|- Expanded from page 59
BEWARE : The #Climate Drama Queens
Drama queening motivation "It's important it really matter, think of the children !" "it's so important we must remain on message so it's OK to be flexible with the truth"
|Don't expect a fair debate from green/left
nor logical argument, nor politeness, nor patience
- instead of expect dramaqueening, anger, namecalling .. all right from the beginning.
... Plus ranting, bullying, ganging up, sneering , mudlslinging, no coherent logical points etc.
- Facts from a parallel universe : certainty of things no one can be certain of, with no references to back those up with *, that IPCC is science , and it's predictions have come true, (They'll use argument from authority "scientists say" etc.)
- * they are sometimes fond of quoting papers which are brand new and leaked to the Guardian before they have been properly reviewed and debunked.
- calls for censorship
- accusations : Big Oil etc. appeals to emotion : "you don't care, think of the children"
- evasion : "I don't have the time, you skeptics never give up" etc.
- Monday-Friday arguments (are they working out of green lobby groups and green energy company offices ?)
- projection : they are big on accusations, but it usually means they are guilty of whatever they accuse you of
"Think of the Children
You have to lie for them"
Typical Green trick load every message with power station steam always taken from behind sun at dusk to make it look dirty.
also mentioned on page 68 smokey chimney and polar bear
- see how a wind turbine really does turn the sky black on page 77
big on DRAMA QUEENING & low on validated predictions.
CO2 & Temperature levels are VALIDATEDscience the predictions of catastrophe are not
- I don't know what future climate will be, but their system of logic doesn't seem to hold up.
Today DramaQueens go beyond VALIDATEDscience & bet £bns, will be paidback out of their pensions if proved wrong ?
- VALIDATEDscience predicts reality 100% of the time "IPCC="green activists say what scientists say" & produced no validated predictions
- Refs :IPPCC="scientists say/Activists say"=opinion "IPCC full of unqualified & Activists" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Donna-Laframboise/e/B00EZWIV7S
BTW latest IPCC science report is being rewritten to fit with the political report AR5 ..shouldn't it be other way around ?
- Activists hijack orgs
..Action Action, Oxfam, WWF, BBC, Guardian, CREDIBILITY GONE ..all hijacked by activists and being used to spread propaganda instead of doing good
Photo shows Action Aid activists
Science Denial like Silent Spring killed 100 MILLION
Only high priests can interpret, NOT mere mortals !
Science Denial like Silent Spring killed 100 MILLION people around the world by DENYING them the benefits of DDT. We rode our bikes directly behind the DDT fogger every week when I was a kid, so close you could feel the heat and not see a thing in the dense cloud, but I’ve never been sick, having perfect children who also have never been sick, and am now approaching 70 like I was 50. Oh, and the robins all survived. Wow! Now take a drive past the Warmists Biofuels Initiative MANDATE GMO biofuels plantations, 100,000s of square MILES of pristine tropical forest slash-and-burned to feed their Altar of AGW Biofuels Billionaires, forcing Americans to burn SIX BILLION BUSHELS of human food grains, and yet not a single bird sings in those plantations, not a single frog croaks, no bee buzzes, they are DEATH ZONES! They are Chosen of Scientocracy. Now go pay your Tithe.
scientifically polled their members opinion on IPCC support
ME : The writer merely forgot to cite the result when the Royal Society of Chemistry scientifically polled their members opinion on IPCC support.. please add it now
... what you mean there never was a poll ? ..well cite the Royal Society poll .. oh it didn't poll either ? ..seems like the list of professional institutions who polled their members is ..ZERO
...oh the COOP members poll ? the WWF members poll ?
It wouldn't be like CAGW Fundamentalists slylly gain control of orgs and undemocratically hijack the policy would it ?
BTW If Other Scientists confident predictions were as unreliable as IPCC's they wouldn't have a job would they ?
