BINBS Professor Slams The ‘Ethically Questionable Persuasion Tactics’ Of The ‘Believers’ Who Market AGW

In a new paper published in the Journal of Social Marketing, Dr. Erik L. Olson spotlights the “Fakegate” scandal as a salient example of the unethical and deceptive practices used by those who promote dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — a“difficult-to-sell” cause. It is suggested that the ethically questionable tactics employed by AGW “marketers” (i.e., falsely hyping “the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats”) have failed and should be resisted.

Image Source: ResearchGate.net, BI Norwegian Business School BINBS

Three years ago, an unheralded paper was published in The International Journal of Geosciences entitled “Climate Change Science & Propaganda” (Nelson, 2015).  The author, a retired chemical engineer, openly and brazenly characterized the United Nation’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an “undisputed” distributor of propaganda.

Propaganda is a manipulation tool focused primarily on emotions. It has little to do with truth or facts and everything to do with persuasion and motivation. Whether that is good or bad, depends on whether you feel science should be boringly independent and often ignored, or entertainingly deceptive but viewed by many. If the initial reaction is emotional, it’s probably propaganda.”
“The IPCC members are obligated to uphold, maintain, and implement its principles and promote its products, and act in accordance with the manifesto (IPCC, May 2011 p. 24). They must proactively communicate with the media and correct any incorrect representations that may be damaging (IPCC, May 2011, p. 33). Bureau members must not express any views beyond the scope of the reports (IPCC, May 2011, p. 36). All members, including all lead authors (IPCC, Nov 2011, p. 16) must sign a conflict of interest form (IPCC, Nov 2011, p. 19), which indirectly obligates them to uphold the IPCC principals and products.”
It is undisputed that not only does the IPCC recommend propaganda, it teaches and promotes it.”   — Nelson, 2015

In a new paper (detailed below), Dr. Erik L. Olson — a professor of marketing at BI Norwegian Business School (BINBS) — further derides the current marketing of an imminent human-caused climate threat.

Olson targets the tendency for the purveyors of dangerous AGW to utilize deceptive and unethical tactics in an effort to garner the publics attention and to sell governmental policies that promote costly emissions mitigation.

He analyzes the public’s response to the “Fakegate” scandal — an instance in which an activist climate researcher named Peter Gleick admittedly stole documents and deceptively posed as a Heartland Institute member in a failed attempt to undermine climate change skepticism.

The results of the analysis reveal that AGW advocates (or, as Olson calls them, “believers”) tend to justify the unethical conduct of those on their side as long as the transgression is deemed to have been for a “good cause”.

Noting that the AGW paradigm is “difficult-to-sell”, Olson warns that the utilization of deceptive headlines, the unethical practice of manipulating temperature data to “hide the decline”, stealing documents  and faking authorship . . . are not effective selling points when it comes to persuading an already skeptical public.

Instead, as a marketing tool, the utilization of deceptive and unethical  tactics are destined to fail.


Olson, 2018

“[O]pinion polls and other research show a public that frequently perceives climate science and associated AGW threats as complicated, uncertain and temporally and spatially distant (Anghelcev et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2011). Thus climate scientists, celebrities, public policymakers and other AGW social marketers face a daunting task in convincing a lackadaisical and often skeptical public to support AGW mitigating behaviors and policies. The difficulty of this marketing assignment has also led to the utilization of ethically questionable tactics that hype the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Rogers, 1975; Rosenberg et al., 2010).”
“For example, the past 25 years have witnessed a large number of greatly exaggerated predictions regarding the speed and scope of temperature increases and AGW dangers from a variety of AGW “endorsers,” which have fortunately proven to be false alarms (Bastasch, 2015; Grundmann, 2011; Michaels, 2008; Newman, 2014).  Another ethically questionable example is provided by the Climategate scandal involving members of the climate science community and their attempts to increase public certainty regarding the methods and predictions of “mainstream” climate models by blocking the publication of research not supportive of the AGW paradigm (Curry, 2014; Grundmann, 2011).”
[C]ommercial marketers are widely criticized and distrusted because they frequently resort to ethically questionable tactics when the marketing assignment involves uncompetitive or unsought products that are difficult to honestly sell (Holden and Cox, 2013; Olson, 1995). .. [T]he use of ethically questionable persuasion techniques by social marketers is more likely to occur when the promoted cause is “difficult to sell” owing to definitional disputes between the marketer and target regarding the “greater good” implications of the promoted behaviors and public policies (Hastings et al., 2004; Holden and Cox, 2013; Spotswood et al., 2011; Von Bergen and Miles, 2015). Yet despite these philosophical discussions on social marketing ethics in the literature, there has been relatively little empirical attention given to the ethical dilemmas that social marketers face when tasked with difficult-to-sell causes such as the AGW paradigm (Freeman, 2009; Pang and Kubacki, 2015).”
“The Fakegate scandal that is the focus of the current research is different than other AGW scandals and ethical missteps, however, because the protagonist publicly admitted to the intentional use of ethically questionable tactics for the purposes of favorably influencing public opinion regarding the AGW cause. Fakegate started with the theft of internal strategy and donor documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank and dangerous AGW “competitor” owing to their efforts to educate the public regarding climate model uncertainties and the high economic and political costs of AGW mitigation (Hoffman, 2011). … An analysis of the writing style, content details and errors in the fake document led several bloggers to speculate that the thief and fake document author was Peter Gleick, a climate researcher, environmental think tank president, chairman of a scientific association ethics committee and frequent blogger on climate science and AGW threats (Greenhut, 2012). These publicly discussed suspicions led Gleick to confess and apologize for his use of deception in posing as a Heartland board member to acquire and disseminate the internal documents.”
Failures provide valuable learning opportunities, and the Fakegate failure demonstrates that social marketers who are unwilling or unable to honestly and persuasively debate the scientific validity and “greater good” of their cause, should not resort to ethically questionable persuasion tactics if they hope to win widespread and lasting trust and support for their social marketing objectives.”

