Green fraud is not a victimless crime
Five years on from Climategate, I wanted to write a peace in memory of all the victims of this fraud. Because these fraudsters who have year after year after year lied about climate are not committing a victimless crime.
People are dying directly as a result of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, etc. etc. etc.. These people have blood on their hands and they really should know it.
In 2009, when the Climategate affair broke, I felt that both politicians and academics would finally wake up to the reality of so called “Global Warming”, realise that there was almost no science backing their absurd predictions and we’d have the restoration (as I then thought**) of real science.
The fact that many politicians such as Obama are still delusional, is solely as a result of the academics who fraudulently claim to “know” how the climate works, fraudulently claim to be able to predict the effect of CO2, and who fraudulently obtain public funding to line their own pockets. There are no climate refugees. There are no disappearing polar bears. There is no increase in extreme weather. The only tangible effect of “global warming” is the bird-mincers that destroy our landscapes and a lot of rich people who are getting richer with their snouts in the trough of public money. And those on whom the burden of paying for these vile creatures has fallen hardest are the poor and elderly.
Every year since Climategate, something like 37,000 extra deaths have occurred in the winter months in the UK. If the rising cost of fuel, the lack of political interest in cold as a problem and the wholesale diversion of government resources to tackling the non-problem of rising plant food in the atmosphere has added just 1% to that figure, that is:
1850 needless deaths
The true figure wordwide is undoubtedly much much higher (even in India more people die in the winter than summer). There’s no denying it, cold is a killer and those who promote cold are murderers. To be frank, I cannot print my real views of the people who push this scam and who are directly responsible for these additional deaths. The best I can do is say they are heartless, hypocritical scum who would be more morally employed robbing graves.
Five years on from Climategate, with clearly no warming, with us sceptics having been proven right time and time and time again, there is no morally sound reason for these evil people to be pushing this non-science.
Of course I’m angry. Fiver years ago it was patently obvious this was a fraud. Maybe not to the politicians, but to the journalists and those academics who did not have their noses in the global warming grant pig-trough. They had a duty to ensure the politicians were told the truth. They patently failed in that duty and are now as guilty as the rest for this crime.
There never was a global warming problem. There’s never been any evidence of increased extreme weather, reduced food crops, nothing whatsoever to justify this wholesale attack on normal civilised society and ordinary civilised people by a set of morally corrupt, money grabbing, good for nothing academics many of whom openly commit fraud to get their hands of public money.
As for the “Greens”. In my opinion, these vile hypocrites are the lowest form of life on earth. Overwhelmingly “Green” voters are totally immoral. They claim to want to “save the world”, but instead, they are by far the most likely to fly, amongst the highest earners … the real plunderers of the world. And what is their solution? Is it for them personally to stop their flights? … no! No, that might be moral. Instead their solution is Richard Branson style to pontificate about saving the planet then get on a plane to fly to the next eco-nutter-conference where these hypocrites meet all their own green bum chums and then …
TELL THE REST OF US TO STOP FLYING.
Their fraud is not some victimless crime whereby a bloated state pays them for non-science. The direct effect of their fraud is that the poor and elderly of our society are having to pay more for heating and other essentials and as a result they die.
They have blood on their hands.
How many more people have to die before they will admit
that there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful?
By Mike Haseler, originator of the petition that triggered the Climategate inquiries.
**I’ve since realised that “real science” as I was taught at University is no longer practised. Instead “science” is just a brand name for a group of academics buddy reviewing each other’s work and pissing over the rest of society.
The thing is, AGW panic is a symptom of a greater malaise that afflicts westerners and possible most races given the right conditions. A big part of it is a lack of significant adversity. In a real crisis we are quite good at stripping away the irrelevancies and dealing with the important issues but without a good focus we scratch round for something to worry about. The lack of drama causes a pathological response to lesser issues. Thus we get teenagers committing suicide for a minor setback or respectable adults get into a punch up over a parking space. We’re like parrots plucking out our feathers in frustration. So when some new concern comes along, large numbers of people like to rehearse their crisis behaviours but unlike a real crisis there’s never a point where it’s all over and we can relax.
Y2K, SARS, Bird Flu, etc. Despite each issue having genuinely worrying elements, few people seriously examine them and put them into perspective. They just practice worrying. Some people are much worse than others and the unmanaged fears become mentally and even physically debilitating. Probably you know someone who worries all the time. If you ask them what they’re worried about, they’ll usually know very little about their current fixation, have never considered what could or should be done about it or if worrying will improve the situation. Unfortunately deep down, most people have an element of it. It’s the beginning of a phobia. For me, it’s filling out forms. I’ll spend far longer putting off filling them in and worrying about them than I would doing them in the first place.
Along came AGW. It fitted so many vacant spaces in western psyche. It’s all things to our bored mentalities. It’s a bit of excitement, it’s punishment for innate masochists and their guilt mechanisms. It’s a handy replacement for religion in our increasingly secular lives and it regularly strums our worry centres. To journalists it’s a story that will run and run. To the researcher it’s an open grant cheque. To a politician it’s a cause that should have been a way to demonstrate concern without the sole responsibility of fixing it. To the left winger it’s a way to make people form that utopia they dream about.
