How Can We Bloggers Win the Climate Wars?: (Answers Below Please)

Bloggers never say how many hits they get, any more than Casanovas put a figure on the number of their conquests, or bankers boast about their take-home pay

This must change.

However much I enjoy making vulgar jokes about environmentalists and others, I’m in this for a serious reason. And I’m sure the same goes for every reader who ever posted a pat on the back at BishopHill or WattsUp WithThat.

Anthony Watts in the USA, Joanna Nova in Australia, Andrew Montford in the UK, have each been awarded the mantle of national leader of the climate sceptic movement by common acclaim of their blog readership. And it’s richly deserved. (I leave out Steve McIntyre, since I’m not sure that he’d want to be associated with such a beauty contest. He writes rarely about Canada, whereas the others clearly associate their scientific and journalistic investigations with the politics of their respective countries).

I’m a newcomer to this business – a footblogger in the climate wars – but I want to see us win as eagerly as any General. Which is why I’m offering these thoughts.

A couple of posts on the Discussion page at BishopHill initiated by ChrisM (the second at my suggestion) have been exploring the idea of a structured organisation to represent and promote the sceptic point of view.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2012224
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2021321

I think it’s fair to say that the response was lukewarm, which I find disappointing, since I agree wholeheartedly with Chris that the idea of a proper structured organisation should at least be discussed seriously by those who count themselves as climate sceptics and want to see their ideas prevail.

But if, in the era of the internet, you can’t get more than half a dozen people to sign up to an idea, I think it’s fair to say that the idea is dead.
The alternative ideas suggested were: meetings down the pub (which are fine, for those not geographically disadvantaged) and a continuation of the internet route.
We all know how discussions in the pub end up. It’s only in the last couple of months that I’ve started to understand how the internet works. I’m sharing my perceptions here in the hope that others will share theirs, and we can come to some conclusions about how to proceed.
After years of fairly frenetic activity as a commenter on different blogs, both sceptic and mainstream, I discovered a few months ago that I had an active WordPress blog, with visitors. So I posted an article last September which I’d been mulling over for some time, and asked Andrew Montford to publicise it, which he did, resulting in 1400 hits the first day.
In the following two months, the number of hits settled down to a very satisfactory fifty per day, sometimes dipping to thirty, sometimes rising to 100. Then last week I asked Andrew for a second puff, and the number of hits rose again to 1100.
It’s worth thinking about what this means. Andrew has made BishopHill the sceptic site to go to in the UK, with a policy of frequent posts which often do little more than indicate an interesting article to read, an interesting site to explore.. The deliberately neutral tone seems to invite comment, and the threads are often more informative than the articles themselves. Is this deliberate? Behind the self-effacing style of Montford’s blog, there’s an incredible amount of hard work. If there were a Pulitzer Prize in Britain, it should go to Montford every year.

The other blogs I value most in Britain – I’ll mention Climate Resistance, Harmless Sky, and Omnologos (the blog formerly known as The Unbearable Nakedness of Climate Change) and beg forgiveness of the others – tend to publish less frequently and develop an argument in depth. For this reason comments are less numerous and more reflective.
It’s clear that both kinds of blogs (the press agency providing hourly news bites, and the review providing analysis) are equally necessary. It’s equally clear that the press agency kind is more successful in getting hits. (Though Maurizio Morabito at Omnologos announced 20,000+ hits after his success in identifying the BBC 28 recently).
I summarised my feelings about these blogs a couple of years ago in a comment at BishopHill:

I regularly visit all the British sceptical blogs, since – much as I’d like to see more of Donna Laframboise and Joanna Nova – one really needs to spend time with one’s own folk to understand what’s going on. I love the way each blog has its own feel to it. Bishop Hill is obviously the town’s main pub, with a noisy crowd, discreetly animated by an extremely tolerant landlord. After a few pints there, I’ll stroll across to Omniclimate, where Maurizio serves an excellent caffé stretto, and the atmosphere is more cosmopolitain and cerebral. Then I pop into Harmless Sky, my favourite old fashioned club, where the armchairs are comfortable and the conversation is too relaxed to ever comes to a conclusion. I usually finish at Climate Resistance, which is frankly more like an old-fashioned reference library, with long periods of silence, and earnest paper rustling from the old hands. (Chez Shub is on my visit list, and I hope I haven’t forgotten anyone here). Finally, when I’m feeling strong enough, I’ll pop into the Guardian’s basement BierKeller, KommentmachtFrei, where I’ll signal wildly to Latimer across the teeming throng, receive a couple of broken bottles in the face from angry trolls, and retire to Casualty. And that’s my Saturday night.

That’s how I saw my time wasted on sceptical blogs two years ago – an amusing pastime. But one of the serious points I was making then, and which seems to be confirmed by subsequent events, is that winning the argument is not enough. However many emails emerge, however biassed the BBC and the mainstream press are revealed to be, we are no nearer to getting a hearing, let alone winning the argument.

