Dollars for denial: who has funded the threefold increase in IPA revenue since 2000?

How's that for a hockey stick?

How much does it take to fund a campaign of mis-information?

What resources are required to deceive the public about climate change?

Let’s ask the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the right-wing think tank at the centre of climate change denial in Australia.

There is little doubt the IPA can’t hide the incline in cash over the past few years.

Between 2000 and 2010 the IPA has witnessed a threefold increase in revenue.

A review of its annual reports over the past 10 years demonstrates (see reports here) a dramatic increase in revenue. Most of the IPA’s revenue comes from what it calls “subscriptions” – in reality cash injections from anonymous sources – and these have been growing at an extraordinary rate.

Famously the IPA refuses to disclose who funds it. We can speculate, but the IPA states that for ”commercial in confidence” reasons it is not able to divulge this information.

Of course, the irony of the IPA attacking the “closed” world of scientists while steadfastly hiding its own sources of funding is impossible to ignore.

Fear of Labor and the IPCC

The increase in IPA funding coincides with the lead up to Labor taking power at the federal level, the acrimonious public debate over climate change and the “carbon tax” and the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) in 2007.

Between 2000 and 2003 there was marginal growth in IPA revenue – typically revenues hovered around the mid $600k mark.

However, by the end of the 2004/5 financial year revenues for the IPA started to dramatically climb. Total revenues for the IPA in 2005 were $859,781, a significant increase over past years.

And yet within a very sort time, the IPA would start to see a dramatic increase in funding, the timing of which more than a little suspicious.

IPA revenue grew into the millions – the timing of which is important.

The surge: fighting the CPRS and IPCC AR4

Revenue for the IPA exceeded $1.4 million in 2007 – the year Kevin Rudd came into office. It was also the same year that the IPCC released its fourth assessment report stated with a “high degree of confidence” that human activities were influencing the climate.

While we can only speculate as to why the IPA enjoyed this surge in funding revenue (if/when they come clean), but I would put forward the following hypothesis:

• By early 2006 it was clear the Coalition government would lose the 2007 election
• Labor under Kevin Rudd had strongly signalled its intention to sign the Kyotoa greement and “action” on climate change – such action would mean increased regulation and a price on carbon
• The IPCC AR4 did much to convince the public climate change was real, therefore the denial movement needed to begin its attack on its credibility
• Pubic support for action on climate change was very high, in part due to the success of Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth”.

During the debate over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2010, revenue for the IPA reached its highest level in ten years.

The IPA is a critical player in the “war on science”, and its increased levels of funding may be seen as part of a broader campaign by vested interests to shape public opinion and stymie action on climate change.

Climate change denial: fuelling the IPA?

I’m fully aware that co-relation does not equal causation, however I would make the following argument:

• IPA funding has grown significantly since Labor has been in power
• The IPA is free-market libertarian think tank, and is heavily involved in coordinating the “denial” movement in Australia
• Science has been increasingly certain that climate change is happening – thus efforts to cast doubt on the science by  the IPA have risen dramatically

The central question is just who is funding the IPA?

Verily I say unto thee, gay marriage will see Australia smited: Margaret Court reframes the Constitution as a Christian document

According to a certain former tennis player allowing gay marriage will see cats and dogs living together in sin. For today’s post I ask that readers excuse my diversion into non-climate change matters.

The Herald Sun: giving voice to Christian extremism

When it comes to issues requiring an evidence based approach or intelligent debate (refugees, climate change, the Stolen Generations, the carbon “tax”) you can trust the Herald Sun will play to people’s base emotions: fear, paranoia and resentment.

What matters most to the editors of the HUN is the sense of outrage they hope to engender in its readers.

Not content with waging their War on Science, the HUN have given former Wimbledon “great” Margaret Court the opportunity to proclaim her distorted minority view of gay marriage, homosexuality and Australia’s Constitution in a two page opinion piece.

For those readers not familiar with this “controversy”, former Wimbledon champion (now Christian Pastor) Margret Court has publicly voiced her “objection” to gay marriage. The source of her objections is – of course – the Bible.

Her opinion piece in the HUN is simply one long argument from authority (it’s in the Bible!) . But what is interesting – to me at least – is Court’s adoption of the tactics and language of American Christian fundamentalists.

Oddly, while the Herald Sun proclaims itself the voice of the “average Australian” it frequently gives prominence to extremists view greatly out of step the general public.

Homosexuality as a “choice” and the Bible as Spiritual PowerAde.

Ms Court is given a two page spread in today’s HUN to air her views in a barely coherent screed about minorities, God’s love, the Constitution and how if only she’d believed more in God back-in-the-day she’d have one six Wimbledon titles.

Even then I didn’t understand the power of the Bible, his word. If I knew then what I knew now I could have won six Wimbledon’s, not three.

Yes, because God turns his eyes from the tens of thousands of children who die each day in order to bestow sporting prowess, prize money and fame on Margaret Court.

She also puts forth the idea that homosexuality is both a choice and a sin. Even worse in her mind, young people might think being gay is ok:

Let me be clear. I believe that a person’s sexuality is a choice. In the Bible it said that homosexuality is among sins that are works of the flesh. It is not something you are born with. My concern is that we are advocating to young people that it is OK to have these feelings.

Let’s not mention the incredibly high rates of suicide amongst teenagers afraid to discuss their sexuality for fear of prejudice. Or the fact that the vast majority of the public have no issue accepting homosexuality, and don’t subscribe to Court’s ugly homophobia.