But really, all it turned out to be was another thing to abstractly worry about it and achieve sod all. While sceptics have worked on journalists and politicians in recent years I’d bet most of them still don’t know much about the issues. Let’s face it, to get more than a surface impression is almost a full time job. Without a desire to question the consensus view, how many people would bother? They’re not pretending to be ignorant, they are ignorant. So yes, people are dying over wasted AGW effort but it’s just one of many issues that are burdening our conscience but not enough to fix them properly or even spend the necessary time to understand them. People resist being reassured or even put into a position where they have to emotionlessly consider the conflicting issues. They cling to their abnormal relationship with AGW in the same way an anorexic is secretly sure that everyone else is wrong about weight and food and health.
How can this be resolved? Dunno. For the determined worryer, there’s nothing that I’ve seen worked other than giving them something real to worry about and for the casual worrier, boredom is usually what moves them on to something else.
Interesting comment and most [all?] I agree with. I think yesterday, I realised that I could no longer excuse people of “not understanding” or “not being quite ready” to accept the scientific evidence. After five years, there’s only one reason for them not accepting the pause or that the models don’t work and that is selfish greed.
Strange thing yesterday is that I’ve noticed a big change in the media coverage. I couldn’t put my finger on what had changed, but over the last few months – we’ve lost some types of article that used to be common.
Just had another search and talk about the bleeding obvious!
The growth is now in political stories. In other words, the politicians are taking an interest. IWe’ve stopped seeing the typical global warming story of “scientists say” and now its typically a politician having their say.
I think some of them suspect that there are holes in the science but I doubt many know how big or how many. The scientists themselves are retreating into confused silence. People who slip into this worry mindset are wilfully stupid. Think of the analogy of the anorexic. How can they continue to think that their problems will be solved by being skeletally thin? And yet they do. No amount of reasoning will snap them out of it.
The warmist black and white view of the science is a tell tale symptom. Even where they recognise that there is a flaw in the science, they rationalise it away and/or apply the Precautionary Principle. The justification that keeps on giving. They wouldn’t even read a sceptic article, let alone think ‘should I be looking into this?’ They assume the contents are lies generated by fossil fuelled lobbyists. Instant mental delete. No long term build up of evidence against the consensus.
Western society has been built on hatred of industry, and fossil fuels in particular. At best they see it as a necessary evil. They accord it no place in the progress of mankind. For them to demonise it further isn’t difficult. Giving renewables saint like qualities isn’t a rational view, it’s one built by people who believe in fairy tales of good and bad. Wind = clean, coal = dirty. Business = greedy, arts = giving. Consumerism = bad, charity = good. You can’t break into that with just evidence. You set yourself up as a baddy just by pointing out an alternative viewpoint.
Think of all the layers of people keeping scepticism suppressed. From radio 4 comedians to Guardian waving fashion designers, all pumping out the message that to even stop and listen to sceptics is to kick a polar bear cub in the face. The scientists with their motivated conviction that they’re mostly right and even of they’re wrong, they’re encouraging humanity to be better. The politicians who dream of cheering crowds, grateful they had the foresight to save the planet. Even the business people who are sure that even if the current crop of renewables are crap, the next generation will be fantastic and worth the investment. Think of all those useless people who never worked hard in their lives but can now feel superior to business people because their idleness is kinder to the planet.
There are a million reasons why warmist ears are closed to sceptic issues. How can you tell when they consciously choosing not to act on them?
Confused silence is a good description.
But the BBC above all else have been instrumental in this scam. Because not only did they have a sycophantic “hero” worship of scientist, but they had a myopic pro-environment view and outright hostility to industry.
It’s as one of them said “a perfect storm” of overwhelming bias which created a group think mentality in academia which now results in them having no idea how they got it all so wrong – when didn’t everyone (the bbc) believe they were god’s own gift to the world.
Exactly. It’s the difference between evil and madness. The BBC’s attitude is inbuilt.
The BBC are actually very anti geek but feel guilty about it and so gush over them to prove that they’re cool with being smart after all. I remember an episode of Breakfast from well over a decade ago where the presenters and several guests happily sneered at computer geeks and I thought ‘what would they say about someone who dismissed Shakespear or Beethoven that way? Can’t they see how massive technology is and will be?’ Of course 12 months later it was ‘www dot this’ and ‘www dot that’ after every other sentence. From being complete and proud Luddites they were fawning acolytes. BBCers were the ones in science mouthing ‘boooooring’. They mostly have no experience of technical issues to measure climate science against.
They do have skills in creative writing and like to use them to form a narrative. Thus sceptics can’t be another set of geeks debating complex issues, we have to be financially motivated evil doers. Have you ever seen a drama where both sides have a point?
