The Climate Culture War enters a new phase in Australia

It is telling that one of the very the first acts of the incoming Abbott government was the dismantling of Climate Commission and the sacking of Tim Flannery.

Moves are also under way to wind up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and repeal the “carbon tax”. The freshly minted Environment Minister, Greg Hunt has dismissed the CEFC as as a speculative hedge fund:

Mr Hunt labels the corporation a green hedge fund, “borrowed in taxpayers’ name for investing in speculative ventures”

Without doubt this little piece of Orwellian cant is meant to associate investment in renewable energy with risky financial speculation.

As Michelle Grattan noted in The Conversation, a select few high-profile public servants have been the victim of their association with Labor’s carbon price:

“One of the strikes against [Martin] Parkinson was that he headed the then Climate Change department and was at the centre of Labor’s work on a carbon price. This was particularly in the mind of some in the Abbott office.”

Grattan also expressed a fear many in the science community must be feeling:

“The CSIRO comes under the Industry department. The scientists working in the climate area might be getting a little nervous.”

Indeed, however it is not just climate scientists who are nervous.

Cheering on the planet’s destruction: the sceptic response

Of course the denial movement has been in an orgiastic state of schadenfreude in response to these cuts.

The Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt demands Tim Flannery refund his salary for his “dud predictions”; conspiracy theorist Jo Nova calls it a “win for Australia”; American blogger Anthony Watts gloats in several posts, dismissing Flannery as a “high paid fool”.

There are of course many more examples of such thinly veiled pleasure in the misfortune of others.

Sitting above this scrum of sceptic bloggers and News Corp hacks, presiding over events like a bad caricature of Ann Ryan’s John Galt, is Rupert Murdoch:

Abbott, the LNP, Murdoch and the sceptics have turned back time. They desire nothing more than to wipe from Australia’s political and cultural memory the years 2007-2013.

It is as if the last five years didn’t happen: no first woman prime minister; no Labor in power; no price on carbon; no pesky scientists to remind us of the dangers of climate change.

Down the memory hole they go.

A great first day indeed.

Climate change as lighting rod for conservative anxieties in a changing world

The culture war fought over climate science has raged for more than three decades.

During this period the forces of obstruction had the upper hand in Australia, especially during the Howard years. But their ascendancy was broken in Australia in 2007 with Rudd’s election.

For a few brief years it seemed Australia might take substantive action on climate change: the signing of the Kyoto protocol;  the introduction of the carbon price; greater public acceptance of the science and the desire to act.

Thus 2007 represented a wrong in the eyes of the LNP and conservatives that had to be righted. In response we have witnessed five years of rage and fury. 

And while some may think these events are about climate change, they aren’t.

It is about the soul of the nation: it is what Australia could or should be.

Murdoch, Abbott and the gaggle of sceptics looked out at the world and the shift in our culture and feared what they saw. They are of course differences among all these individuals and the groups they represent. But what united and drove them was hatred of the scientific consensus on climate change.

Climate change has become a lighting rod for conservative anxieties and fears about a rapidly changing world. 

What do individuals do when they feel their “culture” is under attack? 

They mount a counter-offensive. 

This is what the 2013 Abbott victory represents, a cultural coup d’etat. 

Conservatives fear the evolution of Australia’s culture: one that embraces sustainability and equality; one that rejects the values of the past; one that places the market second to the needs of society; one that embraces a post-materialist world view. 

Expunging the heresy of climate science: why we should be concerned for science in Australia

Abbott is keen to project an orderly transition to power, but his targets demonstrate a quiet rage and considered preciseness.

As Flannery noted in his press conference following his sacking:

“As global action on climate change deepens, propaganda aimed at misinforming  the public about climate change, and so blunting any action, increases.”

This should send a chill down the collective spine of scientific community. It remains to be seen how this will play out, but the signs are ominous.

When the Canadian conservatives under Stephan Harper’ got into power they began a war on science and withdrew from the Kyoto treaty. A war on science was also a feature of George W. Bush’s Presidency, notably recorded by Chris Mooney in “The Republican War on Science”.

We may see similar events play out under the Abbott government: the heavy hand of Liberal Party apparatchiks in muting or censoring reports; the defunding of climate research programs; obstruction at climate conferences; more sackings; and pressure on the science community to remain silent on climate change.