91 responses to “BINBS Professor Slams The ‘Ethically Questionable Persuasion Tactics’ Of The ‘Believers’ Who Market AGW”

  1. tom0mason

    It is the utter certainty of cAGW advocates that bedevils what they say.
    Without an iota of skepticism they are more than certain of what happens in and to the atmosphere and oceans. They believe and profess that all is known about what causes and affects climate events, and what will happen in the far distant future. According to them it’s all because humans have caused a piffling increase in atmospheric CO2.
    All this from cAGW advocates but without proper rigorous scientific evidence, or any skepticism of what they preach!

    They can not explain how any current climate changes are abnormal or unnatural compared to historical records. Records that show very strange and unusual climate events happened in the past but were all perfectly natural. Lamentably, cAGW advocates still believe human effects on climate (and the ecosystem) must necessarily be deleterious and therefore unnatural, thus so many hubristic cAGW proponents call to ‘save the planet’.
    It’s all so much pseudo-religious bunkum.

    There is no observation that shows CO2 warming this planet’s atmosphere.
    There is scant direct evidence that humans are the main source of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    There is no evidence that an increase of CO2 by 0.01% in the atmosphere alters the climate significantly.
    There is much evidence that recent changes in the climate are not alarmingly unusual.
    There is much evidence from history that say CO2 levels should vary a lot.
    This does not stop cAGW advocates pretending to understand it all — they pretend to have the physics and mathematics sorted. They have not! For there are massive holes in much of climate knowledge, of climate science, and therefore the computer modeled mathematical formulations of ‘climate change’, upon which the cAGW belief relies to a large degree, is packed with unverified assumptions and ‘estimations’ (aka guesses).

    No doubt cAGW proponents here and elsewhere will boo-hoo these studies, and attempt to show that they are honest and ethical. Unfortunately there are too many incidences of crass exaggerations, incidences of coercion, political campaigning, and, within the leaked emails, scientists showing intent to manipulate climate data, and outright lawbreaking (Peter Gleick admissions, and gun shots fired at UAH building) to deem their protests trustworthy.

    All-in-all the cAGW belief is just a religious mantra, and not a scientific certainty. And like so many religious dogmas, it can not have skeptics or skepticism.

    1. SebastianH

      To paraphrase our whoever55 comment author: why the zero science comment? Where is your evidence? Your sources? Your proof?

      Please consider that what you think of AGW proponents or AGW itself does more than apply to pseudoskepticism. Also what you write in the first paragraph is true for every pseudoskeptic post I have seen so far. No hint of skepticism towards those claims that seem to confirm your suspicion that you are being lied to.

      Tell me, with what strategy – in your mind – would it be possible for you to convince an AGW proponent of your “truth”? Maybe I can apply the same strategy to you, to widen your field of view a bit.

      1. spike55

        “why the zero science comment? Where is your evidence?”

        Gees you really ARE getting PATHETICALLY LAZY aren’t you

        Even to the point of ADMITTING that you have NO EVIDENCE, and attempting a childish mirroring.

        “Maybe I can apply the same strategy to you, to widen your field of view a bit.”

        Your view is so myopic, there is zero chance of you ever widening anyone’s view.

        Of course, the first step would be to PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE.

        But you are TOO LAZY to even attempt that first step.

        You are NOT here in attempt to change anyone’s views, you are here purely for the attention-seeking.