Instead Court believes it’s better to tell young people with “the wrong feelings” an invisible power they can neither talk nor reason with, and is privy to their innermost thoughts and feelings,  will snatch up their souls and place them into a place of eternal torment for what it considers the wrong thinking.

Because that’s what real love is.

As Christopher Hitches described it, that is a form spiritual totalitarianism.

Court’s strangest claim: our Biblical Constitution?

Within the article Court repeatedly claims that Australia’s constitution is based upon “Biblical Principles”.

She treats it like the Bible: an inerrant and immutable Christian document and the foundation of our society. Change it and we risk an immanent moral collapse:

Our Constitution is based on biblical principles and our nation is great because of it.

And:

I can’t understand, if we are a blessed nation under a biblical Constitution, why there is such a push to change it? We will only start to tear away at the rich fabric and sustained values. Then God will take his hand off our nation and the lights will go out.

Australia’s Constitution is a worthy document. But let’s be clear, there’s no God in it. The Constitution outlines the relationship between the States and the Federal government, the role of judiciary and the powers of Parliament and the Executive.

There is not a single reference to God, the Bible, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster in it. There’s not a hint that it’s divinely inspired or informed.

Religion does get a mention, but not in the manner Court would have you believe.

I’m also confident to say that should we change the Constitution, God will not “take his hand of our nation” and smite us. Just call it a hunch. 

But warning of apocalyptic events in response to changes in public policy, law and social mores is par for the course for your average fundie. Lacking the real power to stop these changes often leaves them spluttering with rage and hoping their God is sufficiently angry to throw a few natural disasters our way as a form of punishment:

“Just you wait and see! My God is gonna whomp your a***!”

Section 116: freedom of religion, and freedom from religion

I’d invite both Ms Court and readers to examine the constitution. Now call it my secular bias, but I didn’t see a single reference to God or its supposed “Biblical” inspiration.

Section 116 does explicitly state that Parliament shall not make any laws in regard to religion:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Note the phrase that Parliament shall not impose “religious observance”.

The Constitution embodies a non-partisan and secular approach to the question of religion, taking s what could be called the classic Enlightenment approach to the question of religion in politics: exclude it from the process.

Not quite making God central to everything is it?

And yet what is the source of Court’s curious belief?

For that we can blame the creeping influence of that peculiar strain of American protestant fundamentalism that denies evolution, the separation of church and state, climate change and women’s reproductive rights.

Make no mistake: Court’s actions aren’t those of a slightly befuddled sports great trading on past glories to gain some attention in their fading years.

No, this was a very political act.

Margaret Court’s political act: reframing gay marriage and the Constitution

For several decades in the US, fundamentalists have been claiming the US Constitution is divinely inspired and the country founded on “biblical principles”. This debate has been raging in the US for decades, with fundamentalists trying to re-write American history by denying the Constitutions Enlightenment roots.

Their goal is to weaken the separation of church and state. They don’t like the secularisation of society. They don’t like gays. And they don’t like laws that disallow them from legislating morality.

By denying the secular origins of the US Constitution and the separation of church and state, they hope to overcome the limitations imposed by First Amendment:

Politically active evangelical Christians such as David Barton, a former vice-chairman of the Texas Republican party, emphasize the religiosity of the nation’s founders and assert that “separation of church and state,” as widely understood by modern historians and jurists, is a “myth” and that theU.S.was founded as a religious, Christian nation

The First Amendment is a rather pesky impediment to establishing a theocracy.

However, these same “memes” have been seeping into fundamentalist and conservative Churches in Australia. A number of those churches want to influence public debate and have been adopting the same strategies, language and tactics that have allowed their US brethren to become a force in politics.

Margaret Court is acting politically and is using the language of fundamentalism. She is following the same script used by conservative Christians in the United States in theor attempts to reframe the Constitution as a exclusively Christian document.

As such Court hopes to reframe the debate about gay marriage not in terms of equality, or legislative change but in purely Christian terms. And Court already has an answer to the whole debate: the Bible tells us it is wrong. The Constitution is a Christian document. Homosexuality is a sin, in contravention of God’s laws.

Ergo, you can’t change the Constitution. Framing it in such a manner is certainly a political act, designed to further the agenda of a small and extreme sect of Christians.

However, thanks to the legacy of her fame and the HUNs conservitive agenda we’re now witnessing the injection of this far-right-wing lunacy into Australia’s public debate.

When will Margaret Court speak up on the issue of mixed fabrics in today’s society?

I do hope Court raises other important issues outside those of gay marriage and the Constitution. No, really!

Yes, I am talking about the even more shameful practice of wearing mixed fabrics that is rampant in today’s society (Leviticus 19:19):

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

The youth of today are mixing wool, denim and linen. Just go outside and see for yourself. Did not someone tell them that it contravenes God’s laws?

Who exactly said that this kind of behaviour was OK?

To paraphrase Court:

Let me be clear. I believe that a person’s wardrobe is a choice. In the Bible it said that mixing fabrics is among sins. Your wardrobe is not something you are born with. My concern is that we are advocating to young people that it is OK to wear mixed fabrics…

I do so hope the Herald Sun allows Ms Court to expand on her views on this overlooked question of morality.

Because really, we should regard a former tennis player who bases their world view on select passages of an ancient text full of contradictions, bronze age myths and injunctions to kill unbelievers as an authority. 