Of course it will all be done in the name of savings, efficiency and small government. It will be done in the name of a “mandate”.

But the targets make it obvious.

Welcome to a renewed phase of the climate culture wars. 

Climate Sceptic sacked from Macquarie University was Banned By National Science Foundation For “Deceptive Conduct”

Below is a partial reprint from the always excellent Graham Readfearn on the sacking on the recent sacking of one Professor Murray Salby. It comes via Desmogblog.

Before that, let’s look at how the deniers hoped to framed the incident.

Without doubt, they see Salby as victim of a great injustice and have taken to their blogs to decry both his dismissal and the implied censorship of dissenting voices in science.

Anthony Watts harrumphed :

Just last week we heard that Dr. Robert Carter had been blackballed at his own university where he served as department chair, and now we have this from Dr. Murray Salby, sent via email. 

Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to think Australia is ground zero for AGW crackpottery. 

This email’s accusations (if true I have independent confirmation now, title changed to reflect this – Anthony) is quite something, it illustrates the disturbing lengths a university will go to suppress ideas they don’t agree with. So much for academic freedom at Macquarie University. 

Thanks for that Anthony, I note the personal insults continue (/wink).

He also dismisses Australia as a land of crack pots. Mr Watts dismissal of myself and 20 odd million Australians is typical of his grandiosity (/wink, wink, wink, wink… and wink in case you missed the irony and implied humor of that sentence Mr. Watts).

Perth’s resident climate sceptic and conspiracy theorist Jo Nova has kicked her sense of outrage into overdrive. She also sneeringly dismisses Macquarie as an educational institution:

I suggest that a university of this type (if that is what Macquarie is) would train good bottle-washers, but not researchers who break new ground.

I’m sure those comments help Salby’s cause no end.

However it would seem Salby has a less than spotless past, as Graham notes in DeSmogBlog post:

A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money. Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in…

Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.

The investigation, which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.

Oops.

And so Salby was fired his previous role at the University of Colorado for “deceptive conduct”:

We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.

One wonders how the deniers will responds to this?

Prediction: more claims of conspiracy (/wink).

---

What leading voices in the climate debate should do – lead. Can Anthony Watts do that?

Anthony has again hurled another insult:

Repeated insult

Watts has moved from calling me an idiot to labeling my ideas idiotic, a move designed to shelter WUWT from legal action. One could consider that a small improvement. 

However, that is insufficient.

Anthony, I will state the following for the record: I unreservedly apologise for the charge made and have done so already. It has been withdrawn, and your comments allowed on WtD.

In return I expect  the gracious acknowledgement of this; a public apology for the defamatory insults directed at me by you and posters at your blog; their withdrawal.

I also request future references to this episode to cease, as your record and those of (some) of your followers does not reflect well.

I will continue to be critical of the ideas and the information presented on WUWT were debate warrants this.

Where I believe you or a guest poster is in error I will call attention to that.

As many others (on both sides of the debate) have suggested, prominent voices in the climate debate need to assume the role of leaders.

I may not have the volume of visits of sites such as WUWT have, but that does not matter.

Therefore Mr. Watts I will lead if you cannot: I will take that leadership role.

The choice is now yours.

It is time to move on from this event, which I am now doing. It has been far too distracting.

Hypocrisy over at WUWT? Will Anthony Watts remove the personal and defamatory insults made against me on WUWT and apologise?

The difficulty in occupying the moral high ground is when you make the following comment: 

Example 1: name calling

This from a gentleman who stormed onto my blog and demanded immediate edits, all the while questioning my professionalism? I responded immediately and promptly.

Despite this Mr. Watts decides not to acknowledge my response, but instead rounds out his actions with a public insult.

Not very gracious behavior is it?

One could be tempted to call them the actions of a bully.

Not a good look is it Mr. Watts?

The comments on the WUWT post are also illustrative, as this one clearly shows:

Example 2: homophobic insults

What does a persons sexuality have to do with the debate? And why should such a charge be even considered an insult? As far as I’m concerned both gay and straight are normal, healthy expressions of human sexuality.  But not for this poster, who clearly thinks being labelled “gay” is a form of insult. 

Such defamatory and prejudicial material should be removed from WUWT.

As should Mr. Watts ungracious insult directed at me. 

I believe an apology is in order, or there is a real risk of Mr. Watts looking like a hypocrite.