Jit @ zero climatologists to change A LIGHBULB
Merely - a normal energy corp is required to employ Green Lightbulb Changing corp, BigGreeHedgeFund starts Green Lightbulb Changing corp which hires 1 contractor to change the bulb...and as a result YOU pay at 3 times the old cost directly
- PLUS the same amount in EXTRA TAXES to pay 5 EA guys that have to employed somewhere along the way
0.3 But "They" are almost 100% of the Authority
How the Fundamentalist 5% Hijack 100% of the Authority
- "We don't have to listen to you cos the Alarmist IPCC supporting side is 100% of the authority and almost 100% of the scientists, whereas 'you' are just the 5% of the population who are nutters !"
.... except that meme does not stand up to close analysis. Rather that 100% Alarmist IPCC supporting side are a 5% who are "over-confident". I won't do a full step by step essay her, but just one example
e.g. An Article in Chemistry World magazine says "I don't understand why when everyone knows 97% of scientists support the IPCC most of the letters from scientists here are against the IPCC !" it nevers enters the writers mind that that 97% figure is fake.
- That Chemistry World article like the BBC Feedback prog , reveals the fascinating story of how that 5% of the world who are 100% Alarmist IPCC supporting have hijacked "authority organisation" after "authority organisation" and now to try to own science itself , so convince minions at the BBC etc. that "they" are the 100% authority.
...& at the same time convince the world that skeptics are just the 5% of the population who are nutters, well funded by corrupt capitalism !"
- You have to hand it to them, they are brilliant at tactics, rhetoric and PR .. mind you they do have massive resources. (as they are well funded by corrupt capitalism while we have nothing)
Judith Curry's clever new post on Groupthink reminds me
- 2006 - "You can't comment on our models, you know nothing, cos you don't work within one of the big banking institutions"
what happened next ?
- 1974-present "You can't comment on our models, you know nothing, cos you don't work within one of the big climate studies institutions"
what will happen ?
Science /Dogma Game
|Well said Philip except that breaks a fundamental scientific principle : "If it supports green dogma, then automatically it is unchallengeable SCIENCE, if it contradicts green dogma then airtime must be given to every hippy to challenge it everyday of the week"
BigGreen = Big Censorship
||- Recent example ..convicted liar and politician paid by Green energy companies Chris Huhne is often on the BBC, but Greens never complain instead they complain about the 1 time the BBC actually allows a skeptic on, while it bans all others. |
Huhne on TV : Funnily enough Activist bloggers tweets are have calm logical discussions about the criminal liar paid by green energy companies being allowed on BBC
- nah, I didn't look but what came my way was usual #ClimateDramaQueens banging on "a skeptic being allowed on the BBC" one time
(Bob Carter they mean , they refuse to name him cos they didn't actually listen etc. They just call him "Man paid by big oil" (no evidence of this of course, it's just mudslinging)
e.g. 1 BBC blows climate coverage, again
People cry censorship when they don't get their way, like little children. We heard you, climate deniers. But yr opinion is bullshit.
I got 10 tweets in a row from this guy
- I note the BBC paid an eco-activist to write a play about when they invaded a power station (paying lawbreakers ? they got off criminal damages charges). They scheduled this play before a documentary about future of the electricity industry..seems like priming to me
How They Spoil the debate
- The debate tactic.
- 1. They Insult me , then make your point.
This means to get back on my pedestal I have to 1. waste time answering the insult, before I can answer their point. I can do that every time, but it also means going off topic.
SO LET'S JUST ASSUME tht as done. And I will go straight on to answer their debate point.
OK you used the debate tactic of 1.Insult me , then 2.make your point, so to avoid going off topic lets's just assume I've answered the insult. now your point
Freakonomics complain about being smeared by activists : It fits the same pattern : Joe Romm smears them then to get back to base they have to do a long explanation of his smear.