Yes, we’ve had our successes, even though no-one knows about them but ourselves, and that knowledge is almost entirely limited to the internet. Tony Newbery and Maurizio Morabito’s work on the BBC 28 is only the latest in a long line of “we told you so” moments, when a few thousand sceptics have ben able to pat themselves on the backs for being right and, in the case of Tony and Maurizio and a very small number of activists, congratulate themselves on the hard work they have put into proving their case.
But in spite of these successes, we’re no nearer getting our message into the mainstream than we were four years ago when I started commenting on blogs. I’ve ideas about why that might be, and what to do about it. But before developing that theme, let’s get back into confessional mode.

Fifty hits a day, rising to 1000+ when BishopHill gives me a plug. That’s brilliant. (Even if some visits come from a rightwing libertarian American soft porn site which happens to favor climate skepticism). But a total of 262 comments for 7,500 hits – that’s not so good. It’s one comment for every 300 hits

What am I doing wrong?

It’s something I’ve noticed on threads, where sometimes I’ve intervened and stopped the conversation dead. Was my comment so pertinent that it rendered any further observation unnecessary? Or so boring that everyone gave up and went home?

Anyway, that’s enough from me. This is one of my “I’ll-get-my-coat” moments. There must be people out there with ideas about what to do and how best to do it. We’ve got this Thing called the Internet which allows me (and you) to talk to hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, and we don’t know how to use it. We know what not to do. Just look at all those hundreds of Green blogs, many of them professionally produced by salaried staff paid with government or supra-governmental funds, which get one or two comments a month. I want to open up a debate about how to organise action to transform our on-line bleeding into effective action – a continuation of the debate opened up by ChrisM at Bishop Hill. I hope the 99.7% silent majority will want to have their say.

And that includes my two readers in Palestine, two in Belgium, and three in Saudi Arabia.

(And trolls. Why haven’t I had any trolls?)

This entry was posted in Sociology of Climate Change and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to How Can We Bloggers Win the Climate Wars?: (Answers Below Please)

  1. omnologos says:

    If you posted a link to that soft-porn site, WITH PICTURES, your traffic would go way up again🙂

    Or just try to mention great tits!

    ps Post something on WUWT and you might get your own SkS mention and a visit by the integralists

    pps Relax. I am not in this for the short term. And in the long term “they” cannot win, as per the saying about fooling some people some of the time.

  2. AndrewS says:

    Hi Geoff,

    I’m one of the 99.7% who don’t regularly post, but frequent your blog every few days or so. I come to your site because I admired your tenacity battling the clowns at The Guardian (going back a few years now). You were one of the more reasoned voices there and your are sadly missed unless you are still there under a different name?

    I think you are trying to break into a tough market. You need to remember that the BH, WUWT & CA have been going for years. They have broken the big stories and have toughed out the smears from the Warmist blogs. These blogs also seem to have a core of regulars that more often than not just banter between themselves (Judith Curry’s website is now dominated by a few warmists & sceptics who just abuse each other, which is not constructive, so I tend to go there less and less).

    I tend to watch and listen rather than talk. I only talk when something needs to be said (which is rare attribute these days!) I did some commenting on Joanne Nova’s website and I found that I spent too much time writing replies that were never going to change the mind of anyone of a warmist persuasion, so I stopped commenting, but I’m still an avid reader. All they did was raise my blood pressure. I have better things to do with my time.

    There is a website called The Daily Bayonet. It was a great read until the owner pulled up stumps for a while. I enjoyed it because he would take the p!ss out of climate stories. He also had a “Climate Babe of the Week” on a Friday. Maybe that would get your numbers up (so to speak). With your wit and writing ability, I’m sure you could fill this void.

    Following on from your Comment is Free days, maybe parsing a few of the Guardian Environment stories would make some good posts. There is a story today in the Guardian trying the link (in a vague way) the red algae in Sydney with Climate Change. The photo is in my opinion photoshopped to give a brighter red (I live in Sydney and none of the footage shown here in Australia was so blood like). The red algae turns up here every now and again and it has nothing to do with climate change. The Guardian should be exposed writing that sort of rubbish.

    I think the Climate Wars are going through a bit of a lull at the moment. Neither side is particularly sticking their heads out. We need something to liven things up a bit – say finding the password to the remainder of the Climategate emails! Crack that one and you’ll get a following.

    Anyway. That’s my two bobs worth and is probably the most you will get from me. Don’t become disheartened. You are the new bar amongst established pubs, so it may take some time to get noticed.

    Expose the hypocrites, expose dodgy reporting & science, torment the Moonbat, introduce the Climate Babe of the Week and they will come. Hell, you might even get some of your old sparring partners from the Guardian over here!

    BTW, I’ve been getting some belly laughs from your Moonbat stories, so please keep them up.

  3. SunGCR says:

    I think the key to winning the climate wars is to make climate change/CAGW the object of humour. When we can cause laughter whenever some alarmist trots out some mistruth du jour, it’s game over for glow ball warming.