One would hope Mr. Watts responds with the same requisite promptness and diligence exhibited at WtD. 

 

[Note: see WtD discussion guidelines on the use of language. Some off colour language is permitted, but I strongly urge all posters to refrain from personally insulting others.]

Anthony Watts: it is necessary to use the correct sea-ice graphs on WUWT to avoid misleading the public

This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.

Here is a graph Anthony Watts @ Watts Up With That? (WUWT) elects to use from the National Ice and Snow Data Center:

Notice anything? Anything missing? Anyone?

Would that be the standard deviations (SDs)? 

If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!

Until 2009 the NSIDC used to present the graph without the SDs (hat tip A.Watts!).

If the NSIDC has elected to present information in one format as their preferred means of communication, it is beholden to all of us to follow their model.

That is a reasonable assumption to make. If Mr. Watts is aware they changed this back in 2009, surely his blog needs to mimic their current practice?

Mr. Watts accused me of lacking professionalism. Over to you now Anthony regarding the question of professionalism.

Context matters

If the NSIDC elect to give prominence to the presentation of data in one format it is reasonable to assume we are all beholden to follow their lead.

You could claim they presented their data as such four years ago.

But not now:

Notice anything?

The graph includes the SDs. If you go to their Sea Ice page you’ll see graphs that us the SDs.

So why does this matter?

Because the context in which information is presented matters a great deal in this debate.

And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.

Now it could very well be that Mr. Watts simply needs to bring his images inline with the practices of the NSIDC – if that is the case the opportunity now exits.

We can take data and images from anywhere – from NSIDC, from a government website or the Bureau of Meteorology and present it however we wish.

But what matters more: the thin slice of data you wish to highlight, of the full data set and the contextual information?

Excluding standard deviations in sea-ice graphs @ WUWT: why it matters

You can create the graphs yourself here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

You don’t need to Photoshop the image, thus I’ve withdrawn my throw away comment about Photoshop. Which I note was intended to be satirical, but still I felt compelled to remove it to save people’s confusion or spare them a sense of outrage. 

Now given:

• the history of denying the link between human activities and climate change at WUWT
• the long running antipathy towards the work of climate scientists at WUWT

My interpretation remains more than reasonable. 

To the general public this may seem an obscure debate over the minutiae of graphs and data. But Mr. Watts content makes its way into the mainstream press via blogs such as Andrew Bolt.

Hence my focus on the use or potential misuse of images, data and information.

WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change.

Much of the information presented there is crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.

Thus as a true sceptic – not one who merely adorns the garb of the curious – I will continue to question the use and misuse of information on sites such as WUWT.

Over to you Anthony: if you’re calling me out then likewise

Sceptics here have asked that make an amendment to the original version of this post, which I have.

Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks context. Now is the time for them to admit WUWT uses a presentation format four years out of date.

The record of my transparency, openness and honesty is here for the entire world to see and judge.

Now it is time for Anthony to live by the same standards he demands of others and fix his mistake.

Over to you Anthony.

The coming assault on AR5: get ready for the next war on the IPCC in 2013

Via the Sydney Morning Herald:

The Australian government has begun its review of the latest draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, pledging ‘‘an open and comprehensive approach’’ as it taps selected input.

The review will draw on comments from experts, state and territory governments, industry groups and research organisation, the government said in a statement. “IPCC Assessment Reports are a vital reference and evidence base for policy considerations on climate change by governments around the world,” Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet said.

The review will run to the end of November and involves a ‘‘second-order draft’’ of one of the three working group reports, examining the physical aspects of the climate system and the changes under way.

These include observations of changes in air, land and ocean temperatures, rainfall, glaciers and ice sheets, and sea level, as well as evaluations of climate models and projections of future conditions.

The first working group’s report is due for public release in September 2013. Draft IPCC reports are typically not made public, with the review process intended to test the data and analysis, and identify any errors.

So what can we expect from the sceptic movement?

Time for some predictions!

Coming soon to a climate sceptic blog: conspiracy theories and cherry picked facts*

As we get closer to the release of the next Assessment Report (AR5) we can look forward to renewed attacks on:

• the integrity of the IPCC
• those associated with the IPCC
• the integrity of individual scientists and scientific institutions
• the idea of a scientific consensus on climate change.

