made by climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton.
On May 6, 2010, Mr. Christopher Monckton testifed by invitation to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Monckton, who is not a scientist, gave testimony that was in stark contrast to that of the scientists who were present at the hearing as well as the many official statements produced by the world’s premiere scientifc organizations, about the growing dangers of climate change.
Here, a number of top climate scientists have thoroughly refuted all of Mr. Monckton’s major assertions, clearly demonstrating a number of obvious and elementary errors.
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-respond-lord-monckton?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Part 2:
2. Professor Plimer:
“Ian Plimer’s uncritical coverage in the hacked emails row is frustrating.
The ‘expert sceptic’ is a mining geologist whose academic credibility is based on a book riddled with dodgy graphs.
Bob Ward guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 December 2009 12.44 GMT
…Plimer has published a book, Heaven and Earth which has become the bible for many climate change sceptics. His book is riddled with inaccurate information about climate change.
The very first graph in the book, for instance, purports to show temperature observations and projections between 1990 and 2025. One of the lines on this graph is labelled “HADCRUT”, indicating that the data source was, allegedly, the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
However, almost none of the data points accurately reflect the official records from the source, and 2008 is completely misrepresented as the coldest year since 1993. Elsewhere in his book, Professor Plimer claims 2007 was the coldest year since 2005, contradicting his own graph, and also disagreeing with all of the official records of global temperature.
But perhaps the most staggering inaccuracy is in the third graph in his book, which is supposed to show global average temperature between 1880 and about 2002. It appears to show that the amount of global warming prior to 1945 was much bigger than that since the late 1970s. This is in complete contrast to the official records maintained by the Met Office, Nasa and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which all show that the warming since the 1970s has been much greater.
So what is the origin of Prof Plimer’s alternative record of global temperatures? The book does not cite a source and Prof Plimer has so far refused requests to reveal its provenance…”
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/08/ian-plimer-hacked-emails?INTCMP=SRCH
[Editor’s note: these comments are way off topic – further comments won’t be published unless relevant to the OP]
Part 3:
3. GalvestonBayGate:
“Rick Perry Officials Spark Revolt After Doctoring Environment Report”
“Officials in Rick Perry’s home state of Texas have set off a scientists’ revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state’s environmental agency.
By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. “None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed,” said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre. “To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does,” Lester said. “We can’t be censored.” Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer’s season of wildfires and drought.”
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
Editor’s note: these comments are way off topic – further comments won’t be published unless relevant to the OP
Why are they off topic and why don’t you answer the scientist’s critique?