        You have been an ABSOLUTE FAILURE at changing anyone’s views, except to harden many people’s understanding that AGW is NOTHING but a gigantic CON JOB.

      2. spike55

        Come on seb, here is your chance yet again.

        The only slight warming in the last 40 years has been from two El Ninos ocean releases.

        Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that they were caused by human emissions?

        Apart from the slight beneficial warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years, in what way has the global climate changed?

        In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

        Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        I’m guessing you will be TOO LAZY to even attempt to answer these questions with any real science.

        I suspect all we will get is yet another headless chook type seb rant.

        1. spike55

          It is note that seb has yet another mindless rant up above..

          .. but runs away from responding with any actual evidence.

      3. tom0mason

        SebastianH,
        Good grief seb, I don’t have to provide the likes of you with evidence, (I do not wish to convince you) as your type already pretend to know it all — you do keep crowing about your mathematical prowess on the subject of climate with no evidence of it. If you think I’ll wrong then cough-up some observational evidence. You don’t because you can’t, you have nothing.

        However I can see that many people like you (cAGW advocates) come out with utter hubristic baloney wrapped in sophistry instead of honest observed science. The mark of real ‘pseudoskeptic’ (aka a conman), just like those who were reveal by the leaked emails.

        On the other hand I’m a skeptic, I admit that I do not know it all, I admit that much of how the climate function is unknown, I agree with the UN-IPCC statement that climate is too chaotic to be able to resolve adequately, and that the climate models have flaws (IMO very serious flaws).
        What I do understand is that this planet’s climate is powered by the sun, and is subjected to many cyclic and quasi-cyclic variations here but there is no measured or observed evidence to date that shows atmospheric CO2 levels alters (or even drives) climate variability. I understand these things because observation and science shows this to be so.

        I do not wish to convince you of anything, you’re stuck in cult belief system.

        1. SebastianH

          SebastianH,
          Good grief seb, I don’t have to provide the likes of you with evidence […]

          Sure you do. You are making extraordinary claims without evidence, just accusing people of something. Painting a picture of your opponents that is exactly the impression the rest of us have of you guys. This mirror/projecting strategy doesn’t work.

          On the other hand I’m a skeptic

          Just not a skeptic about anything that fits your belief.

          but there is no measured or observed evidence to date that shows atmospheric CO2 levels alters (or even drives) climate variability. I understand these things because observation and science shows this to be so.

          Observation and science clearly point to CO2 and other GHGs doing what it does, us causing the concentration increase. Closing your eyes towards this reality and pretending that you are a skeptic, doesn’t change that. You need to do something about your very selective perception …

          I do not wish to convince you of anything, you’re stuck in cult belief system.

          It’s funny how self-aware you are, yet keep projecting it onto your opponents, cult-man.

          1. spike55

            “You are making extraordinary claims without evidence,”

            ROFLMAO

            from you, seb that is absolutely HILARIOUS

            You have NEVER produced one skerrick of evidence to back up your wild anti-science claims of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

            Stop the slap-stick, headless-chook comedy act…

            .. you know you only do it as a childish form of attention-seeking.

          2. spike55

            “Observation and science clearly point to CO2 and other GHGs doing what it does”

            Total and absolute BS, and you KNOW IT, seb

            There are ZERO OBSERVATIONS that point to any form of CO2 warming

            If you think there is..

            Then stop running around like a headless chook, and

            PRESENT THE EVIDENCE.

            But you won’t will you.. you are INCAPABLE of doing so..

            .. you will just keep up your ZERO-EVIDENCE yapping to gain all the attention you can get.

            You are worse than a 5 year old having a tantrum in a supermarket.

          3. spike55

            It is VERY OBVIOUS that seb is now here PURELY and TOTALLY for the TROLLING and attention-seeking.

            He has NO OTHER PURPOSE.

            Any pretence otherwise is just another indication of his chldish DISHONESTY.

          4. SebastianH

            why do estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 doubling range anywhere from about 0.02 C to 10.0 C? What is “clear” about that range?

            You mean something like this graph?
            https://imgur.com/a/4g8ln2v

            You’re 36 years old. And yet this is as substantive as it gets.

            Childish reply if that is all you can bring up to “counter” this. You guys keep projecting your own situation onto others and try to make yourselves the victims in this story (being lied too, etc). What else is there to say? Need evidence? Read nearly every comment of you buddies.

          5. SebastianH

            Your graph illustrates the point nicely. There is nothing “clear” about the current understanding of what CO2 and water vapor changes will do when CO2 reaches 560 ppm, as the estimates are all over the map.

            Oh thank you for complementing “my” graph. It noticable differs from “your” graph about decreasing ECS values, wouldn’t you agree?