We will no doubt see the deployment of the following tactics:

• dragging out all the old complaints about AR4
• sceptics hunting for anomalies and small errors in the report
• mutterings about global conspiracies and scientists fabricating data
• counter-conferences and publications that present a “counter-consensus”
• climate sceptic bloggers working themselves up into frequent episodes of rage.

Since the publication of the last IPCC synthesis report  (AR4) the science has become even more settled. Thus in that context it will be interesting to see how the sceptic movement responds to both the report and media coverage.

Will the media allow the sceptics to frame the debate again?

How much the mainstream media will pander to the sceptics and repeat their accusations remains to be seen.

Increasingly we are seeing their views getting less and less airtime in the mainstream press. 

It now seems parts of the maintream media are a) bored with the messages of the sceptic movement and b) has twigged to the fact the sceptics are in the business of manufacturing faux scandals and outrage.

“Another typo in the IPCC report? Gosh, how clever of you Mr Climate Sceptic (yawn).”

2013 sceptic response: expect the spectrum of outright denial to luke-warmism

So what to expect? 

Parts of the News Corporation will pick up sceptic talking points and quote all the usual climate sceptic suspects on Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other parts of Murdoch’s empire.   

More respectable outlets such as the WSJ may change their tone from outright denial to a form of luke-warmism: “Sure the climate is changing, but it will be fine – or we will adapt – so no need to change!”

The Australian will strive for its usual balanced approach (i.e. war on science) of trotting out professors that have gone emeritus and surrender occasional column space to cranks like David Evans and Joanne Nova.

Lets hope those two start talking about the Rothschild’s and the climate scam on the pages of The Oz.

Andrew Bolt will speak approvingly of cranks on both his show The Bolt Report and on his blog.

Fox News will continue to offer fair and balanced commentary by getting the science wrong and promoting outright falsehoods.

Climate sceptic blogs will run amok with the usual dross – getting especially shrill both prior to and after the release of AR5.

I anticipate Anthony Watts will release another special pre-peer reviewed analysis of temperature data in the later half of 2013 to counter the work of the IPCC (lulz).

Reader predictions welcome

So readers, what are your predictions for the sceptic response?

As we get closer to the release of the first draft I’ll start pointing tactics and sceptic responses.

But to be frank, I think we can condidently predict the sceptic response.

 

* In other words, nothing will change.

A house divided, or a clean house? Anthony Watts proscribes what topics can be discussed on WUWT: no more Bigfoot or UFOs. World’s conspiracy theorists disappointed

Climate sceptics, our operators are standing by

While the world’s most prominent climate sceptics have been adamantly denying (tee hee) they’re not conspiracy theorists (“No truly, we’re not!”), over at “Watts up with that?” they’ve announced new they have specified guidelines for what people can – and more importantly – can’t discuss:

“Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread. A Tips & Notes sections exists for  bringing items of interest to attention…” (Note: see below)

I’m bitterly disappointed.

What am I going to for my morning laughs now that the “We’re not crazy, but….” crowd can no longer post at that venerable institution of science, reason and logic WUWT?

What, a spark of self-awareness? Dare I say it – a belated recognition there is a grain of truth in what Lewandowsky et.al have to say? 

Well, colour me surprised!

The question is when did this policy come into place?

Still – I was just starting to have fun… 

/sigh

UPDATE Some readers have provided a full history of Watts evolving comments policy, and the growing list of cospiracy theories the WUWT have had to exclude:

As it stood in November 2010  :

Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, chemtrails, and topics not directly related to the thread.

As it stood in July 2011:

Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, HAARP, UFO’s, mysticism, and topics not directly related to the thread.

Watts explains why Lewandowsky paper on conspiracy theories is wrong: its a conspiracy between John Cook and the Prof

Gold plated bulls*t from Watts

Readers – I stand in awe at the complete lack of self-awareness of Anthony Watts and his merry crew of “sceptic” readers.

A wonderful post went up on “Watts up with that?” revealing the vast left-wing-academic conspiracy behind the NASA paper by Lewandowsky et.al.

Not content with the very public embarrassment of:

• claiming that no sceptic blogs were contacted to participate in the survey for the NASA paper
• only to have egg on their faces when it was revealed sceptic blogs had been contacted (see here for the lulz)
• proving the point of the paper by engaging in an orgy of rage and conspiracy making…

…sceptic bloggers are now engaged in cascading episodes of jumping to conclusions.