    Morano is good at this, but many other bloggers shy away from doing this.

    We need to ‘Kerry-ise’ people to climate change: “you can’t talk about climate now…People just turn off. It’s extraordinary”

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/john-kerry-lament-can-talk-about.html?m=1

  4. TonyN says:

    Geoff,

    It is often said that opposition parties don’t win general elections, governing parties loose them.

    In an asymmetric controversy where one side has almost unlimited resources to deploy in terms of manpower and treasure, and the other side has virtually nothing, there can be no question of sceptics winning. On the other hand sceptical blogs can certainly assist the warmists along the path of self-destruction they embarked on in 2007 with the publication of the IPCC FAR by providing an alternative narrative for the increasingly large proportion of the population who are becoming suspicious about the wildly exaggerated news stories they are fed on this subject.

    Since 2007 climate scepticism has grown, not diminished, and press coverage of climate change has, regrettably, declined too. The next six months are going to be very interesting as the new IPCC report is rolled out.

  5. omnologos says “they cannot win”, and TonyN says “there can be no question of sceptics winning”.
    I’d like to believe in the self-destructiveness of the warmists, and the dictum about not fooling everyone all the time, but I just don’t see it. What has to go is not just a package of laws and energy policies, but a whole set of beliefs underpinning the culture of our intellectual élite.
    Unless there’s the beginning of rational debate on the science and economics underpinning government policy, they may give way on wind farms or some other unpopular policy front, while maintaining their core beliefs in the necessity to protect our fragile planet, and all the rest of the pseudo-religious green agenda.
    I’ve just written about the French political situation, because it demonstrates, I think, even more clearly than the British case, just how anti-democratic and suicidal current policies are.

    AndrewS
    Thanks for your comments.
    My point was not so much to generate traffic (though that’s always nice) but to start a debate about how the internet works, and might be made to work better for us. The point of the stats I gave was to emphasise the huge disparity between the figures. BishopHill can make a difference to me and other small-time blogs of magnitudes. And the non-commenters, who outnumber the commenters by magnitudes, maybe don’t realise how welcome their comments are.
    CiF was a very interesting experience, (and I’ll surely be writing about it in detail one day) since it demonstrated how the power of a comment thread may depend on chance circumstances. You might be battling alone on a thread, and end up feeling you really were the pathetic troll your opponents took you for. Or there might be a chance meeting of two or three likeminded contrarians who could turn a thread round.
    I’ve written about this in my “Love Affair with Monbiot” series (links at my first article: “I’ve got a Blog”)
    I agree that the threads on the most popular blogs become unmanageably long and the popularity of a Judith Curry or an Anthony Watts can seem self-defeating. Curry linked to my first discussion with Adam Corner, and picked up, I think, more than 800 comments! (which I admit I haven’t read). Who knows what gems might be hidden in there?

    Anyway, I’m off to England for a few days. I hope you continue to talk among yourselves, whoever you are.

  6. omnologos says:

    England? Why don’t you pop by in London then…

    Ps I can feel the Socialist in you trying to change Human Nature!!!

  7. SunGCR says:

    If CAGW was the supposed problem, then UN Agenda 21 appears to be the solution invented for it.

    For this reason, all CAGW sceptics absolutely must study and understand the implications of UN Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 is the UN ‘masterplan’ for the 21st century, and it is a global plan, which is implemented nationally, regionally and locally.

    UN Agenda 21 is basically about green stuff everywhere, not using anything (so-called sustainability), removing people off the land and shoving them into cities, creating ‘wildlands’ in the countryside where humans are not allowed to go, creating smart cities and linking the smart cities via corridors (high-speed rail, for example). Oh, and creating an inventory of everything, everyone etc. Ghastly totalitarian control-freakery in a nutshell.

    So, in my opinion to defeat all this stuff we need to:

    1. Blow CAGW out of the water with a massive howitzer called humour to ridicule the beliefs of those that follow this green religion.

    2. Provide facts instead of alarmist nonsense about how climate has always changed throughout the Earth’s history, and that today’s temperatures are nothing unusual, and certainly not unprecedented. Burt Rutan’s climate change notes are good for educating the uninformed.

    3. Study UN Agenda 21 and blow it out of the water at local, then regional, then national levels. If all countries do the same, UN Agenda 21 will be defeated globally.

    If we believe that CAGW itself is the only battle, then we have forgotten the bigger hydra of UN Agenda 21 – and it is Agenda 21 that is the real problem.

    Anyway, from my studies so far, that is how I see things currently.

    Any thoughts?

    P.S. Geoff, although I haven’t completed reading your latest post, I see that you state that you don’t foresee a global communist government being created. Are you familiar with UN Agenda 21? If so, why do you NOT think that things like Agenda 21 (and the UN) will lead to global communism?