Windbags: where does Terry McCrann and Andrew Bolt get their science? Hint, not actual scientists…

One thing I’ve noted about News Limited’s commentators ceaseless war on science is how hostile they are to the work of actual scientists, preferring the misinformation of conservative think tanks such as the IPA,  fully-fledged cranks such as Lord Christoper Monckton and contrarian scientists out of step with their peers (Ian Plimer)

If that wasn’t bad enough, it would appear they’ll happily accept any old drival their readers send them without taking the care to check the references or the facts.

Indeed, fact-checking seems to have become passe at News Limited: why check facts, when the the information presented to you easily  confirms your world view?

Now before accuses me of hypocrisy, of course I’ve received emails from readers alerting me to new research and reports. On occasion these have become posts. But in every instance, the references are to legitimate sources which I make every attempt to validate.

Not so Terry MaCrann and Andrew Bolt of the HUN.

Last week McCrann provided a delicious example of the kind of polemical, fact-free propaganda that has become the hall mark of the work of News Ltd columnists.

His target: wind farms.

His source: what ever emails readers throw into his inbox.

Windbag: McCrann’s war on wind farms

Terry McCrann - Associate Editor for business at the Herald Sun – has been beating the denialist drum for years. Last week I was amused to see him raging against wind farms, the death of millions of birds and Green Leader Bob Brown:

BORROWING a chant from the 1960s: hey, hey Bob Brown, how many birds have you killed today?

But unlike Vietnam, where the killing did eventually stop, if Brown, the Greens and warmenists in general get their way, the bird-killing will not only go on forever but be dramatically, dramatically, multiplied.

According to Spain’s Ornithological Society, its main bird conservation charity, Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines might be killing six million to 18 million birds and bats a year.

That’s an average per turbine of 333-1000 deaths a year – much more than the two to four birds claimed by the American wind industry.

So, Bob Brown, how many birds does each Australian turbine kill each year?

And how many will be killed if you get your way and cover the countryside with tens of thousands more turbines?

And why is saving trees more important than not killing birds?

They’re the sort of questions that have never been put to Brown from a Canberra Press gallery and electronic media that treats him as with awe as a Gandhi or Jesus figure.

Is there anything more useless and yet destructive than a wind turbine?

When the wind don’t blow the power don’t flow. And when the wind does blow the birds do spatter.

Millions of birds are dying? Really? The horror!

Now, how that is the fault of Bob Brown its hard to say.

Actually, its the tried and true tactic of negative framing: by associating wind farms with bird deaths in Spain with a political party he despises, McCrann gets to take a swipe at climate change, the greens and sustainable energy.

And those millions of bird deaths?

Millions of birds are not dying, as a scientist from Spain’s leading scientific organisation have refuted those claims, stating the mortality rate where exaggerated in the order of thousands by one individual:

The president of the Foundation and exper of Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Miguel Ferrer, said that wind farms are not dangerous to birds and has stated that “only a few wind turbines” are causing deaths among birds.

Speaking on the occasion of the first Iberian Congress on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation, held in Jerez on Thursday, the expert noted that the deaths of birds colliding with wind turbines have a distribution “heterogeneous” and added that in the recent years has reduced mortality by 68%, refuting the organization Seo / Birdlife, which exhibited at the scientific conference that wind turbines could be causing a mortality between 6 and 18 million individuals between the species of birds and bats, a ten thousand times more than the actual figure.

But facts (remember those News Ltd?) should never get in the way of an opportunity to attack the Greens.

I began drafting a response to this, and indeed one of the questions I had was where did McCrann get such an obscure fact? Fortunately McCrann answered that question for me in a follow up article a few days later:

Reader Andrew Chapman, who drew my attention to the estimate by Spain’s Ornithological Society of that country’s sacrifice of six to 18 million birds and bats every year on the altar of energy stupidity, emailed the same information to federal pollies. The response from Sandy Bowden in the office of Brown’s deputy Christine Milne was, “please unsubscribe me from your mailing list.

Andrew Chapman, where have I seen that name before?

Oh that’s right… It appears he is also one of Andrew Bolt’s favorite sources for science, viz this 2007 blog entry claiming there was no evidence for recent warming:

Why is this significant (other than to challenge the assumption that temperatures steadily increase with our emissions)? 

That jump in Australian average temperature correlates with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/1977.  The Shift marks a change from Pacific Decadal Oscillation cool phase to warm phase — thus reversing a cool shift in the early 1940s.  This 76/7 climatic step-change correlates with an abrupt reduction in the upwelling quantity of cold deep water in the equatorial eastern Pacific.  Put another way — before the shift there was a preponderance of La Niña conditions, and after it El Niño dominated.  Change in upwelling quantity on this scale (it varies a lot – but say, from about 26 Sverdrups before the Shift to about 18 Sv after) is an inertial event of huge magnitude.  I don’t see how human-caused CO­2 emissions could have done that.

(Alas, no link. Thanks to Andrew Chapman.)

When it comes to climate change, it seems the journalists at News Ltd would rather turn to what ever turns up in their inbox rather than consults scientists.

Witness this lovely display by Bolt in 2007, as nearly every post related to climate change attributes the source to Bolt’s readers:

(Thanks to readers Andrew and Matt.)

 (Thanks to reader Steve.)

(Thanks to readers Matt and Kingsley.)

(Thanks to reader Rosemary.)

(Thanks to reader Tas.)