            And yes, it is and has been a range. What is your point exactly?

            In what way did you think this graph helped you?

            I posted this graph several times now and you seemed to have ignored it. Maybe now you realize that this is nonsense 😉

            According to James Hansen’s calculations, CO2 will reach 1400 ppm by the 2130s [if fossil fuel emissions increase by 3% every year until then], and the globe will be 16 to 30 degrees C warmer then.

            Fixed that for you.

            Is this your understanding of what will “clearly” happen given your claims that we know what CO2 does because of scientific observation? Or do you have a different ECS value you believe in?

            Well you’ve probably read that paper, haven’t you? You seem to disagree with their reasoning of using an ECS value that is in the middle of that range in “my” graph. Why? And why does their “prediction” suddenly become wrong when the ECS would be a different value?

            Your behaviour gets weirder by the day, Kenneth.

          6. SebastianH

            So I wrote that if it is clear what CO2 and other GHGs do to climate as you claim, why is there such a wide range of predictions (0.02 C to 10.0 C) for temperature changes when CO2 doubles (to 560 ppm)?

            Huh? Why do you think the range is from 0.02 C to 10.0 C?

            If it was truly clear, would there not be a much smaller range than what the graph you linked to showed?

            The range in that graph is much smaller. It is very similar to what the last IPCC report states it is.

            No, the graph from Scafetta et al., 2017 includes references to peer-reviewed scientific papers that depict decreasing estimates of climate sensitivity with time. Calling it “nonsense” doesn’t make it so.

            It does. The graph is a gross misrepresentation of current estimates of climate sensitivity.

            Do you believe these calculations made by Hansen are accurate?

            Of course I do, why wouldn’t I? Do you believe these calculations are not accurate? If so, why? Is it because you don’t agree with the ECS value that they used? How does that make the calculations inaccurate though?

            Since you are talking of dodging, please don’t dodge my questions and then come around and pretend I am dodging yours (presumably to call me dishonest again in a future reply to this thread) …

            It’s getting old :/

          7. spike55

            Science is gradually getting over its AGW brain-washing and is getting closer and closer to the REAL effect of CO2 on the climate

            ZERO

            https://s19.postimg.cc/wsak2og8z/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Update2.jpg

            If you have any empirical proof that the atmospheric CO2 warming effect of CO2 is anything but ZERO..

            the please PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

            (and we all watch as seb scurries around yet again, like a cockroach trying to avoid the light) 🙂

          8. spike55

            “The graph is a gross misrepresentation of current estimates of climate sensitivity.”

            Yes YOUR graph is a very DISHONEST representation, straight from the depths of the AGW sewer.

            You KNOW that, seb.

            Just like you KNOW you have ZERO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

            Stop your mindless DENIAL.

            EMPTY RHETORIC and LIES is all you have left to rant with.

          9. SebastianH

            Science is gradually getting over its AGW brain-washing and is getting closer and closer to the REAL effect of CO2 on the climate

            ZERO

            No.

            https://imgur.com/a/4g8ln2v

            (and we all watch as seb scurries around yet again, like a cockroach trying to avoid the light) 🙂

            You’ve been more creative before. What happened? Left the clown school before getting your diploma?

          10. spike55

            Poor seb

            DEEP in DENIAL

            Avoiding FACTS at every post.

            https://s19.postimg.cc/wsak2og8z/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Update2.jpg

            All the recent values are so much trending to ZERO

            Get over it and face FACTS for once in your insipid, zero-thought, brain-washed life.

          11. spike55

            “The graph is a gross misrepresentation of current estimates of climate sensitivity.”

            Yes seb, YOUR graph is a GROSS misrepresentation of real scientific advances toward the correct ZERO or near zero value.

            It is AGW DISHONESTY writ large.

            Which is why you use it.

          12. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            Hey, And…, uh, I mean spike – notice how yet again SebH posted a figure without attribution. At least I know where to find yours -(Scafetta 2017)
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/12/2-new-papers-models-severely-flawed-temp-changes-largely-natural-co2-influence-half-of-ipcc-claims/

            SebH constantly proves he has no knowledge of how to present data or make a technical argument. And, that being the case, it’s more than a stretch to imagine that he knows what any of it means.

            I wonder if I should hazard a guess that he got it from skepticalscience blog? If so, I think what Euan Mearns says in response to someone named “s.h.,” who posted a link to one of their articles on September 6, 2014 at 9:22 am, may apply in this case, as well.
            http://euanmearns.com/the-arctic-sea-ice-canary-refuses-to-die/#comment-3459
            “That article you link to is just total junk.”

            I have no more interest in the sks material than I have for that of SebH (or S.H., even).