  8. SunGCR says:

    For people interested in UN Agenda 21, this video shows some details and who is behind its setup:

    The video is ropey but the audio is fine.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Regarding the idea of a sceptical ‘activist’ group, I think it’s a bad idea. The problem will I think be that it will be simply ignored for a while, but if it manages to build any momentum, it will be used to identify arguments to be ignored by the mainstream.

    This has happened already with GWPF, and Heartland, and probably other groups I cannot currently name. It doesn’t matter what argument is being presented – the source of the argument is all by itself sufficient to ensure it is ignored or lambasted. And no doubt someone from the “wrong side” will join in and make it look ridiculous, or else someone will add their dog to the membership to ‘prove they’re just a bunch of nutters’, etc.

    So in summary, individuals with coherent arguments probably penetrate the CAGW debate more effectively.

    On the subject of why the blogosphere appears to have little impact, a heck of a lot of the problem is with the way in which questions are treated, and with the inevitable contributions from the loonies. As the excellent contributions from Robert Brown on WUWT have tried to point out, these own goals ensure that nothing revealed on WUWT will be taken seriously by the mass media, as they know that thats where the sky-dragon rubbish is pushed by various commenters, and it derails any attempt at serious argument. At least on BH attempt to derail threads get dealt with fairly promptly. This isn’t always the case on other sites.

    I have myself had the temerity to ask questions of the sainted Bob Tisdale on WUWT, and while Bob himself does try to answer (not often coherently, and never without trying to sell his book) other responders just provide insults and rants, and assume I’m either trolling or else defending the CAGW faith. If questions aren’t allowed, then genuinely curious readers will just go elsewhere.

  10. SunGCR says:

    Some quotes from interviews with Maurice Strong of the UN within the video above:
    http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/who-is-maurice-strong.html
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48749
    http://www.manitou.org/MF/articles.php

    Also, here’s more on the campaign to create a UN Parliamentary Assembly:
    http://www.unpacampaign.org/documents/en/BBG200705.pdf
    http://en.unpacampaign.org/index.php

    Deity help us!😉

  11. Dodgy Geezer says:

    1 – “…I leave out Steve McIntyre, since I’m not sure that he’d want to be associated with such a beauty contest….”

    Steve McIntyre is actually a scientist – serving a higher purpose than political in-fighting, which is ‘truth in scientific endeavour’. He avoids getting contaminated with the politics precisely for that reason. If it were up to me he’d have a Nobel for the most important contribution to Science since 2000.

    2 – As well as the straight ‘sceptical’ sites, there are a surrounding set of supporting ones with bigger readerships. EU Referendum and Spiked are examples of this sort of thing.

    3 – A small readership is NOT an issue. If you are small it can be oddly beneficial, enabling flexibility, for instance. On a knife, the cutting edge is very small, but that’s where the work is done. The important point is whether you can get your messages out to influential people. 28-Gate was a classic example: raised in a small blog, picked up by EU Ref, read by Dellingpole, into the Telegraph.

    You are already big in terms of influence – far more so than opponent warmist sites which are only set up to suppress your stories. If you try to become big in terms of readership you run the risk of diluting the very thing that makes you important – if the sharp edge of the knife tries to emulate the bulk of the blade, it will end up duller and blunt….

  12. j ferguson says:

    Geoff,
    It’s odd that you imagine yourself a threadstopper. I hadn’t seen it.

    I, too, worry about many of my own comments having the same effect. I doubted it could be due to their clarifying the issue to the extent that it is no longer worth discussing – I couldn’t be that sharp. I had hoped that they were not so conspicuously insane that no-one wanted further to torment the topic. Maybe they thought that if they posted another comment following mine, I would reply with something worse. That is a realistic concern, regrettably.

    I always ask to be told if what I’ve written is nuts but for some reason it doesn’t happen.

    I don’t buy the watermelon theory either. My take is that socialists aren’t pretending they aren’t socialists. They are not hiding under the green, I think they are pretty consistent and obvious.

    A sceptics’ organization seems highly unlikely. One might have thought that the Royal Society would have set the standard for sceptical societies – science presumably being the activity of sceptics; but alas … (See. I can’t punctuate properly either.)

    SWMBO and I just returned from a tour of eastern Australia – In at Sydney, then Canberra, Melbourne, Ocean Road, small towns, 160 square miles of western new south wales sheep station, Brisbane, on to Bundaberg to visit spouse’s old haunts, back to Brisbane, then delightful Armidale, blue mountains, Sydney and home. In all 2500 miles driven by this novice left-side-of-roader, and car not bent either.

    During the tour we watched the local news which displayed interminable disputes between members of the government and the opposition over whether Miss Gillard had provided illegal lawyering in helping a couple of fellows set up and have certified what turned out to be a slush fund to support their activities in a particular union’s politics. I listened to hours of statements on either side of the issue as well as some seemingly sophisticated reporting on the subject by some especially witty reporters – and they have some good ones over there.

    But no-one, NO-ONE, ever laid out what had to be established to prove that she had actually done something naughty twenty years ago.