These “sceptics” are behaving exactly as predicted – exactly as predicted.

Every one outside the sceptic bubble could see it playing out like this: in fact the way Watts et.al are behaving is fitting the criteria for conspiracy ideation.  

And it is hilarious.

Case in point – see Watts indulge in a text-book example of pattern seeking behaviour by cherry picking some “facts” about John Cook (of Skeptical Science) as an administrator for several websites:

There’s a lot that has been going on behind the scenes with the Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky “moon landing paper” affair. It turns out that Dr. Lewandowsky is part of a larger association that I dub the Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link.

Dum, dum, dum!

Watts then goes on to cherry pick random quotes from a variety places to “prove” the Lewandowsky-Cook-Hive-Mind-New-World-Order-Conspiracy.

Anyway, go over to Shaping Tomorrow’s world for some sanity, in which the authors of the NASA paper discuss their methodology:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, after various unfounded accusations against us have collapsed into smithereens, critics of our work have now set their sights on the data. It has been alleged that the responses to our survey were somehow “scammed,” thereby compromising our conclusions.

Unlike the earlier baseless accusations, there is some merit in casting a critical eye on our data. Science is skepticism and our data must not be exempt from scrutiny.

As it turns out, our results withstand skeptical scrutiny. We will explain why in a series of posts that take up substantive issues that have been raised in the blogosphere in turn.

Back to the Watts post – most precious of all is the comments which provide further text-book examples of conspiracy ideation.

Here’s some choice quotes:

tallbloke says:
September 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I wonder how much (if any) of the grant money awarded to Lewd Lew might have found its way into funds supporting Cook’s activities. I see a UWA investigation on the horizon.

Ah, the onanistic fantasy of all deniers – that somehow university admin people will rush in and correct the behaviour of naughty professors.

Then there is standard conspiracy theorising:

ocker says:
September 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm

It is all simpler than one might think. In AU, left wing governments supply “grants” and funding to left wing academics and “news” outlets. Right wing governments provide fewer “grants”. The market rules. If you wish to be funded by the government purse then you provide left wing propaganda.

I’m not sure how that makes sense, but to the poster it is axiomatic that left-wing governments give grants to left-wing academics. Wait a minute didn’t the Howard (conservative) government continue to fund the CSIRO and universities? Ah logic, how badly you can be twisted in the hands of a conspiracy theorist.

Science is left-wing propaganda. Indeed.

This is my favorite – the poster that tells people not to send their children to Australia:

Elizabeth says:
September 12, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Australia would be much better off if they let Asia just take it over. They are overgoverned, overrated, stuffy, overpoliced, controlled by politically correct minorities,full of themselves and their education system is now third world rated. Examples Gergis paper fiasco, Flannery, carbon tax now all this stuff with good ol Lew…its endless. Don’t send your children there to study my advice…

Australia, beautiful one day – North Korea the next.

A Cabal of Bankers and Sister Souljah: Lewandowsky versus the extreme sceptic fringe

Over at Shaping tomorrow’s World, Stephan Lewandowsky has commented on how “the penny” may be dropped for the “mainstream” climate sceptics (Andrew Bolt for example): elements of the “denial” movement are extremists.

Lewandowsky notes in the article “A Cabal of Bankers and Sister Souljah:

There are subtle indications that even among climate “skeptics” a penny has dropped. Ardent “skeptics” suddenly recognize the need to address their own fringe. This is best illustrated by the moves of Mr. Andrew Bolt, a right-wing blogger and Murdoch columnist, who commands a large audience in Australia despite his high-profile conviction for racial vilification.

Mr. Bolt has referred to me variously as a global warming evangelist or smearer. Despite those obvious failings, Mr. Bolt publicly distanced himself from the “Galileo Movement.” The Galileo Movement is an Australian climate-denial outfit that variously reminds me of Monty Python and Fox News.

Although initially listed as one of their “advisors”, together with other practicing scientists such as Australia’s most famous shock jock, Mr. Bolt discovered that the Movement’s views about climate science comprise an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory involving a “cabal” of bankers who strive to dominate the world via carbon trading (or something like that, I apologize if I have not penetrated the full nuances of this theory).

If even Mr. Bolt is concerned about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, then we have arrived at a Sister Souljah moment for climate denial.