Spread over October 16 and 17, all 5 climate change related posts where all sourced from “readers”. And in case you think that’s an anomaly, Bolt is back from holidays and in fine form.

In his most recent blog post denying climate change – dated January 23 2012 - Bolt turns not to experts, but to his inbox.

His source? You guessed it:

(Thanks to reader Charles.)

Four climate changes in one day, or how Tim Blair can’t help but bring the stupid

Being a Melbourne lad, I take delight in the vagaries of our weather.

We take pride in the catch phrase “four seasons in one day” – one minute its beautifully sunny, the next you’re running for cover from pounding rain. Makes life interesting.

Now, if you live in Melbourne you’ll note it has been raining and a wee bit cold.

Does this have anything to do with climate change? Of course not. If the mercury hit the mid 40s, I wouldn’t ascribe that to climate change. I understand there is a difference between climate and weather. Unfortunately, our friends at News Limited are yet to learn that distinction.

The Daily Telegraphs Tim Blair – whose blog I’ve been reading this past few days – is won’t to practice the laziest forms of denial. He’s not even clever about it. At least Andrew Bolt is entertaining in his distinctive snarky/smarmy tone and creative use of facts.

Blair’s blog posts are the equivalent of “dad jokes”: predictable in going for the obvious punch line and not at all funny.

Viz, Tim Blair’s latest effort on his blog today.

Blair notes its cold today; therefore global warming is a hoax.

He even has a picture of a snow man.

See, it’s cold today and “warmists” say the world is getting hotter.. and zing! It’s not! Snowman!

As I said, “dad joke”.

Blair’s source for his understanding of climate change?

The Australian’s Imre Salusinszky who ironically notes its cold thanks to the “carbon tax”"

IF you are reading this on a train or a bus, I want you to lean across and shake the hand of the man or woman sitting next to you. Folks, we did it. We beat global warming.

Last year, at this time, I wrote of how global warming was already on the retreat in Australia because of the way humanity, for once, put aside its differences and acted in unison…

As I noted yesterday, News Limited bloggers love citing each other as sources of information.

This is the “echo chamber” in action. I also suspect it’s a tactic to help boast hits to respective News Limited sites. More hits, equals more advertising dollars…

Or course, if the temperature was in the mid 40s with a hot northerly, Blair would be silent. If we had three days of temperatures in the 40s Tim would be silent. But a few rainy days and a slight chill… well you get the idea.

Lets do science with Tim Blair!

So let’s practice climate science just like Tim!

Picture yourself walking the streets of Melbourne.

Its 9.35am, and your walking down Bourke Street and and feel a little warm…

“Oh my god climate change is making things hotter!” you scream.

At 10.37am, dark clouds roll across the city and rain begins to fall…

“Brrrrrr…immenent ice age!” you mutter in horror.

By 2.33pm its sunny again, so much so you might need to take of your jacket.

In fact, you might need to stand in the shade.

And yet by 7.52pm you’re feeling decidedly cooler!

You also note the sun appears to be disappearing!

Its getting darker!

Oh my god!

The sun is dying! The sun is dying!

Is a devastating ice age imminent? Or is the planet heating up! Maybe both! Is it the heat death of the universe!?!?!?!

ZMOG! It’s a climatic ice-age-warming-catastrophic-Book-of-Revelations-universe-heat-death-thingy!!!!

Now… let’s just stop there for a moment.

If an individual simply translated their personal experiences of local conditions and assigned those same experiences to the rest of the globe – while also dismissing long-term trends and multiple lines of evidence – they’d be accused of being very, very stupid.

Wouldn’t they Tim…

Tim?

Quote of the day: Sam Harris on “Big Lies”

Thanks to the wonders of the Kindle for iPad I’ve been able to download a plethora of books and materials otherwise too expensive or unavailble in Australia.

For the researcher, such technology is a real boon. Texts that would be probibitively expensive can be brought for a fraction of the price and delivered to my iPad in seconds.

OK, I admit I’m a little addicted.

Recently I bought Sam Harris’s brilliant little easy “Lying” of the Amazon store.

One quote struck me as particularly memorable:

“Most of us are now painfully aware that our trustin government, corporations, and other public institiions has been undermined by lies.

Lying has precipitated or prolonged wars: The Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam and false reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in which lying (at some level) led to armed conflict that might otherwise not have occured. When the truth finally emerged, vast numbers of people grew more cynical about US foreign policy – and many have come to doubt the legitimacy of any miliatry intervention, whatever the stated motive.

Big lies have led many people to relexively distrust those in positions of authority. As a consequence, it is now impossible to say anything of substance on climate change, environmental pollution, human nutrition, economic policy, foreign conflicts, pharmaceuticals, and dozens of other subjects without a significant percentage of one’s audience expressing paralyszing doubts about even tghe most reputable sources of informatino. Our public discourse appears permanently riven by conspiracy theories…”

Harris neatly summeries the dilemna we face: public discouse on climate change effectively “broken”. Several factors have contributed to this:

• The mistrust of elites has been growing for several decades, and we can perhaps trace this back to the Watergate era. 
• The electorates cynicism of the political process and elites has been powefully co-opted by the deneirs
• News Limited newspapers have also thrown their weight behind the deneirs , while actively campaigning against the carbon “tax” (and by extenstion the science supporting cliamte change).

This three factors alone have been a reciepe for disaster, and has almost fatally killed off sensible discussion and action on climate change.

Spot the difference: are all News Limited bloggers the same person, or a piece of automated software?

The bloggers over at News Limited have all perfected a similar style, so much so that it is becoming almost impossible to distingush “who” is actually writing individual posts.

Remove the masthead indicating which commentator (Tim Blair, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt et.al) and you’ll see that they adopt an almost uniform style.

Andrew Bolt:

Miranda Devine:

Tony Blair:

Note the formula:

• Short introductory paragraph framing the blog entries content
• Substantive text quote from source that agrees with you (often other News Limited journalists or climate sceptic blogs)
• Make pithy and sarcastic comment at end of post
• Let forum wars begin!

Mostly this is designed to feed the forum trolls that haunt News Limited blogs, letting them have free ranch to indulge in their hatred for… well pretty much everything.

The topics explored are almost identical:

• Asylum seekers (bad in case you missed their oh so subtle arguments)
• Global warming is a hoax
• The Greens are evil incarnate
• The stupidity of “Da Left”
• Labor and Gillard are both evil and incompetent. Or is that incompetently evil?

No really… pay close attention.

I get that in a web environment consistency is required, and that the bloggers are using the same platform. But what strikes me as interesting is the uniformity of the content and manner in which posts are crafted. 

Does News Limited have a “Blogging Bot” that simply spits out the same drivel day after day on its blog? Would automated software be cheaper than hiring a stable of conservative journalists willing to distort science?

There’s my conspiracy theory for you! [wink]

In all seriousness – News Limited bloggers frame information and arguments in an identical manner.

They speak with one voice.

The God Species review: managing the planet via economic growth, genetic engineering and nuclear energy (Part 1)

Summary: Mark Lynas is a noted science author, environmental activist and has even acted as a policy advisor for the Maldives. His latest work, “The God species: how the planet can survive the age of humans” is an important contribution to the discussion on adapting to climate change (and other environmental challenges). It is bound to court controversy, as Lynas challenges environmentalists to reconsider their views on genetically modification and nuclear energy. Lynas has raised some important questions, and at the very least his work represents an attempt to formulate a science-based response.

Note: this was originally intended for Gen Adaptation blog but I’ve had some PC issues. 

In “The God Species” Mark Lynas has produced a work bound to inspire some, challenge the preconception of others and spark debate. Given the enormity of the challenges our civilisation faces this is vitally necessary.

Indeed, this very reason for Gen Adaption is help spark debate and encourage discussion. Thus I was very eager to read “The God Species”.

Lynas is the author of the well received “Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet” (2007), which examined the Earth’s geologic and climate past in an attempt to see what our future may look like should global temperatures rise anywhere between 2-6 degrees (see a good summary by the author here). I read the work several years ago, and was impressed with the work. It was a very good meta-analysis of the science, and helped inform my understanding of the risk climate change poses.

Lynas earned the ire of some environmentalists in an 2010 article in “The New Statesmen” titled “Why greens keep getting it wrong”. In it Lynas criticised environmentalists for “getting it wrong’ on the issues of genetically modified foods and nuclear energy. In particular, Lynas was scathing on green opposition to nuclear energy.:

“In all these areas environmentalists were successful because they followed science – both in understanding the dangers and designing solutions. It is where greens part company from science, as with nuclear power, that problems arise. I have now concluded that all the main objections raised against nuclear power are bogus, or overhyped, or solvable, yet the established environmentalist position – because of a herd mentality as well as deeply held ideology – remains opposed.

…As a result of three decades of successful anti-nuclear campaigning, tens of billions of tonnes of carbon have accumulated in the atmosphere, thanks to proposed nuclear plants being replaced by coal.”

It was accompanied by a documentary on the Uk’s Channel 4. Guardian journalist George Monbiot was scathing of Lynas and his co-presenter Steward Brand. You may also wish to see a video reply from Friends of the Earth to the claims made in the documentary. Interestingly, Monbiot has since become a supporter of nuclear energy, seeing it as a necessary evil in the fight against climate change.

I’d also note that Bill McKibben, James Lovelock and James Hansen, amongst the most prominent luminaries in the climate change “movement”, are also advocates for nuclear power.

With these considerations in mind, I wanted to approach “The God species” with an open mind. I wasn’t sure what to expect: a shrill denouncement of the “green movement” and pean for the wonders of technology or a nuanced discussion on how to respond to the challenge of climate change?

Fortunately Lynas has delivered a well researched and thoughtful text. If there are errors in the book, they weren’t glaringly obvious – thus if any readers come across them I’d been interested.

Planetary boundaries during the age of the anthropocene: taking science based approach

“The story of the modern era… is the story of our transcendence… For modern humans were to discover a new source of fuel that would allow us to expand both our numbers and our dominance dramatically. This new fuel, in the form of underground deposits of fossilised biological carbon, was to be the energy springboard that catapulted our species – and the planet – into an entirely new geological are, the anthropocene. Using the tool of the gos, we were to become as gods. But unlike Zeus, we still live in ignorance about our true power. And time is running out, for the flames of our human inferno have begun to consume the world…” (The God Species, pg.29)

Underpinning the ideas presented in “The God Species” are three key concepts that have emerged within science during the past decades:

• earth systems science
• a proposed new geological age – the anthropocene – that recognises are impact on the planet
• planetary boundaries

We’ll briefly cover each concept in the next post, as a rudimentary understanding of these are important. It also demonstrates that Lynas is attempting a science and evidence based approach to any of the solutions he proposes (this will become important in discussion about GN, nuclear and geo-engineering).

Whether you agree, or disagree, with Lynas on specific points, “The God Species” is an important contribution to discussion on how we as a species now face the challenge of managing the planet.

One cannot underestimate the enormous intellectual leap one has to make in order to fully grasp just what we as a species have to do.

In essence we need to manage the Earth’s  hydrological cycle, climate, chemistry and biodiversity in order to ensure the continuation of our technological civilization and the well being of a global population currently at 6.8 billion.

We are indeed a global civilisation, with a responsibility to manage the globe.

Thus, in the next series of posts we begin to explore the science underpinning The God Species, and discussing some of the solutions proposed by the author.

Comments and debate is more than welcome – indeed it is encouraged.

The God Species review: cross posted review to come…

Part one of my review of “The God Species” is up on Generation Adaptation, and I’ve encourage readers to click-on-over to read and comment.

A summary:

Mark Lynas is a noted science author, environmental activist and has even acted as a policy advisor for the Maldives. His latest work, “The God species: how the planet can survive the age of humans” is an important contribution to the discussion on adapting to climate change (and other environmental challenges). It is bound to court controversy, as Lynas challenges environmentalists to reconsider their views on genetically modified foods and nuclear energy. Lynas has raised some important questions, and at the very least his work represents an attempt to formulate a science-based response.

Mike @ Wtd

What I’m reading… denial, more denial and something inspirational

The Christmas period has been productive, at least from a research perspective.

Skeptic Politics is under construction and as part of background reading I’ve plunged into some of the “key” texts of the denial movement.

Thus, I’ve managed to wade through:

• Climate of corruption by Larry Bell
• False Alarm: global warming facts versus fear by Paul MacRae
• Watermelons: the green’s movements true colours by James Delingpole

As frustrating, maddening and sometimes laugh out loud these works where, it was an invaluable experience. I’ve gained enormous insight into the conspiratorial mindset of the denial movement.

I’ve also believed in challenging myself, and reading this material with as open a mind as possible was a valuable experience. Every claim sent me off to research and think.

As an antidote, I’ve found Mark Lynas’ “The God Species” inspirational, challenging and thought provoking:

Review soon on Gen Adaptation!

Censorship and ethics: publishing Holocaust denial material on this blog

I have, since the inception of this blog, allowed robust debate.

Indeed, 99% of comments are published.

What I don’t let through is the material that is threatening to my self or my readers, or posts that are simply vile insults. Neither adds to the quality of the debate.

Which is why I have very mixed feelings when it comes to publishing comments made by Dr Frederick Toben, the noted Holocaust denier.

My blog exits primarily to expose and critique the disinformation campaign of the climate “skeptics”. It means I have to travel some very strange paths – more often than not, I’m reading large volumes of what is essentially conspiracy theory materials.

I am a strong advocate for free speech, which is why I’ve never called for those who deny climate change to be censored. The debate is robust, indeed nasty at times. But it is vitally necessary.

To paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens, conspiracy theories are “the exhaust fumes of democracy“.

So I accept that this will be controversial to some readers – but I will publish a recent posting of Toben’s here in full. I do this in the spirit of exposing the fallacy of his arguments.

This is no cheap stunt in garnering “hits” – I frequently publish exerts of conspiracy material on this blog to critique. I have given this considerable thought but I will post it here in full and make some brief comments.

By why of my background, my first degree was a  Bachelor of Arts majoring in History. As part of my studies I critically examined such works as “The Myth of the Six Million” and the Holocaust denial “phenomena”. Thus I am reasonably familiar with many of the materials, figures and evidence.

So I say this in the strongest possible terms.

I find the denial of the Holocaust abhorrent on many levels; ethically and intellectually.

Holocaust denial is primarily intended to offend the memory of victims of the holocaust. Holocaust denial is a form of intellectual “terrorism” designed to assault, offend and enrage. 

The following resources should be consulted by readers interested in the debate:

• SkepDic dictionary: Holocaust denial
• Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory by Deborah Lipstadt
• Irving v Penguin Books: landmark defamation trial
• See Hitchen’s in the above video from 4:30 says better what I could ever

I would refer readers to Irving v Penguin Books:

David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a case in English law, relating to Holocaust denial. It ruled that the claim that such denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libellous.

In 1998, the British author David Irving filed suit against American author Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books in an English court, claiming that Lipstadt had libeled him in her book Denying the Holocaust. Lipstadt had accused him of deliberately misrepresenting evidence to conform to his ideological viewpoint. English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence, meaning that it was up to Lipstadt and her publisher to prove that her claims were substantially true.

Lipstadt hired British lawyer Anthony Julius while Penguin hired libel experts Kevin Bays and Mark Bateman of media firm Davenport Lyons. Cambridge historian Richard J. Evans was hired by the defence to serve as an expert witness. Evans spent two years examining Irving’s work, and presented evidence of Irving’s misrepresentations, including evidence that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as source material. Upon mutual agreement,^[6] the case was argued as a bench trial before Mr. Justice Charles Gray, who produced a written judgment 333 pages long in favour of the defendants, in which he detailed Irving’s systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II.

The full text of the judgment is here, and I refer readers to this because every “arguments” made by holocaust deniers was put to the test in a court of law and found to fraudulent:

I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.

I would also cite Martin Niemöller’s majestic “First they came…”

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

All of us have a responsibility to defend the truth, whether that be historical or scientific truth. This is the motivation of Watching the Deniers.

Because we should never be silent.

Toben’s comment

The original follows: 

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka
Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard
A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues
A Holocaust Controversies White Paper, First Edition December 2011
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com
Jonathan Harrison, Roberto Muehlenkamp, Jason Myers, Sergey Romanov, Nicholas Terry
Enquries can be directed to questions.hc@gmail.com
_________________________________

***
Think on these things from
Bertrand Russell:
The Impact of Science on Society, 1952
Google Books – http://books.google.com.au/books

“For some reason which I have failed to understand, many people like the system [scientific totalitarianism] when it is Russian but disliked the very same system when it was German. I am compelled to think that this is due to the power of labels; these people like whatever is labelled ‘Left’ without examining whether the label has any justification.”
[FT comments: The former was internationalist and run by a Talmudic thought pattern that opposed nature, while the latter was nationalist and run by a Germanic thought pattern that worked with nature.]

“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies.”
“All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.”

“There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second is that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practised: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by Aztecs, the Spartans and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia.”

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for the purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian)” – p63 [10]

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”
***
1. By way of an introduction here are some background aspects of my world view that shape my moral and intellectual value-system, and reveal my blind spots.

Whenever the ideal of truth as a justification of a world view is deemed to be important, all too often obsessive credentialism makes it necessary to paint a validation picture of offered commentary that ought to be self-evident – as in my response to this 570-page work of minute detail purportedly proving the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ to be an historical fact.

My world view rests on the Kantian Categorical Imperative – Kategorische Imperativ – and its reflective formulation:

Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt: Der gestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir.

The first signifies scientific enquiry and the second personal morality. Then, for the record, let me add three positive comments made in 2002 about my person:

Fredrick Töben is a man of considerable courage. Whatever one thinks of his views, one can respect a dissident who sticks to his extremely unpopular opinions just because he believes in them – Israel Shamir, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Palestine.

The advantage of communist censorship was its transparent ugliness and its open lunacy. The disadvantage of the so-called Western liberal democracy is its feigned freedom, and its ‘cool’ lunacy. Communism used to kill the body but it spared the soul. The ‘liberal democracy’ kills the soul while leaving the body of a zombie. The revisionist Fredrick Töben – or we might better call him a non-conformist or a latter-day dissident – is well aware of the mendacity of the democratic discourse and delirious myths which shape our modern world: both are enforced by criminal codes all over the glorious West. He rejects them with precision and all due incision. There is no flight for Töben and other free thinkers like him – only a long fight. As Nietzsche used to say, ‘a free man is a fighter’. – Dr Tomislav SunicZagreb, Croatia.

To opine on aspects of Jewish propaganda is courageous; to go public with such honest opinions is suicidal. As such, I believe Fredrick Töben has chronic literary suicidal tendencies. – Mohammed Hegazi, Melbourne, Australia.

Of course, you can Google my name and find numerous contrary comments about my person, something that does not bother me in the slightest, and I shall certainly not employ someone who charges $1000,- a month to manipulate Google statistics so that only favourable comments appear in the search engine. The former Federal Court of Australia judge Marcus Einfeld is allegedly employing such a person.

This fiddling of statistical information is an important point because the Internet is rife with manipulated data that does not accord with the truth of a matter. There are liars, bloody liars and statisticians. Hence the quest for popularity, personal or subject through Internet statistics, produces nothing but false consciousness, delusions and fantasies, and outright fiction that individuals attempt to pass off as facts grounded in the physical world.
The Internet social media craze has become a mythic maker especially when youngsters celebrate their thousand + and whatever number friend on Twitter or Facebook. Such friendships are not put to the test over time, especially when the going-gets-tough and political correct movements either develop or implode.

Note how the Global Warming/Climate Change debate is fraught with believers who fiddle the books because they wish to impose a global/universal taxation system on all citizens, thereby guaranteeing that institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, who are rumoured to be the guardians of the collected carbon tax, are then able to ensure the United Nations has the funds available to continue its work of global outreach – of doing good and helping the poor of this world to improve their exploited and enslaved lives.

That YouTube statistics are manipulated is a fact, and I have reports from individuals who tracked the hits counter on contentious video clips, then waited for YouTube and Google officials to skew such counters to either a popular or ‘unnoticed’ level. This is especially so in matters Holocaust-Shoah where any postings are subjected to censorship.

Sometimes, though, even in the openly controlled television media items slip through the security net. In Australia this regularly happens during the December-January summer holiday period when relief editors man the media controls.
Remember Herman Rosenblat, the Holocaust survivor who for 10 years sold his concentration camp survival story to popular US television programs as a physical fact?
On 18 February 2009 ABC’s Good Morning America asked Rosenblatt why he lied about that apple his future wife daily threw to him over the fence into the concentration camp:
*
Rosa Rosenblat: I used to come by every day, bring the apple I had in my jacket and piece of bread, and say: ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.

GMA: Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?
Rosenblat: It was no lie. It was my imagination, and in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now I believe it that she was there and that she threw the apple to me.

GMA: How can you say it wasn’t a lie, it wasn’t true and you know it’s not true?
Rosenblat: Yes, it’s not true but in my imagination it was true….

GMA: Herman and Rosa Rosenblat told their false story publicly for more than a decade but it all fell apart about six weeks ago after Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman Rosenblat was kept and that Roma’s family was two hundred miles away at the time.
Why did your wife agree to go along with this. Did she ever express any reservations?
Rosenblat: Because she loves me.

