Away from the battle – Global warming looks even deader.

Posted on 13 March 2013 by Scottish-Sceptic

After I stopped spending all my time campaigning to end the nonsense of Global Warming, I had anticipated some changes in view. But not the one I’ve had.
SCEPTICS ARE TOO BELIEVING OF GLOBAL WARMING.
Yes! One of the biggest culprits for continuing the scam is the way sceptics are still thinking there is something to fight.
Strangely, the main change I’ve felt is “what on earth was I fighting?” Because the only people I see seriously suggesting that global warming may still be real are the sceptics. (I discount “UFO-spotting” type commentators)
To use an analogy. It is like a battle field. The leaders are still very much preoccupied hacking away at a very small group of people, and for those close to that action, it looks as if there is a fierce battle. But walk away, and there is only one side left on the battle field as the opposition have fled. Indeed, so decisive is the victory that most people don’t see the point in hanging around to watch a foregone conclusion.
As for those like the wikipedia climate “team”. They remind me of the soldiers in an impenetrable armoured car … which has run out of petrol. Yes, the natives are incapable of penetrating their armour. But sooner or later they are going to have to get out of their armour and climb down. The only question is this: is their best strategy to wait out the natives in the hope their anger will disperse, or … will making them wait longer and longer just infuriate them more? …. and I should also comment about the soldiers who have already turned “native” … who no one seems to notice except me.
As for the politicians …. they are as ever, like some Gadaffi madman, sitting in their bunker broadcasting the delusion that their forces are winning, that the rebels are a few isolated individuals …. still clinging to the words of their hand picked special advisers that victory is inevitable … but somehow all those so learned advisers now seem to have left the country and want nothing to do with the noble leader.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Away from the battle – Global warming looks even deader.

  1. neilfutureboy says:
    13 March 2013 at 12:41

    The big casualties in such historic battles came in the pursuit. The analogy would be to persue all those who have supported the fraud and are now running away – all the LabNatConDem politicians who voted for Climate Change Acts; who got on their huskies to publicise “melting glaciers” the 28 gate beeboids etc.
    Run the bastards down, hold their feet to the fire and make them publicly apologise for being wholly corrupt fascist theives.

  2. Scottish Sceptic says:
    13 March 2013 at 16:45

    The key to winning is not just numbers or weaponry, but organisation. We never got a decisive victory because far too many people wanted to go off and do their own thing and far too few were willing to be team players and work together to change the public’s mind. Just to name a few examples:
    1. The Heartland Institute let everyone down by not taking Gleich to court.
    2. Sceptics let down the Heartland Institute and their own cause by not supporting … no by being actively hostile to direct marketing to the public.
    3. Andrew Montford let everyone in Scotland by refusing to have anything to do with a sceptic organisation.
    4. And no doubt I let people down … but I still don’t know what else I could have done.

  3. Kelpie says:
    14 March 2013 at 07:47

    Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill is a spare time blogger who already has a business to run as well.. Why should he turn to organising sceptics if he doesn’t want to or hasn’t the time? Why don’t you do it if you think it is important and necessary?

  4. Scottish Sceptic says:
    14 March 2013 at 15:47

    Andrew Montford was asked to help in whatever way he felt able, by several people in SCEF over a period of time. We even offered a position as “president” which would mean he had the title without the work. He did not even respond to me. Eventually after chasing him up, he finally sent a curt email to someone else in SCEF. His action was rightly seen by the other committee members as Andrew putting up two fingers to SCEF. And I still do not know why he behaved this way.
    We did everything to accommodate him, and if e.g. we had met in Edinburgh or Glasgow rather than Dublane (which is close to him), we would certainly have got many more active members. In retrospect, we shouldn’t have tried to accomodate him at all or tried not to “step on his toes” by avoiding climate debate on the SCEF website. Instead, we should have set up an association with a Bishop Hill style blog by and for sceptics, focussed on building up the membership (with or without Montford) and then used our strength in numbers to make a strong case to politicians.

  5. stefanthedenier says:
    28 April 2013 at 07:26

    Skotty, I’m glad you agree with me on this one: ”’Because the only people I see seriously suggesting that global warming may still be real are the sceptics”
    Reason I named those; the Fake Skeptics, is because they give oxygen to the leading warmist, those leading Warmist should have started spiting the dummy by now and acusing each other. Instead, by the fakes dignifying them; they are not going to admit that was all one big lie – if the world know the truth, those would end up in jail

  6. Scottish Sceptic says:
    28 April 2013 at 11:02

    Leading sceptics and leading science-denialists on the warmist rely on each other to boost their public profile. It is however a death spiral, because they can only keep their public prominence by continuing to knock holes in each other’s argument — sooner or later one will knock a hole in the other … they will have a moment of glory followed by the lifetime (I used to be famous)

  7. grumpydenier says:
    10 May 2013 at 09:46

    Apologies, I’ve only just found your site and I’ll add you to my blogroll, if that’s OK.
    Fighting the warmists has become a habit for most of us for one simple reason, I think. It’s the foot soldiers, the alarmist trolls, who haven’t yet seen the light. Over on James Delingpole’s Telegraph blogs, they fight their ‘good’ fight using all the old, old, tricks.
    Repetitive spamming of stuff such as the Marcott paper; blathering on about ‘missing heat’ hiding in the oceans; Arctic ice melt and despite the number of times you point out the fallacies in their arguments, back they come again.
    I agree, we need a more centralised campaign but without some way of ensuring that the MSM and the key broadcasters give it exposure, the back-room battle is the only tool we have. Maybe UKIP will force the AGW story into greater prominence and allow sceptic politicians and scientists more air time. We live in hope.

  8. Scottish Sceptic says:
    10 May 2013 at 09:59

    Things certainly have changed. It is not now “whether to end wind” but “how to end it”.

  9. grumpydenier says:
    10 May 2013 at 10:11

    It appears that the ‘rats’ are leaving the DECC ship and that has implications yet to be revealed. There are more questions being asked of organisations such as the BBC (re the 28Gate saga), the Met Office (Slingo must go, sorry about that) and once a few show their heads above the trenches, then others will follow.
    It seems I started my blog at the ‘end of times’ for cAGW; still, I’ve learned an awful lot whilst doing my research. Onwards and upwards.

  10. stefanthedenier says:
    11 May 2013 at 03:49

    Scottish Sceptic says: ” It is not now “whether to end wind” but “how to end it”.
    Give a rest to the baked beans!

  11. Scottish Sceptic says:
    11 May 2013 at 07:59

    That’s why I like sceptics!

Comments are closed.