Being very familiar with the more problematical claims made by some segments of the sceptic community, I noted the following in the discussion section of the article:

This is an interesting discussion, to which I’d like to bring the following materials and quotes for comment. This will no doubt prompt discussion, but it is important to closely examine the claims being put forward and what is the supporting evidence.

I believe it is essential that commentators – both bloggers and those in the media – spend time reviewing the primary materials.

With that in mind, let us turn our attention some of these claims being made: I fully accept that many individuals may not be aware of the source materials of some of NWO/banking conspiracy theories. It is well understood that conspiracy theorists re-purpose old materials every decade to explain new anxieties. I trust that people will review these materials and the arguments being put forward by some – not all – climate sceptics. I am not accusing any individual of anti-Semitism.

With this in mind, I refer people to the work of Australian sceptic, Dr. David Evans and his paper “Manufacturing money; and global warming” published by the Science and Public Policy Institute in 2009. An archived copy is available here

It is more than reasonable to ask for clarification of the claims being made, in particular due to the apparent sources or influences.

————————————————————

Claim one: international bankers killed two US Presidents

————————————————————-

Evans in the paper wrote: ““The paper aristocracy has overwhelming wealth. They own or influence all the media – if only because every media organization borrows from banks. They influence almost all the institutions that employ professional economists, by supplying the money for PhDs and providing most of the lucrative consulting jobs for economists. They buy politicians by the truckload. The banksters have even killed the occasional thorn in their side—including, probably, two US presidents, Lincoln and Garfield…” (Manufacturing money; and global warming” page 9)

Evans claims “banksters” may have had two US presidents killed.

The major source of the claim that Lincoln was killed by “international bankers” was made in 1978 in the publication “The Rothschild’s’ International Plot to Kill Lincoln” in New Solidarity published in 1976 (the same magazine I believe is/was associated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement).

I refer readers to page 242. of the book, “The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies”, by William Hanchett (1982) for a brief discussion:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LkpXNY32FVoC&lpg=PA278&ots=YIpJgYZb6b&dq=%22The%20Rothschilds’%20International%20Plot%20to%20Kill%20Lincoln%22%20new%20solidarity&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=rothschilds&f=false

I would recommend readers then search the Internet for instances of the 1976 publication and how it is interpreted by individuals and fringe groups. The Lincoln assassination by bankers has also a standard trope of conspiracy culture for several years, and popular among right wing elements who are opposed to the concept of the US Federal Reserve and fantasize about the influence of the Rothschild family.

———————————————————–

Claim two: the Rothschild’s and international bankers are involved in climate change (somehow) and the general economic collapse

———————————————————–

Evans in his paper wrote the following: “There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschild’s are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have. What are the paper aristocracy going to do in the aftermath of the current huge bubble? The course and end of the bubble are quite foreseeable, so they must have a plan. (Ibid. page 32)

This is a problematical claim: in essence the Rothschild’s don’t “work for a living” and “avoid scrutiny” and that they “they must have a plan”. Within aspects of conspiracy culture there is a belief/theory called the “general economic collapse” – that is a deliberate financial collapse orchestrated by shadowy banking cabals in order to profit from the chaos. It is theorised that this “plan” has been in operation for centuries.

Evans details a world chronology that incorporates a history of banking and that of climate change.

He writes: “…In the Middle Ages, goldsmiths took gold deposits from individuals for safekeeping. The receipts for these deposits circulated as money, because they were more convenient than the metal itself. But the goldsmiths learned they could issue many more “receipts” than they had gold. They would typically lend out receipts for ten times as much gold as they had, on the assumption that not everyone would try to redeem their receipts for metal at the same time. Money was thereby manufactured, or created out of thin air. Furthermore, the goldsmith would charge interest on the receipts they lent out, to compensate for the risk of not being repaid and to make a profit.”

Evans also writes: “…The wider class of people who control and manufacture paper money in all its forms are referred to in this essay as the paper aristocracy: the banks, the government, and those who know how to work the system of paper money. They are the kings of the financial system. This banking class started from humble beginnings as goldsmiths, grew rich by over-issuing paper that represented gold, eventually dispensed with gold and all its constraints, and have now graduated to rule the financial universe with a money system based entirely on paper.”

The question is: what has this anything do with climate change? Apart from a distorted view of money and the financial system, I fail to see what gold smiths have to do with climate change as a purported hoax?