          13. SebastianH

            Yonason, I am not allowed to link to carbonbrief.org anymore (every link gets deleted) …

            If you automatically think that scienceskeptical as a source for scientific results is bad (you do know that they link to the papers, right? Same as this blog does, do you consider notrickszone as a bad source?) … then maybe you can relate to the rest of us who cringe when you post something from Tony Heller, Dailycaller, Heartland or Breitbart or – new – euanmearns.com.

            Those are nonsources with opinionated garbage postings.

          14. spike55

            All you have is brain-washed opinionated GARBAGE, seb

            ZERO-EVIDENCE is your stock in ranting.

            The fact you don’t even realise that SkS is basically a twisted, warped load of anti-science propaganda junk, says all that needs to be said about your lack of rational cranial activity.

            No wonder you are so DEVOID OF EVIDENCE for even the most fundaMENTAL meme of the AGW scam.

          15. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @spike55 4. July 2018 at 2:04 PM

            The activist troll knows why I will not use John Cook’s sks blog, since I’ve been clear about that in the past. Just a reminder for those who haven’t read what I’ve written, which apparently includes SebH, here are a couple of items.

            He’s a crook…
            http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/07/john-cook-of-univ-of-queensland-skeptical-science-ss-does-identity-theft-of-lubo%C5%A1-motl-a-theoretical.html

            https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html

            …and a liar.
            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

            I don’t care what he links to if I can’t trust him, and his ethics, like those of the dishonest pest calling himself SebastianH, are in the toilet.

          16. spike55

            SkS are responsible for some of the BIGGEST LIES and grossest, slimiest propaganda of the whole global warming scam.

            They are an obvious place for someone totally lacking in scientific knowledge, and having zero personal integrity or ethics, like seb, to cite.

          17. SebastianH

            Yonason, unfortunately I’ve read your nonsense. And I also remember you guys always demanding not to shoot the messenger and that I should instead come up with counterpoints to ridiculous claims. Why is it different when you are faced with an overwhelming amount of counterpoints? Sks isn’t the only site keeping records of “skeptic” nonsense and I wish I had compiled a FAQ for you guys too, because the same nonsense claims come up again and again and you could answer them (always) with the same canned reply.

            Whatever, as the current front page posting about Arctic sea ice shows, valid criticism (with sources) is unwanted here.

          18. spike55

            Poor seb

            You get more and more PATHETIC by the day.

            If we kept a list of all the NON-science garbage you came out with from your AGW-cult blog sites, we would have used up at least half a dozen toilet rolls by now.

            You have ZERO valid criticism, just your moronic anti-science garbage and headless chook ranting..

            Any counterpoints you think you have made have been shown to be NOTHING but zero-evidence suppository nonsense.

            Heck you STILL REFUSE to answer simple questions.. like..

            In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

            Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Keep up the headless-chook routine, seb

            its true slap-stick comedy.

    2. Yonason

      “…gun shots fired at UAH building.”

      This article has a couple of good pics of the window with the bullet hole.
      https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/04/shots_fired_at_office_building.html

      Maybe that was just Hansen’s way of marking where the flood waters will stop?

  2. sunsettommy

    Making lies and propaganda as the central method of trying to convince people will ultimately fail when enough people grow tired of hearing the same claims over and over that doesn’t make sense or that it never becomes reality in their lives.

    1. SebastianH

      Another fan of those “we are being lied to” conspiracy theories …

      1. spike55

        Seb , always with the conspiracy meme.

        1. Yonason

          Not a “conspiracy theory” if they really are lying.

          “U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception. As he explained in a 1993 comment, ‘We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…’.”
          https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/global-warming-fake-news-from-the-start

          Look for the activist trolls to attack the source of the information they are unable to refute, which is basically everything that shows the CAGW scam is a pack of lies,…
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/
          …for which the only “consensus” is held by the scammers and their “useful idiots” in academia, politics and the media. If NASA itself is a propagator of the lie, and cannot be trusted,…
          https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
          …how much less can we rely on the rantings of the internet trolls who support them?

          I repeat. The 97% consensus is not just wrong. It is a bald faced lie.
          http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html?m=1

          How many whoppers does someone have to tell before you never trust them again? I submit that one is sufficient. (Some mistakes are tolerable if infrequent and corrected – lies are not.)

          1. tom0mason

            Yonason,
            Further to your U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth report, in the EU…

            “‘Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, …’
            Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard’s
            has said. ”

            and

            “Hedegaard in 2013:
            ‘I think we have to realize that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.'”

            and

            EU’s Hedegaard in 2013:
            ‘Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.'”

