I found this article on http://www.ecoequity.org but as honest admissions of “failure” may quickly disappear, I’ve copy and pasted it here.

Still Losing, After All these Years

Since we’re coming up on the Big Paris Meeting, and since it’s more or less inevitable that it’s going to be widely judged to be a failure, it’s worth noting that the DivestInvest movement is also failing to deliver the big breakthrough that we need. This, at least, according to a piece called Fossil fuel industry still winning the investment war that Alex Kirby just published over at Climate News Network.

What’s the problem. Just the impacable force of fossil capitalism as usual. The economics of renewables are ever better, but as far as the investment industry is concerned, that’s no reason to scale back of fossil investment, not even fossil investment that is unlikely to pay off at anything like the expected rate. If at all.

I don’t bring this up to be snarky. The fact is that nothing is working . . . yet. But DivestInvest is a key piece of the puzzle, even if it’s not the silver bullet that its boosters imagined.

There isn’t going to be any silver bullet. Not unless you count the overarching ethos of the movement. To wit: we’re in this together, and we better start acting like it.

To be honest I feel sorry for guys like this. As the blurb says: “EcoEquity is a small, activist think tank”. Which usually means some enthusiastic well intentioned people who are being used by BIG ENVIRONMENT to line their own pockets.
Usually they don’t earn much money from the scam and so they are as much victims of this climate scam as we sceptics.
This is why we’ve got to go all out to stop this scam now … because everyone, including these people have something better to do than waste in on this stupid scare which even those lining their own pockets know is coming to an end.

So who will rid me of this climate scam?

The name  “Scotland” means the land of or belonging to the Scots. There’s little disagreement that the “Scots” are a people who came to Scotland from Ireland and eventually took over the Pictish kingdom that much is clear, but who were these Scots? And what truth is there (if any) in the various legends connecting the Scots to Scota supposedly a princess of Egypt?

http://mons-graupius.co.uk/index.php/archaeology/104-the-eastern-origin-of-the-scots

(In the past this would have been published here, but I’ve now separated out my historical work onto another website. But as this is part of the reason I chose to be called: “Scottish Sceptic”, i.e. scepticism about the origin of the “Scots”, I include a link to the new article)

I’ve always been interested in archaeology and “survival”, but when I did an archaeology course at Glasgow University I found these two interests coalesced in the question: “what did people in Europe eat 10,000BC?”
So, when I heard channel 5 was doing a program called “10,000BC” I watched and dissected this to see what I could learn. Continue reading →

There are some politicians for whom no bandwagon is too crazy or extremist for them to jump on it, read the prepared lines from some lackey and then move onto the next “cause”.
Watching from Scotland I’ve been amazed how easily she has been torpedoed by the republicans. They used to say that mud never stuck to her husband  – but for Hilary it seems to be like some heat seeking missile that just follows her.
After the email scandal where she was caught using a private computer to bypass public disclosure laws, we now have this:

Hillary Clinton Launches Global Warming Push, Then hours later gets caught on video boarding private jet

The plane reportedly burns 347 gallons of jet fuel per hour, costing nearly $6,000 per hour to rent. Continue reading →

This is a superb video – and I just love the computerised voice which seems to me to be one of the climate model computers expressing their views to their idiot programmers:

Also, note the way this is clearly a massively funded project utilising the latest CGIs, high profile (i.e. well paid) celebs to read their lines produced by a committee of highly funded PR consultants … or maybe not!

I was a surprised to read the Guardian article Climate change: world’s wealthiest understand, but only half see it as threat, because it was filled with statements of gloom for alarmists:

People living in the world’s wealthiest nations generally understand what climate change is but in many countries just half perceive it to be a threat, new research has found.

While more than 75% of people in Australia, the US, UK and most of the rest of Europe were aware of climate change, far fewer considered it to be detrimental to themselves or their families.

In Russia, despite widespread understanding of climate change, less than 50% of people thought it was a risk to them.

What is remarkable, is that this is what is being written in the world’s most upbeat eco-zealot paper (only kept alive by money from an automobile magazine) regurgitating something from another global warming propaganda rag: Nature Climate Change.
Usually Nature Climate Change spin the numbers to put the best gloss on them and then Guardian increase the spin add bells knobs and whistles to make it seem the world loves global warming. But not this time. It’s almost as if they’ve lost their will (perhaps it’s the summer cold?). If this is the best they can do,

…. things must be pretty dire in the alarmist camp.