- Interesting if you are an alarmist you just believe the smear .and your view is strengthened
- If you are a skeptic then you check, find it's a massive smear and .. your viewpoint is reinforced cos now you see an alarmist really cheated
Kookie Firestarters ?
During the fires was it ever discussed ? that there are quite a few eco-warriors kookie enough to think that since warming isn't going to IPCC plan, it would be OK to give it a helping hand and produe more heat and CO2 (otherwise those evil deniers will get the upperhand)
Freudian concept of “projection”
"Luckily, none of them was qualified in the field of human psychology!"
"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
'smuggling in' the issues say DG report
Five Reasons Not to Cover Climate Change 06/11/2013 from UEA wacky dept|
There hasn't been a single, factual, long-form programme about climate change on any mainstream television channel in the UK for over a year. This is one of the key findings of a recent research report published by the International Broadcasting Trust analysing non-news television coverage of the environment. (jesus there's masses of it shoehorned into other progs everyday)
- Well the people involved in the IBT are part of the Fundamentalist Five percent the eco-evangelists. Firstly 1 religion turns a lot of people off, but also if you look at the public 95% have the same CO2 footprint they had 20 years ago. They are just not into the practice of the new religion, so they are probably not going to be interested in watching TV stuff about it. What the evangelists have taken to doing is shoehorning CAGW religion into other progs like currebt affairs, polar bear docs, and especially the news. Every evening somewhere on TV they'll be dramagreens going emotional, but failing to mention their GreenBiz connections.
- The key question this raises is - why? Why have the mainstream broadcasters failed to air any documentary which tackles - head on - the most important issue facing humanity today? (err cos youi idiots ban skeptics) ....
(one conclusion) Addressing the issue of climate change head on may well have the effect of putting people off ... 'smuggling in' the issues is more likely to be effective in informing the UK public in the long term, it was suggested.
- Note how the Inconvenient truth is never on TV ? Is it cos then people would see the errors ?
- Apart from hippy people & brainwashed youngsters, almost everyone I meet is a skeptic. And of course skeptic programme makers have a lot of interesting ideas and fascinating stories that the public would like to hear about it, but we are banned.
So programme financers won't often feels like putting money into progs that less than half their audience is gonna consider watching, cos you have BANNED the viewpoint of more than 50% of the potential audience.
the Fundamentalist Five percent
We are all green, but I am sick of the Fundamentalist Five percent stomping their feet & telling the 95% what to do at the same time as hyping up the interests of their GreenHedgeFund eco-subsidy farming mates.
Instead of stomping your feet and saying "they must not do that", let's fix the worlds problems by allowing innovation. Let private investors look for opportunities risk their own money in new businesses properly regulated & unsubsidised, so they pay for the consequences of negative impacts.
--- Other Fundamentalist Five percent foot stomping today --
1. The full video of journalist Mark Hertsgaard (The Nation magazine) shouting down Roy Spencer on CNN * Discussion
"97% of scientists say this typhoon is down to man made climate change
.*also features George Clooney (Climate Loony) ...Transcript by Alex Cull
.. It is journalistic malpractice to let a CLIMATE DENIER on !"
"and I think it's journalistic malpractice Mr Hertsgaard not to let people have a fair debate" Piers Morgan's surprising ending words
2. World Bank President Jim Yong Kim's was allowed to shout up alarm with Evan Davis feeding him some easy lines Today's Today prog Direct Audio link
- Jim Yong Kim's alarmist article
- Why no direct debates on TV ?" 'smuggling in' the issues is more likely to be effective in informing the UK public in the long term, it was suggested. Alarmists report into Climate Broadcasting
inspired by Laframboise
- I should claim the term DramaGreen it was inspired by Laframboise's Drama Queen Files where she points out greens it's all about PR so they try to control the whole debate shouting & stamping their feet & drama queening about everything. So I coined "dramagreens" is convenient shorthand & appropriate for use on blogs as it's accurate and not defamatory so use it as you wish