    I feel the same about the climate debates. Reading Judith Curry’s statements and comments over the last few years including before the advent of her blog helps a bit, as well as Steve M’s postings, and the parts of the pieces that appear on Lucia’s Blackboard that I can follow.

    But no-one comes right out and says “Here is how it is. In order for the climate to change and for the change to be damaging, and for both the change and the damage to be fully comprehended, you have to show this, and this, and this, and this. And then show how failing the ability to show one or more of the “thises” there can be no compelling case.

    Then you list the “thises” to see if they are all there, and if not you discuss how they are coming on them, and if progress is slow, why, or if there is no progress, why not.

    Why is this so damned hard to do?

    My nose senses that a lot of what we read regarding the “coming catastrophe” is utter nonsense, but suggesting that it’s the work of watermelons doesn’t do it for me.

    Geoff. You and I have participated in discussions over at Ben Pile’s attempting to understand what would motivate so many people to buy into the CAGW mania. I think we probably have gotten to where we mostly agree.

    But it should be the science, not the sociology.

    It could be that what I ask for has been done and my innumeracy has prevented me recognizing it for what it was or following it.

    Or I really could be crazy – your call.

  13. SunGCR says:

    j ferguson:

    You raise some interesting points on proving/disproving AGW.

    However, if you can accept the possibility that CAGW is a man-made fake crisis created in order to convince people of the need to make drastic changes to their lifestyles, then pontificating with warmists about temperatures etc become pretty irrelevant and pointless.

    From my reading, it appears that the creators of the CAGW crisis idea are Ann outfit called The Club of Rome. It appears they are dedicated to creating crises to attempt to bring about political change.

    If you haven’t already done so, and are not aware of the significance of UN Agenda 21 in relation to CAGW, might I suggest that you click on the links and video I have listed above?

    If you find those links interesting and are curious to know more about what’s going on with these subjects, I have found these 3 links recently, of which I have only read the first of. To me, these 3 links are of value because they are written by a professor/PhD, he is a long term resident of the area where Maurice Strong bought a load of land, he writes well and draws from a great wealth of informational sources and seems to be a good thinker and researcher into these many interrelated subjects. See if your eyes open wide after reading. Also, I highly recommend reading up on UN Agenda 21.

    All I can say is that if one is not familiar with things like theosophy, new age, occult and the history of banking elites, the following links are likely to be hard reading, but worthwhile and highly absorbing, hopefully.

    http://naturalclimatechange.us/EK%20NWReligion%20Html/Part%20I.%20%20Is%20Crestone12_31_11.htm

    http://naturalclimatechange.us/EK%20NWReligion%20Html/Part%20II.%20Is%20Crestone%20Vatican%20City1_2_2012.htm

    http://naturalclimatechange.us/EK%20NWReligion%20Html/Part%20III.%20%20Is%20Crestone%20Vatican%20City%201_5_2012.htm

  14. j ferguson says:

    Geoff,
    Thanks for the leads. I must say that after reading the Guardian comments re: the leak, I am very impressed by your patience. I can see that the disputes in the places I follow seem more narrowly drawn with perhaps better focus by the majority of commenters.

    An interesting effect of living an itinerant life aboard is that I can control my exposure to people I imagine to be idiots. I think I’ve got it down to close to none. At the same time, we’ve met some truly marvelous people on the water with whom we enjoy the semiannual discussions when we find ourselves anchored in the same harbor.

    The painful plunge into the Guardian comments reminded me that this echo chamber existence I may be leading may have diminished my ability to consider opinions that I think are likely nuts.

    They may not all be nuts.

    I wonder how Tom Nelson maintains his equilibrium under the mountain of nonsense he processes via link each day.

  15. SunGCR
    Sorry a couple of your comments got held up in moderation, due to the number of links. I’ve changed the settings, so hopefully it won’t happen again.
    I’ll be posting some time soon about Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome, which are undoubtedly important subjects. Lots of sceptics tend to steer clear of them for fear of being labelled a conspiracy theorist. I have mixed feelings about that; on the one hand, I want my views to be taken seriously (well, sometimes); on the other hand, why should I censor myself in order to avoid criticism? I’ll be coming back to this.
    jferguson
    Are you permanently afloat? Sounds wonderful. Where? You once mentioned the Georgia Sea Islands, I remember.
    Guardian comments are an acquired taste. The advantage of commenting there I think is that the large number of highly motivated and well-informed people on both sides, eager to destroy the opposition, create a nice gladiotorial fight-to-the-death atmosphere. My impression is that the quality of comments went down due to a lot of sceptics getting banned, but it’s getting better again. Other press blog threads tend to have too many uninformed commenters who have to be ignored, or painstakingly helped to get up to speed. On the one hand, you’re pleased to see new recruits to the battle; on the other hand, old hands can feel that the new boys get in the way and make them feel unwelcome.
    There’s an ideal size readership which of course no-one can control. Too few, and the conversation never gets off the ground; too many, and the random noise drowns out the ideas. This is not a question of trolling; it’s just as true at WUWT and Judith Curry’s as it is on the worst Guardian threads. There’s a lot more one could say about this, I think.