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/16/eu-commissioner-global-warming-policy-is-right-even-if-science-is-wrong/

          2. tom0mason

            Also of note is —

            Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

            Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

            In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

            In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

            President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

            1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

            IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…

            ~~~They knew what they were doing was not science ~~~~~

            Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journalNature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

            Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

            Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

            http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/

          3. Yonason

            @tomOmason

            Very nice compilation of the scammers own words.

            They are so arrogant that they aren’t ashamed of the dishonesty they employ to advance their perverse agenda.

          4. tom0mason

            And let not forget the politics —

            ~~~”Lets ‘Save the Planet!”~~~

            The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

            In 2002 George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

            2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions…

            National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

            Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” and the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

            In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming. Saying —
            “We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

            UK’s Prince Charles said in July 2009 that there would be only had 96 months to save the planet before “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

            UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

            Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

            When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Ironically however at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. scheduled the Paris climate summit to meet on December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks.

            May 2015, World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].” Later Pope Francis weighed in on global warming issuing an encyclical basically saying the same thing. (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html)

            Climate as a common good
            23. The climate is a common good, … A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. … The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.

            The first time I’ve ever witnessed a head of a religion acknowledging the supremacy of basic tenets of another religion for life on this planet. IMO not since World War 2 has the papacy soiled it’s hands so publicly in low politics.

          5. SebastianH

            Not a “conspiracy theory” if they really are lying.

            You are kidding Yonason, right? Do you think you are telling the truth? Are you really convinced of that? 😉

            Linking to the “heartland.org” website with a straight face while calling the other side lying. That’s classy …

          6. spike55

            You are kidding aren’t you seb

            Why do you ALWAYS LIE. !!

            Cannot face the FACTS, can you.

            DISHONESTY is your main trait after IGNORANCE

            DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL in your every post

            Classic slap-stick comedy stuff for sure.

            Keep up the MINDLESS ATTENTION-SEEKING TROLLING, seb

            Its as HILARIOUS as it is PATHETIC, because everyone knows that its all you have left.

            Its obvious that even YOU have finally realised that its all you have left.

          7. spike55

            “Linking to the “heartland.org” website with a straight face while calling the other side lying. “

            ROFLMAO

            and that comes from someone who regularly links to the comedian’s SkS site of LIES.

            You really are a DISHONESTY little troll, aren’t you seb.

      2. sunsettommy

        Sebastian,

        I didn’t say ANYTHING about a conspiracy at all, just an observation that making similar chicken little claims for over 25 years that doesn’t happen gets boring.

        You still want the old and stale media based chicken little propaganda continue?

        1. spike55

          “You still want the old and stale media based chicken little propaganda to continue?”

          Of course he does, sunset..

          His whole life revolves around that chicken-little propaganda.

          Without it, he would be totally lost.

          1. Yonason

            Yep. As always, his accusations are totally fact-free and gratuitous. tomO gives e.g., after e.g., of warmist self incrimination, and the troll dismisses it out of hand, or ignores it entirely. But according to him, we are “guilty” simply because we are accused. No evidence is given, so there’s nothing to rebut. Arguing with him is like arguing with a child. It’s just a waste of time, IMO. I have much more interesting and enjoyable ways to waste my time than on his nonsense. Between you and Kenneth, I think enough of the bases are covered that need to be.

  3. Hivemind

    I think that it is time that we stop calling them believers. We have to recognise that every action, every policy is about giving them money. Things like carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies are about making profit for them. It would be much more accurate to call them profiteers.

    1. SebastianH

      Just out of curiosity, this us vs. them theme … do you consider people recognizing human caused climate change as a problem to be left-leaning? Is this a “leftist” talking point and therefore right-leaning citizens can not support something like this?

      If that is the case, when did that happen? And depending on which country you are from, why is that still the case in your country?

      1. spike55

        “do you consider people recognizing human caused climate change as a problem to be left-leaning?”

        No, just those who “believe” rather than bother looking at the TOTAL LACK of any evidence

        Let’s try again, seb…

        The only slight warming in the last 40 years has been from two El Ninos ocean releases.

        Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that they were caused by human emissions?

        Apart from the slight beneficial warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years, in what way has the global climate changed?

        In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity?

        Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the “global” climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        Let’s all watch seb RUN AWAY, and AVOID PRODUCING EVIDENCE……YET AGAIN.

        1. SebastianH

          The only slight warming in the last 40 years has been from two El Ninos ocean releases.

          In your imagination.

          Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that they were caused by human emissions?

          Why would mankind cause El Ninos? It’s about the redistribution of heat content, the increase of which is certainly caused by human emissions.

          In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity?

          Are you blind? Serious question. Read more, not going to be your science nanny here.

          Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the “global” climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          Read. Learn. Understand.