Yep – it’s their own inability to understand science and technology which means they switch from contempt to sycophancy almost at the drop of a hat. I suppose it stems from having no knowledge of the subjects. They can’t make a critical comment so they have to chose either to dismiss it as irrelevant and not worthy of being critiqued or some wonderful it cannot be critiqued.
Spot on. Only it’s worse than that for us because it was warmist experts they met first. Imagine the first BBCers meeting the first climate scientists warning about AGW. They’d have come across as ernest boffins, anxious about this terrible stuff we were pumping out. The BBC people would have been very impressed by the graphs and the scenarios. They would have been seduced by the issue and the people promoting it. They would then have approached the oil companies (because coal would not have featured at that time) who would have done the usual big company media thing of denying everything. The perfect story, just like the movies. Unworldly boffins stymied by evil oil barrons. BBC to the rescue of the whole human race.
They roll out their guardian of the plebs routine, telling us what we needed to know and using every PR trick in the book to hook our interest and support. And they succeeded.
So where do modern sceptics fit in? Answer, we don’t, so they keep trying to press us into the bad guy mould. They’re obssesed with fossil fuel funding as if it might make that much difference. I accept that people who work for oil companies generally don’t have a problem with oil, just as I accept that people who work for renewables generally believe in the goodness of their crap product. I believe that government ministers who buy them, largely think they’re doing the right thing and there are certainly plenty of people around them to encourage that belief. Their mental picture is complete. Good guys and bad guys.
There’s no reason for them to rewrite the script. The scientists are still nice, but now they’ve got great sob stories about how evil deniers are hounding them. The graphs might be a bit lame but they’re sciency enough to convince a BBC arts graduate. They’ve built sceptics up into such perfect monsters that they can happily close their ears to anything we say in exactly the same way cult members stop listening to their families. If there’s something they can’t ignore then they seek out their tame scientists for a debunking. Debunk provided, probably along with a friendly chat over lunch at a climate conference. All very amicable, whereas sceptics are angry, shouty types who aren’t impressed with their BBC credentials.
The big problem with this idea the oil companies were against the global warming scam is that they all made money from it. All the big oil companies were involved in some way in wind. And all of them benefited from the perception that energy prices would rise.
On the BBC. There was a time when I was interested in getting them to change. Now I’m just hoping they so aggravate enough people that they get shut down sooner rather than later.
Isn’t it rather difficult to say whether any increase in winter deaths is due to fuel prices and, in particular, renewables. How would you show that to be true? London and the south east have the highest number of winter deaths and yet are among the richest parts of the country.
And don’t forget that fossil fuels cause health problems and early deaths worldwide – half a million annually in China. How many in the UK? Would you say that fossil fuels and their promoters have death on their hands?
There’s certainly a correlation between cold and winter deaths. I’ve not looked for research, but there’s little doubt that those in fuel poverty do not heat or ventilate their homes adequately. That leads to the typical problems we have in many poor homes in Scotland which is mould and consequent problems with breathing. And we also know that pneumonia is a big killer of the elderly.
And just as a matter of social justice, even if you thought CO2 were a problem would you:
a) invent a scheme that increases bills for the poor and takes that money and hands it to the rich
b) Tax the rich to invest in better insulation for the poor thereby reducing fuel use?
This CO2 scam never had anything to do with the environment. It was instead a get rich quick scheme by bwankers who saw that the public were ready to hand over £billions of money (from the least able to have any say) to any bwanker who could find a way of milking them.
And people did not listen to us sceptics as they should and instead they took the advice of bwankers and self-motivated academics who also had their snouts in the trough and as a result people have died directly as a result and I’m utterly disgusted with all those supposed “nice” environmentalists who do not care one damn about the harm they are doing.
The problem of poor housing has existed forever and hasn’t arisen recently because of renewables. I’d make it a condition of rental that landlords ensure their properties are easy and cheap to heat and free from mould and damp. Owner occupiers have the capital (the value of the house, which it should be possible to use) to do this themselves.
Yes, poor housing has existed forever and so has the problem of cold. E.g. something like a 1/4 of Scotland’s population died from famine in the colder-wetter period of the 1690s.
And if school children & the public were told the truth about the dangers of cold there might be more interest in harmful effects of cold.
For example, because of the lies about snow disappearing, councils in Scotland stopped investing in snow clearing equipment. The result was that a few years ago when we got yet another of our regular snow events, the councils did not have the equipment to clear the M8 main motorway between the two main cities in Scotland and people sat in their cars for 8 hours.
But the pavements were far far worse. They became impossible to walk on for a normal adult. So, no doubt many elderly people were homebound for most of that five weeks – or if they ventured out, they were at severe risk of falling. And falling is a major cause of death amongst the elderly.
Personally, I would have taken all the idiots who believe a little bit of CO2 and told them all to get out on the streets and clean all that snow. Instead, no doubt they all drove to work during that cold period and continued to produce their publicity material telling Scottish schoolchildren that we must all fear getting warm.