  16. SunGCR says:

    Thanks Geoff, and no problem that it took a while to go through the links, some of which require a herculean task to read completely and digest.

    Regarding your mention of UN Agenda 21 and The Club of Rome, I look forward to reading your future posts on these items, as these are fascinating subjects to study.

    I understand well your comment regarding many sceptics steering clear of these important subjects for fear of being labelled a conspiracy theorist. However, by constraining our publishing in this way, we are playing into the hands of the corrupt global elite who cook up these scams and social engineering exercises.

    Perhaps we need to lose our fear of being labelled as conspiracy theorists, and treat it more like a badge of honour, as this will likely reduce the impact of the term, as we will not care about its use and just laugh it off as the baseless ad hominem attack that it is. Besides, the people who fire off these accusations are usually not worth listening to, and usually have little or nothing worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

    That is why I personally feel that we sceptics need to raise our game through (1) deep analysis of the people behind the CAGW scare, and (2) what it is exactly that they are trying to achieve, and (3) publish as widely as possible in the hope that highly-trafficked climate sceptic sites will pick up on the story and help the message spread far and wide. Otherwise, I think it will be virtually impossible to inform people as to what the jig is all about, and prevent the rollout of global, destructive, economy-crippling systems like UN Agenda 21.

    At the moment, the public hears ‘sustainable’ and feels warm, green fuzzies, and that is at odds with the reality of UN Agenda 21. To succeed, we need to show that the CAGW meme was cooked-up to engineer consent for rollout of UN Agenda 21, and we need to show the vivid reality of what life living under UN Agenda 21 would be like…e.g. all of the restrictions that would occur, the green taxes on everything manufactured, the crippled western economies (look at them now), and the loss of liberty. Only when the public can associate the proposed ‘fix’ for CAGW (Agenda 21) with that of a dystopian future might they actually be incensed enough to do something. Until that happens, apathy rules and we get UN Agenda 21 into our lives even more than it is already. Anyone doubting that we are already living in the early stages of the UN Agenda 21 system, might find the following of interest, although watch out for the block caps🙂 :
    http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDtCb45Lqt0 (Behind The Green Mask video by Rosa Koire from the above website, and she claims to be a democrat)

    I think the videos and links above show exactly what the CAGW scare is really about, and the people who are behind its inception and rollout.

    Due to the length of some of those articles above, I feel that the information contained is not very accessible, and so I plan writing a summarised version that will hopefully enable more people to read it and understand it. Hopefully that will enable organised action to occur to defeat the CAGW meme and UN Agenda 21.

  17. j ferguson says:

    Geoff,
    I am troubled that you take the maurice strong et al activities seriously, maybe because this suggests that they should be taken seriously. Glen Beck’s opinion doesn’t wash with me, but yours does.

    Am I wrong to understand that no particular pains have been taken to keep all of this secret?

    fwiw, we are not permanently at sea, but have been for last 9 years – Maine in summer, Florida Keys in winter – no land base, cars or property. If you can do your own mechanical work, it’s pretty good. It was spouse’s idea when I’d finally had enough architecture.

    my usual retort to conspiracy theories is that they can ferment away for generations, but in order for something really worrisome to happen, the little guy with the mustache has to surface.

  18. SunGCR says:

    j ferguson:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance :

    Cognitive dissonance is a term used in modern psychology to describe the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.

    The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

    It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they “find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.” A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium. Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.

    Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed “dissonance reduction”, which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.

    “Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.”
    — George Monbiot

  19. SunGCR says:

    The fact is that people often don’t understand or know exactly why they have particular views. When asked to elaborate on why the hold particular views, often they are lost for words. Here is a good example:

    Andrew Breitbart Confronts Hateful Protesters At Right Nation 2010

    RIP Andrew Breitbart

  20. SunGCR says:

    j ferguson:

    > “Am I wrong to understand that no particular pains have been taken to keep all of this secret?”

    I will dig out some archived links later which I think illustrate that there has indeed been efforts to keep details out of the mainstream, and especially away from people with right-wing sympathies, because they knew that their plans would be seized upon immediately and combated.

    > “my usual retort to conspiracy theories is that they can ferment away for generations, but in order for something really worrisome to happen, the little guy with the mustache has to surface.”

    re·tort 1 (r-tôrt)
    v. re·tort·ed, re·tort·ing, re·torts
    v.tr.
    1.
    a. To reply, especially to answer in a quick, caustic, or witty manner.

    Quick replies often lack insight. Knee-jerk reactions, if you will.

    And by exhibiting knee-jerk responses to ‘conspiracy theories’, aren’t you falling into the trap of behaving in an unthinking manner, without full and proper consideration of the information presented to you?

  21. j ferguson says:

    Hi SunGR, that was “my usual retort” meaning just as you say, but above was not my usual retort.