Two phrases are of concern, and ***can be**** used as code words (I stress can be): “Rothschild” and “international banking families”.

I refer readers to the following text to appreciate the problematical nature of the claims: “Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia Of Prejudice And Persecution, Volume 1” by Richard S. Levy.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Tdn6FFZklkcC&lpg=PP1&ots=qKZtsayMXL&dq=encyclopedia%20antisemitism%20vol%201&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20antisemitism%20vol%201&f=false

I refer readers to the following entries:

1/ The entry on the “Rothschild’s” on page 624 in which the long history of conspiracy theories involving the Rothschild family is explained

2/ The long running popular rage against “international bankers” that goes back to the 1930s under the entry “Charles E. Coughlin” on page 140 of the book.

3/ See also the entry on page 55.56 “Bankers, Jew”.

4/ See also this discussion of the text “The Profound Revolution” by Mary M. Davison by Political Research Associates and the troubled nature of claims about bankers and the New World Order

http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_1-01.html

Public Eye notes the following on the international bankers theory of Davison: “In the 1960s, a great deal of right-wing conspiracy’s attention focused on the United Nations as the vehicle for creating the One World Government. Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged “New World Order” conspiracy to the creation of the Federal Reserve by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations. At the time the booklet was published, “international bankers” would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated “international Jewish banking conspiracy.” Davison included the standard call for the people to rise up against internationalism and rebuild a constitutional form of government–a call echoed later by various right wing populist groups including the contemporary armed militia movement.120 Davison later wrote tracts that were overtly anti-Semitic and tied to Christian Biblical passages.”

I note the following passage in Evans “Manufacturing money; and global warming” on page 8, which is an example of Evans writings on the US Federal Reserve:

“The banks and government got together in a big way in the United States in 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve. This was the third time a central bank had been created in the US; the previous two ended in ignominy or failure. It’s been a lucrative partnership. The bank money manufactured by the private banks is labelled as national money, backed by the government, instead of just the private currencies of individual banks. Government gets to borrow as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The government has run up a huge tab that future taxpayers must pay off through actual hard work, although the debt is now so large that it can never be paid off without also reducing the value of the dollar, and our descendants may be paying it off in perpetuity. All this for money that is created legally out of thin air, and for which the banks charge interest. Beautiful. As the say in the world of confidence tricks, the best con is one where the mark doesn’t even know they’ve been conned.”

———————————————————–

Claim three: the political class want to usher in a “one world government”

———————————————————–

On March 23, 2011 in a anti-Carbon Tax rally in Perth, Evans made the following claim in a speech: “Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!”

The video is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di5FyndJbz0

————————————————————

Claim four: the political class want to usher in a “one world government”

———————————————————–

In a joint publication with Lord Christopher Monckton, titled “Climate coup – the politics”, Evans made the following claim: “…The real issue here is a grab for absolute power by those who already govern. They have grown tired of democracy and would like to do away with it, without ever giving the game away by actually saying so. This is the age-old divide between the totalitarians and libertarians. Coalitions like the current regulating class have always been instinctively totalitarian, desirous of interfering in every tiny detail of our lives—for our own good of course, and prodigiously at our expense. They are now even telling us what kind of light-bulbs we can use. With the rise of democracy, it looked like the regulating class would be subject to the will of the people. The US Constitution explicitly defines the obligations of government to the people, and not of people to the government. However, liberty, democracy, and the free market are now again at grave risk, and “global warming” is the Trojan Horse the regulating class are hoping to ride to victory over the people.”

They also claim COP15 was a failed global coup: “All of that national sovereignty would have been ceded to an unelected group of global bureaucrats: Never in the field of human administration would so much power have been transferred by so many to so few. This was a narrowly averted global coup, an attempt to seize a great deal of power by stealth without the knowledge or explicit consent of the world’s people. It can only have been kept silent with the active support of the world’s media.”

Questions to sceptics and media commentators:

1. Do you support the above claims made by Monckton and Evans?

2. Can the evidence for these claims be provided?

3. Where are the exact sources of these claims from?

4. Do you agree with the claim about international banking families and the Rothschild family?

5. Was COP15 a failed coup?

At the very least, have a look at the article by Lewandowsky.

ToD: If Galileo was alive today, would he blog his results on WUWT?

… or publish them in the peer review literature? Just saying.

(Thought of the day: ToD)