          Seriously, you offer nothing yourself to support your ridiculous claims. You insult people. You repeat the same nonsense over and over. And you are expecting others to hand-feed information to you that you’ll dismiss anyway because you think everyone is lying to you.

          Do you really think anyone who experienced conversing with you will do as you command?

          1. Yonason

            @Kenneth Richard

            In the past I have used the “magic 8-ball” to illustrate the reliability of where activists like SebH get their information. It occurs to me that I should stop doing so, because, unlike the hard core activists, the magic 8-ball is occasionally accidentally correct.

          2. spike55

            As I said

            “Let’s all watch seb RUN AWAY, and AVOID PRODUCING EVIDENCE……YET AGAIN.”

            Thanks seb.. for proving me correct at every post.

            I KNEW I could rely on you. 😉

          3. spike55

            “Why would mankind cause El Ninos? It’s about the redistribution of heat content”

            Yes, SOLAR energy is the only cause of ocean warming

            “the increase of which is certainly caused by human emissions.”

            You get the first bit right, then drift off into your warped anti-science, making idiotic, evidence-free, scientifically-unsupportable fantasy statements.

            So sad,

            So predictable.

            If you have evidence of humans causing warming..

            .. THEN PRESENT IT

            and FFS, STOP RUNNING AWAY… its ultimately childish

            MAN UP and ADMIT that you just don’t have any real evidence to produce.

          4. spike55

            “you offer nothing yourself to support your ridiculous claims. ”

            My claim is that THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of CO2 warming.

            You have been given ample opportunity to present such evidence..

            MANIFEST FAILURE

            EVERY POST of yours where you are incapable of supplying that evidence is PROOF that I am correct.

            I thank you for agreeing with me and proving my point.

            YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

            Just ADMIT IT !

        2. spike55

          spike55: “Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the “global” climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          seb: “Read. Learn. Understand.”

          read what, seb… ???????????

          You presented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, seb

          I do understand your problem, though….

          YOU HAVE NOTHING.

          ZERO-EVIDENCE is your stock in yapping.

          spike55: “In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity?

          seb: Are you blind? Serious question.”

          Still the MANIC EVASION of posting any evidence.

          You are SO PREDICTABLE, seb 🙂

          ALWAYS EMPTY

          always RUNNING AWAY from producing anything to back up your mindless rhetoric

          Always PROVING ME CORRECT that YOU DON’T HAVE ANY.

          You can’t even produce any way in which the climate has changed due to provable human activity

          Its all just MINDLESS BRAIN-WASHED BELIEF to you , isn’t it.

          How about actually ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, instead of the cowardly evasion all the time.

          In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity?

          Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the “global” climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          Time to PUT UP the evidence, or SHUT UP, seb

      2. spike55

        There is NO scientifically provable human caused climate change seb.

        You have made that point perfectly clear by your abject inability to produce any evidence based science.

        I’ll ask..yet again

        In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

        Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        STILL WAITING

  4. Penelope

    At the ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, Bush & 178 countries signed on to a “soft” treaty. The next year Clinton formed the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to implement it. The Council included SIX cabinet level people.

    One of the Council’s acts: It gave a multi-million dollar grant to the American Planning Assoc to design a legislative guidebook– a blueprint– for every city, county, and state to implement Agenda 21.

    The Result was “Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change.”

    As of 2002 every planning dept in America had a copy. Also every local, state or federal dept that governs land use. Every university, college, jr college, private school, and teaching institution was using it in its curriculum.

    “Smart Growth” = “Growing Smart Legislative ….

    — This comment is summarized from “Behind the Green Mask” pp 13 & 14.

  5. Bitter&twisted

    Some sad sack wanted “proof”
    OK where is the tropospheric “hot spot”, predicted by all those state-of-the-art climate models?

    1. SebastianH

      You proof is asking something from the other side? Try again!

      1. spike55

        Yes seb.. we know your mind lives on “the other side”,

        A fantasy world where scientific proof is irrelevant.

        Where imaginary, scientifically unsupportable “mechanisms” rule through fantasy fizzics.

        Where the past is forever fluid to be bent to your will..

        .. and facts don’t exist

        The land of make believe. !!!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_YFLI4G1M

        1. Bitter&twisted

          Note the troll did not address the question of the missing “hotspot”.
          It’s only tactics are to ignore or misdirect.
          “Look there’s a squirrel!” Is about as good as it gets.

          1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @B&T

            “from the other side?” – historical revisionist chatbot trollspeak for “it’s yours, not ours.” ? ? ?

            Funny, but 10 years ago it was the warmists who were missing THEIR hotspot.
            The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.
            http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

            Funny, but 10 years ago it was the warmists who were missing THEIR hotspot.

