Who was it that said ‘if you lie often enough people will believe you?’
Apparently, John Kerry and Prince Charles subscribe to this tenet. Both have resorted to calling ‘climate change deniers’ a whole lot of very nasty names recently. Shame on them for continuing to propagate this nonsense and even more shame of them for denying freedom of speech or a differing opinion. Nether are fit to hold the office that they hold. For Charles he has an excuse as he was born into the role, Kerry, well, he is a politician aka a scumbag.
I don’t think either of them have a single qualification that enables them to have an opinion on the matter. Neither have any expertise on the topic. They simply both seem to worship at the alter of the climate change God – another scumbag… sorry Politician – Al Gore.
(Editor’s note: All politicians are scumbags and anyone who expresses a desire to enter politics ought to be barred for life from ever doing so)
I notice we have seen a shift from Global Warming to Climate Change. Funny that. Climate Change is a fact, Global Warming a fallacy. So at least they have caught on or maybe just hijacked better terminology to spout their fear causing rubbish. The issue for me then is exactly what is a climate change denier? Its not me. Climate changes all of the time and as a Geologist I have spent the last 30-years of my life pointing this out to everyone. There is nothing special about the climate right now… nothing except our perceptions and what these clowns tell us – over and over again until we accept it as gospel. I am not a climate change denier. I deny that man-made CO2 is warming the planet. How does that make me part of a “tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact“? Actually, its climate scientists that fit that bill.
In the name of the climate God Amen…..
The facts are easy and they are;
1. CO2 is not a pollutant it is a natural life-giving gas that sustains and nourishes Mother Earth.
2. 400ppm is closest to the lowest amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere at any point in Geological history. Actually, there is a strong argument that we would benefit from more of the stuff as it would help agriculture.
3. The Earth is a one huge natural carbon sink. Over the last 4.5 or so billion years it has successfully reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere down to its current near lowest 400ppm.
4. CO2 levels tend to follow temperature not the other way around.
I could go on.
What we are talking about is a small bunch of folk with computer models – pretty similar ones to those that predict our weather – who have over engineered the effects of CO2 in their models and produce hockey stick graphs of temperature change as a result. These people peer review each other’s work. Anyone who disagrees is stigmatized and isolated.
The best test of science though is repeatability and predicting actuality. Unfortunately, these climate scientists haven’t predicted anything anywhere near right. Temperatures haven’t increased in perhaps as long as 15-years. Their models lie in ruins and yet, we are told to believe. Repent and believe. Its like a bloody new religion requiring faith in the CO2 God and persecution of the non-believers.
I hear people say… but I see it with my own eyes…. glaciers are melting and so on. No, you don’t. You see a part of the natural cycles of Earths ongoing evolution and you have been told to believe that this is a result of CO2. You have been treated like morons by these religious zealots. Actually, for most of this planet’s history, there were no ice caps. We are in a warming event between glacial episodes. It is the glacial episodes that are actually not the norm.
By the way, who was it that used the idea that if you say something enough, people will believe it?
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realized as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall.