True believers of so-called climate change leapt on the statement as proof that deniers were simply conspiracy theory ‘nutters’, ranting on the fringes through their own online blogs.
But is this a true caricature? What do the groups themselves say?
Like most mainstream deniers, the Galilee Movement baulks at the ‘C’ word. A spokesman, Ptolemy Roberts, said: “Conspiracy? Look, people are waking up to this. That’s all the proof you need. You want to talk about universal truth? The only universal truth is what can be measured through blog traffic stats. Show me an angry, ageing mob and I’ll show you a group of people with stunning insight – and plenty of spare time to post anonymous blog comments.”
Australian climate denier blogger, Nova Cane (an alias) has lots, plenty, stacks, heaps and oodles to say on the issue of conspiracies:
“Banking cabals and global government is not a conspiracy theory. It’s not a conspiracy theory if it’s true.”
“People don’t really understand the difference between a regular conspiracy theory and a real theory. A real theory simply outlines the complex collusion that takes place across most of our public institutions.”
“It’s obvious that these collusions between bankers, so-called scientists, the mainstream media and the UN are long-standing and wide-ranging but are kept secret from the public.”
“They have carefully indoctrinated important individuals and used sect-like behaviour to maintain their secrecy. But to call that a conspiracy theory is just shooting the messenger.”
Nova Cane believes that the so-called scientific consensus is easy to explain without any need for a conspiracy theory: “Any fool can see that so-called climate scientists are on the payroll of the big banking families, who are in league with environmentalists and communists to destroy personal liberty, crush national sovereignty, and send us all back to the Stone Age.”
“If people want to read that as conspiratorial thinking, then clearly they have been brainwashed so badly that they can’t see what is all around them. And no, I don’t mean chemtrails, I am not a complete loony.”
“These are fake studies using fake data from fake academics using fake government money. Trust me: unless you can find an academic with no formal training in their chosen subject, being paid in gold bullion, then you should be really circumspect about what they are telling you. That’s just good ole common sense.”
Andrew “Angry” Anthill, owner of the blog Australian Sceptic Psychosis: Just Don’t Tell Me What I Don’t Want To Hear, also rejects any notion that climate deniers are conspiracy theorists. To explain the so-called mainstream so-called consensus on so-called climate change, he believes the truth is much less complex than your typical conspiracy theory.
“Life is a little like the opening and closing credits from the classic sitcom Get Smart,” says Anthill.
“It’s all about Gates – most of them secret. Modern climate change activism, across academia, government institutions and NGOs is no different. It’s one hidden door after another, and you need to be not only exceptionally clever but also to possess a very special esoteric insight to detect and navigate these Gates. They go up and down and through the society we live in.”
So far, he says, skeptics have uncovered only a few of the non-conspiratorial-but-organisationally-complex-and-hidden gate systems.
But Anthill is so convinced that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests will eventually unlock the full enormity of this maze of gates – as detected by his sixth sense in the so-called climate change community – that he has vowed to pursue Australian academics “to their very last Outlook Mailbox sub-folder, if needs be”.
“Most institutions release so-called official statements, reports and data and expect us to believe all that stuff. My radar tells me that only by trawling through the personal correspondence of academics is the appalling truth likely to be found.
“Believe me, I would dearly love to trawl through personal correspondence – it’s amazing how meaning can be changed through the appropriate application of semantics. All one needs is a critical mass of words.”
Deniers with a penchant for FOI shrug off critics who dismiss their efforts as a frivolous waste of taxpayers’ money. As one prominent NGO campaigner, who did not want to be named, put it: “We’ll only truly know how much this has all cost when these guys FOI’s the institutions they have FOI’d to determine just how much public money is spent on their FOIs.”
Anthill, for one, is having none of that: “I am saving the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars, maybe even billions. If we nip the activities of these nefarious academics in the bud, then the downstream flow-on of avoiding their devious follies will be well worth it.”
Asked if avoiding future risk was a little like applying a precautionary principle to mitigate current practices that could otherwise lead to highly probable and dangerous consequences, Anthill replied: “I don’t know what any of those terms mean, in the context that you have just stated them. Without a truckload of your personal correspondence to read through, I really can’t construct my own meaning around what you have just said and put myself in a position to inform the world what you really meant.”
“To be on the safe side, I have decided to FOI all Australian academics for personal correspondence that mentions my name.
“You know, when I first started submitting FOI requests the feeling of power that came from it was almost instantaneous. I could literally see, in my mind’s eye, academics in their old tweed jackets reading them with trembling hands.
“But then, my trusty sixth sense came into play, and shadowy doubts started to creep in. I mean, what if they were simply being perfunctorily dealt with by so-called university administrators? Well, this FOI will get to the bottom of just how much they talk about me.”
But NGOs campaigners admit privately that they have their own weapons: “Obviously we haven’t read any emails from prominent climate deniers,”
says one who did not want to be named. “We would FOI them if we thought it would be worthwhile, but we simply can’t imagine that the few who actually are academics have anything more worthwhile to say in private than they do in public.
“Anyhow, who needs e-mails? Most of their junk is spewed out onto their own blogs and comment sections: our lawyers are actually amazed.
And all you need to do is WebCite it . . . our people have been very busy with that.”