GMA: Why’s she not here today?
Rosenblat: Because I don’t want her to be here today. It’s too much – too much going on.

GMA: Was it difficult for your wife to have go out very publicly and tell a story that she knew wasn’t true?
Rosenblat: It was, it was, but she loves me so much that if she thinks that’s good for me she’ll go along with it.

GMA: Rosenblat is remarkably unrepentant about his years of lying.

Rosenblat: I pronounce my love for you, forever. …
*
It is such nonsense that enabled me to formulate a title for the paper I delivered at the 2006 Teheran Holocaust Conference: ‘The Holocaust has no reality in space and time, only in memory’.

But of course there is much more to this fiction that accuses Germans of a most heinous crime – because verbal representations are clearly found in Old Testament writings where it is stated the Hebrew God directs the slaughter of women and children, for example, of which since 1945 Jews and their proxies accuse Germans of having perpetrated on world Jewry. The Holocaust-Shoah’s mythical mindset clearly has Old Testament precedents built into it, as well as homicidal thought patterns that are clearly evident in detailed Talmudic writings, which make up the ethical standards and moral guide of most Orthodox Jews.

When American presidents unashamedly lie about their personal lives and promote matters Holocaust-Shoah, or embrace the 2003 Weapons of Mass Destruction – WMD lie, or worse still, vigorously condones the 9:11 lies, and then the Rosenblat lies are merely another example of a mindset that within our Western democracies even academics and lawmakers/politicians unashamedly embraced – and continue to embrace.

The truth of a matter has become irrelevant – and this is the core of what is causing the decline of the West and the adoption of Holocaust-Shoah as a substitute religion beneficial, among others, to Jews and Israel at the expense of Germans/nationalists and Muslims/Palestinians/Iranians: the adoption of the Talmudic Marxist atheistic death dialectic combined with Pharisaic usury principles. For this kind of dialectic win-lose mindset truth is deemed to be a mere social construct – truth is what you want it to be – rather than truth being the foundation, the bedrock of our civilisation.

Just remember, whenever engineers begin to fiddle the books with their calculations and measurements, in effect creating a physical structure built on lies, then the structure they build will collapse. So, too, it is with any mental structure that a lying mindset constructs, for example, the Marxist ideology or the Holocaust-Shoah myth sold as a physical fact but protected legally from a thorough examination. Germans are accused of having committed atrocious crimes yet they are not permitted to mount a defence against such allegations because such a defence would hurt the feelings of those who believe in the Holocaust-Shoah myths. The Rosenblat phenomen on has been encouraged to blossom in so-called western democracies and Germans lack the moral and intellectual courage to oppose it because of basic creature comforts. Hence the few individuals who embrace Revisionism know full well that it will mean in most instances a social and professional death sentence.

But fortunately such nihilistic mindset that propagates such Holocaust-Shoah lies also contains its own self-destructive internal logic, as the Rosenblat example exemplifies. Revisionists didn’t even have to expose Rosenblat’s lies. There are numerous such cases on record where Revisionists merely smiled at such fraudsters riding on the Holocaust-Shoah myth gravytrain. Hence, where lies are told personal relationships break down and a society begins to rot, and it is only for some time that legal constraints hold together the rotting social fabric. History teaches us how under the weight of official lies the moral, social and legal duties with which most citizens are imbued are crushed. Hence in order to deflect from the inevitable social disintegration the global trend is to crass consumer hedonism, which however directly results in producing a cynical-nihilistic world view where the only freedom citizens enjoy is the freedom to go shopping – never mind if you are one of the millions unemployed and have no money to spend!

As Dr Robert Faurisson reminded us when the 2003 WMD was exposed as a lie and used as a pretext for the US to invade Iraq, the next global lie of recent times to break down will be the ‘9:11 was done by a bunch of Muslim terrorists’ lie. Anyone with some understanding of fires and explosives knows that buildings don’t collapse the way we have been told the World Trade Centre Twin Towers were brought down – not by planes but by controlled demolition; and we need not even mention how Building 7 collapsed in the absence of any planes hitting it because Larry Silverstein admitted that he decided to ‘pull it’.

Hence, the official conspiracy theory, though solidified through two huge insurance payouts, is just that – a lie told to justify Anglo-American-Zionist global war mongering designed to save a crumbling global economic power structure.

On 6 October 2011 – presstv.com – new world order ‘breaking down’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0ur6gMIaQ
… and note Ron Paul’s political comments at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0.

This now global lie that postulated ‘terrorism’ as an evil driving force needed to be fabricated to fill the ideological vacuum left after the Soviet Union and its dependencies started to disintegrate at the end of 1989 and into the 1990s, thereby securing the global supremacy of the Anglo-American-Zionist predatory capitalistic world view for some decades to come.

The most comprehensively developed recent historical lie – the Holocaust-Shoah lie, which states that during World War Two Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers – still stands because it is set in legal concrete and it serves well those individuals who see Germans as a threat to their economic existence. However, since its formal legal protection began during the late 1970s and early 1980s massive cracks have appeared within its structure, and that is thanks to individuals such as Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Fred Leuchter, Willis Carto, Ernst Zündel, Michael Hoffman, among others. Of course, most recently, the notable Holocaust-Shoah scholars Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf and Thomas Kuess, are now under attack in the latest works by Holocaust believers.

Cheers