I spotted this superb letter by Charles Boyd which is well worth the read:

July 28, 2015
Global warming propaganda

To the Editor:
After years of suffering through the writings of global warming cultists I keep hoping that the overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence and thorough debunking of anthropogenic global warming alarmism would result in scientific truth and the scientific method winning out soon. I was certainly wrong in that belief. Once again a global warming diatribe by self-appointed expert, Jeffrey Bada, has proven conclusively the prophetic words (written by William M. Briggs, PhD):
“How long does it take for an expert who has, year upon year after year, made predictions of unrealized doom, an expert hailed heeded and hearkened to by the whole world, to admit error? Answer: forever. He never will, and neither will most of his admirers.”

<snip>
Read more

There’s a fundamental rule of PR, that says you don’t run a campaign supporting your opponents. As such, you don’t e.g. bring together in one video all the strongest arguments against your own view and then hope that people will magically agree with your own viewpoint (which you don’t tell them).

What’s this all about?

What is “NOT A scientists”? Or is this “nutter scientists”? Or is this a republican spoof and the arrow goes above so that it real “The not a mad scientist(s)”. It’s bonkers. It’s like some school kid had an idea for a school project and then got the presidential campaign backing to make it!
All it tells me, is that the person making the video is either extremely sloppy or can’t speak English at all (actually most non-English speakers would spot the problem with this).
So, what is this crazy video! (please tell me it’s a republican spoof!)
Just a few simple points to those school kids making this video. If you want the electorate to vote for your “Nota” Clinton:

• Don’t remind them about the pause
• Don’t remind them about the lack of evidence
• Don’t remind them just how many important & intelligent people are on the other side
• Don’t remind them that the science isn’t settled
• Don’t remind them how your opponents are the honest ones saying they are “not scientists” (but then neither are the academics zealots).
• Don’t remind them of the unruly mobs of climate protesters and their witch hunts
• Don’t remind them of the conspiracy theorists of your own side
• Don’t remind them how little could be done if it were a problem
• Don’t remind them it is a hoax
• Don’t remind them of the snow and ice

And the worst bit: if you want to make the other side look ridiculous, you don’t make a ridiculous shot-in-the-foot video like this warning the electorate that your “Not A (nutter) scientists could be president”.
Could “Nutter” Clinton be president? Not after this!

Continue reading →

For those old enough to have been around in June 1988 when Dr. Hansen (part-time environmental activist, part time “impartial” public-servant and compiler of global temperature data) told the US senate that the world was heading for doomsday, there is now one simple question:

It is now a quarter of the way to this “doomsday” and can you honestly say that you personally have seen any change at all? Can you really hand on heart tell me that if this is one quarter of the way to “doomsday”, that “doomsday” can be that bad at all?

In 2001, mainly as a result of alarmism from those like Hansen, the IPCC issued a prediction that the world would warm by at least 1.4C by 2100. It is now 2015, some 27 years after this global warming scare started, Hansen is still predicting the end of the world despite the satellites showing 18 years without warming.
The failure of the predictions of temperature rise should have been enough to discredit the alarmists like Hansen and ended this scam, but unfortunately not. They still claim the world is warming but “we can’t see it” (too true!). But then they claim the world is changing … well, it is is! These days we see natural disasters happening real time whereas back in 1988 it could take days or even weeks to hear about them.
That is not of course what they mean, instead that is the effect they rely on to convince gullible people there has been change. But what really matters is not whether we hear more about climate disasters in the media, but whether we personally experience more/any climate “disasters”.
So, the real question that matters is not whether we hear a lot more about climate disasters … but whether we personally are seeing any change at all.
We are 27/112 years (24%) on the way to what is supposed to be “doomsday”. Simple logic tells us that if we were really going to see “doomsday” in 112 years, then we would certainly see some effects within 27 years.
So, the question everyone must ask themselves is have you personally seen any change at all?
Personal note – No! I have not seen any change at all!

What follows is a true account which if it were necessary I would vouch for in court.
Like many people, although I have lived in the same place for 20 years, I no longer live where I grew up, but I regularly go back to my childhood home and I can sincerely say that in neither my present abode nor my childhood one can I see even the slightest long term change**. Snow is still something that we get some years and not others. Hot summers are something I remember from my childhood. Occasionally I have wondered whether, if I recorded the exact date that e.g. leaves started sprouting in spring, that I might be able to see some change. But if anything has changed, it really is so subtle that I need to record the exact dates rather than rely on memory of when things “tend to come out”.
However, I tried recording the date the beech leaves came out this year and far from showing warming, the leaves came out much later.
But because I am interested in this subject and therefore much more likely to notice changes than most others. Therefore it stands to reason that if I cannot see any change then most people will not have seen any change. Therefore 1/4 of the way to “doomsday” the changes (if any) are so slight that most people will not see them at all and this “doomsday” cannot be much of a change at all.
**This year has been remarkably cold, but so far it is a one-off “cold event” rather than a trend.