  22. SunGCR says:

    j ferguson:

    Here is the link I had archived. At around 3:00 you will see the reason these people didn’t want to shout out about this from the rooftops:

    Agenda 21 for Public Officials:

    Does this help to satisfy your curiosity?

  23. SunGCR says:

    Hi j ferguson,

    Oh I see🙂

    If you elaborate as to your difficulty with having credibility regarding Maurice Strong etc, it may be possible to take the discussion further.

    My take on these people, is that they are power crazy megalomaniacs, obviously very wealthy and powerful too. Their views are very different to those of my own, but they do seem deadly serious in progressing with their plans, and that is why I have been looking into this subject area of late. Strong linking up with the mega powerful banking dynasties gives enormous clout to this group.

    It seems like they are attempting to bring into being what is popularly known as the New World Order. Obviously, I’ve heard that term banded around for years, and seen little bits of what it might be about, but in recent months, since I studied the Rio+20 stuff and previous Earth Summits, it seems that the UN & UN Agenda 21 is probably what the New World Order will look like. Additional items that support this notion, is video footage of George HW Bush (right-wing) talking about the coming New World Order, and also Gordon Brown (left-wing) also talking about it, so it appears to be something that transcends political allegiances.

    I’ve been trying to nail down exactly what form the NWO will take, and it appears to embody items like the following:

    – global centralised control executive, most probably the United Nations.
    – socialist (communist?): judging by the language of UN docs like UN Agenda 21: social justice / equity etc.
    – religion: attempt to unify existing religions through nature (pagan elements), and a lot of theosophical elements thrown in (Alice Bailey, Madame Blavatsky: New Age, Luciferian: Lucis Trust, formerly known as Lucifer Trust).
    – nature: Nature / Gaia (‘worship’) is at the heart of this system, hence all the green/’sustainable’ stuff going on right now, part of UN Agenda 21, the UN agenda for the 21st century, hence its name.
    – currency: cashless, probably embodying some form of carbon credits. See NFC technology now in latest smartphones.
    – wealth transfer from ‘first world’ countries to ‘third world countries’, allegedly to bring them up to a higher standard of living (if those involved don’t steal all/most of the money themselves). This appears to also involve significantly lowering the standard of living of first world countries, so we are not likely not to enjoy it.
    – New globalised world known as the ‘fourth world’
    – energy: windmills and solar, if the greenies get their way, so loads of blackouts, hence use of ‘smart meters’ so they can throttle/turn off our electric remotely when demand outstrips supply (winter, high pressure, windless days). This seems likely to lead to increased deaths.
    – Population reduction via some unknown mechanism(s), hopefully not from 7 billion to 0.5 billion (http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-the-georgia-guidestones/).

    There’s probably loads more, and there will undoubtedly be stuff I have got wrong, but this is a first pass at trying to identify the NWO’s structure.

    If you haven’t seen the sinister Bush / Brown NWO speeches, check them out here:

    George HW Bush speech, 11 September 1991 (10 years exactly before 9/11 !):

    Gordon Brown speeches:

  24. j ferguson says:

    SunGCR,
    Could you connect the cognitive dissonance lesson with anything anyone has written here? If I have this problem it may be well masked, to me at least, by one of my other problems.

    I might add to your observations on the qualities of a retort that it is not impossible that the thought expressed is the result of years of conjecture – which would be true in my case commencing with discussions with my Grandfather, a John Bircher, in the mid-’60s.

    I think I need to think some more on what effect a conspiracy might have sans a charismatic leader. My instinct is not much, but there is certainly no reason that a conspiracy cannot be assigned the responsibility for the spread of something like climate catastrophism. I think it more likely that the body of beliefs fits well with similar views common to some of the western religions – the sort of thing where someone says “That makes sense” because it fits so well with other elements of his faith. And that may be where we come around to the cognitive dissonance issue – there isn’t any among the folks who buy the CAGW – it fits.

    a bit circular, the above, no?

  25. SunGCR says:

    j ferguson,

    As indicated, the comment was addressed to you, as I considered it more than a possibility that you wrote-off the Maurice Strong activities regarding UN, Agenda 21, and his collaborations with the banking dynasties as inconsequential, and that this was perhaps due to your unwillingness to accept information that did not conform to your existing knowledge, hence the reference to cognitive dissonance.

    If this is wrong, please accept my sincere apologies.

    That being the case, why did you write: “Geoff, I am troubled that you take the maurice strong et al activities seriously, maybe because this suggests that they should be taken seriously.” ?

    Not looking to pick a flame war here, of course not, but I suppose that I just didn’t really understand your reply perhaps?

    Did you read those three long links I posted at 10:53 pm above to the end? If so, what did you have a problem with exactly?

    How is Key West these days? Is Sloppy Joe’s still there, and the harbour with all the new age artists etc? I visited there back in the 80s.

  26. j ferguson says:

    Hi SunGCR, no offense taken. It’s true that i would have dismissed the Maurice Strong activities but for Geoff, and you taking them seriously. My practice over the years has been to give anything that people I respect think a good look, especially if it seems contrary to how i generally see things.