            If greenhouses gases are warming the planet … warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming ,…

            So, how did we inherit it?

            And, if it’s ours, why are they so desperate to find it?
            http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/

            …More proof the activist troll is just wasting our time with as many inane falsehoods as he can muster – confirming yet again how correct you are when you write…

            “D.N.F.T.T.”

            (if any of the formatting I used doesn’t work, it’s not my fault. I proofed it all prior to posting.)

  6. New Paper Outs Deceptive Tactics of Man-Made Warming 'Believers' | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]

  7. Penelope

    tomomason, thank you for the great quotes which demonstrate that it is indeed not about science. Great ammunition.

    btw, Rosa Koire, who wrote Behind the Green Mask, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7T7ulzNG7o is a democrat. She also heads up https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com .

    Turns out PEOPLE are against having our freedom transformed out of existence– regardless of party.

    1. SebastianH

      Penelope, it should be the other way around, as in most other civilized countries where conservatives notices that being against what climate science says and against renewables is not a conservative (or right-wing) thing, but just a stupid thing. It’s like with human rights, do you think it would be wise for US republicans to be against them, just because democrats are for them?

      People should be for saving the environment, dampening man-made climate change, saving fuel … regardless of party. However, for you it seems to some kind of war with all this talk about “ammunition”.

      1. spike55

        It is totally STUPID and a totally waste of a country’s funds to install a second rate, intermittent, erratic second tier of electricity.

        Coal, gas and nuclear are RELIABLE, DISPATCHABLE forms of energy.

        Wind and solar ARE NOT.

        Wind and solar are destructive to grid stability, and would NEVER have existed without huge subsidies and idiotic feed-in mandates, that destroy the economic efficiency of the dispatchable forms of energy.

        They are like a PARASITE, a LEECH on the supply system, and will eventually kill the host.

        No wonder seb feels a kindred spirit with them.

  8. spike55

    “People should be for saving the environment, dampening man-made climate change”

    YEs, we are against wind turbines and solar farms.

    There is no evidence of any man-made climate change except in models and places like GISS.

    Those questions you keep running away from using childish distraction and evasion …..

    In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

    Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    cue.. yet another headless chook rant from seb.

    ANYTHING to avoid answering the questions.

    1. tom0mason

      And over time the ‘settled science’ of the effects of atmospheric CO2 keeps changing.
      For instance the ECS keeps dropping see http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg

      So lets all change the global social and economic system based on an utterly unproven guess, a guess that is continually morphing and shifting.

    2. SebastianH

      There is no evidence of any man-made climate change except in models and places like GISS.

      spiky, repeat a lie often enough and you start believing in it. I think that is what happened to you with this. And there is no doubt that you will mirror this back at me … let’s see 😉

      In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

      Are you seriously suggesting that the climate didn’t change or that the changes observed are completely natural?

      Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      I’ve read about them. You can do that to, you know … reading a lot can change minds. Don’t be so close minded and only accept “evidence” from your fellow “skeptics”.

      cue.. yet another headless chook rant from seb.

      Are your posts anything other as rants? All caps words, creative insults, no substance? And you think I am ranting? Your perception of reality is very distorted …

      1. spike55

        cue..yet another headless chook rant from seb.”

        And seb does EXACTLY as specified. 🙂

        ZERO content

        ZERO evidence

        just mindless prattling and evasion.

        ie.. a standard seb post.

        Let’s try again, see if the headless chook is still running 😉

        In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

        Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        1. SebastianH

          This is aggravating … I think I’ll stop to reply to you clown for good now. Nothing good comes from you.

          Instead of playing the troll/clown (or really being that dumb), maybe start answering questions yourself and provide something with substance instead of your usual insult ridden non-content comments.

          1. spike55

            “I think I’ll stop to reply to you clown for good now.”

            roflmao.. poor little ineffective seb.

            That’s one way of AVOIDING PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE or answering with anything of any actual substance.

            the coward’s way

            but hey.. probably a step down from the headless chook routine.

            Let’s try yet again

            Come on petal, you can do it

            Surly the questions aren’t that difficult.

            In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, and how are those changes scientifically attributable to human activity ?

            Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      2. spike55

        spike55 “There is no evidence of any man-made climate change “

        You are welcome to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

        Still waiting seb..

        Its been a long, long time since you have produce any actual evidence to counter that statement, hasn’t it.

        .. like.. NEVER !!

  9. Penelope

    spike55 “headless chook rant”?? LOL. Creative. I raise a few pullets & they won’t even speak to me when I call them that.

    1. spike55

      One can always guarantee another bout of ranting headless-chookery from seb. 🙂

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close