    The usual suspects are still in Key West. We moor in Marathon where there is more room, better protection, and lots of friends from 9 years of doing it.

    I haven’t yet watched the links – have to wait for good fast connection – running wireless off one of the US Cell nets.

    best regards,

  27. SunGCR says:

    > I think I need to think some more on what effect a conspiracy might have sans a charismatic leader.

    Perhaps charismatic leaders were so 19th/20th century and the new modus operandi is to use social engineering and enormous amounts of funding to NGOs / Trusts to bring about elitists’ desired changes? Have you read a book called ‘None dare call it conspiracy’ ? It’s a very interesting read. Or ‘Tragedy & Hope’ by Carroll Quigley? Or ‘Propaganda’ by Edward Bernays?

    > My instinct is not much, but there is certainly no reason that a conspiracy cannot be assigned the responsibility for the spread of something like climate catastrophism.

    Indeed.

    > I think it more likely that the body of beliefs fits well with similar views common to some of the western religions – the sort of thing where someone says “That makes sense” because it fits so well with other elements of his faith.

    Yes, this is what I’m coming round to seeing. For example, when you analyse these green/Gaia/CAGW ideas, one sees elements from Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the Roman Catholic church -see:
    http://ncronline.org/news/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host

    So in addition to the usual CAGW zealots, perhaps Catholics/Jesuits are onboard with the green UN Agenda 21 future, as they have bought into the CAGW ideas? Seems quite possible.

    > And that may be where we come around to the cognitive dissonance issue – there isn’t any among the folks who buy the CAGW – it fits.

    Exactly, it appears likely that the CAGW panic meme appears to have been designed to appeal to as many diverse groups as possible with the intention of having few dissenters. Hence the difficulty for us sceptics in making people see through the phony science being used to attempt to convince people of the need to change our ways to ‘save the planet’. It’s kind of like a religious war.

    > a bit circular, the above, no?

    Yes, ain’t it great?🙂

  28. SunGCR says:

    > Hi SunGCR, no offense taken.

    Good🙂

    > It’s true that i would have dismissed the Maurice Strong activities but for Geoff, and you taking them seriously.

    I understand, and I agree that reading the first of those 3 links, especially, makes one’s eyebrows rise considerably. However, I think after watching that UNCED video above, it becomes clear that there is enormous clout behind this UN Agenda 21 system – you don’t get any bigger, richer and powerful backers than the banking dynasties. And the occult aspect of these ideas/people is disturbing, IMHO.

    > My practice over the years has been to give anything that people I respect think a good look, especially if it seems contrary to how i generally see things.

    Seems a reasonable approach.

    > The usual suspects are still in Key West. We moor in Marathon where there is more room, better protection, and lots of friends from 9 years of doing it.

    Sounds like a nice way to live!

    > I haven’t yet watched the links – have to wait for good fast connection – running wireless off one of the US Cell nets.

    The vids / links are very educational😉

    > best regards,

    Likewise.

    BTW, Geoff, there’s another of my long comments containing a few links held-up in moderation – most probably due to containing four links.

  29. SunGCR
    “Perhaps charismatic leaders were so 19th/20th century and the new modus operandi is to use social engineering and enormous amounts of funding to NGOs…”
    That’s a very interesting thought. You don’t even have to assume they “use” social engineering.
    Whatever social movements happen to be around are likely to carry with them people who have semi-secret, authoritarian programmes.
    There are no doubt many people near the summit of society who find democracy inefficient and would prefer some form of government by experts. Some go to far right or far left parties, others to churches, cults, or movements of different kinds. Maybe there’s a Maurice Strong at the top of UNESCO who bet the farm on Man being an aesthetic animal and devoted his energy and fortune to developing a ruling élite of aesthetes and art historians. He guessed wrong, it didn’t happen, and he disappears from the historical record.
    Strong and the Club of Rome may have succeeded, not because they engineered society, but because, by good luck or good judgement, they hit upon environmentalism as being the coming thing. There undoubtedly was a popular movement in favour of the environment which was not “engineered” by the Club of Rome. From about the sixties onwards, you have opinion polls showing large majorities agreeing with concepts like “spaceship Earth” and the fragility of the ecosystem – ideas which were put forward in books which probably reached only one percent of the population, but which gained the assent of just about everybody. In those circumstances, the simple act of reading and believing Paul Ehrlich puts you at a tremendous advantage intellectually, and often in career terms. You don’t need a conspiracy theory to see how that works. Just being a young ambitious carrier of a new idea (however false) gives you a head start in life. Thirty years later, despite the fact that the idea has been disproven by events, bearers of the idea find themselves concentrated at the top of society.
    Anyone complaining that decisions are being made secretly, out of the reach of democratic controls, risks being labelled a conspiracy theorist. It’s a difficult accusation to counter, simply because the workings of society are complex.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s