Pick your targets carefully.

The people most demoralised by the skeptic blogosphere’s destruction of many assertions of climate science are actually the climate scientists themselves. Apart from the skeptics, they’re the only other substantial demographic which actually reads the critiques anyway. The ordinary person, not particularly engaged in the controversy, never reads anything vaguely scientific on it or even science in general. As we all know, science is only for nerdy blokes or girls who dress like their Mum.

Instead they’re exposed to the propaganda spin put on any pro global warming research by an overwhelmingly partisan mainstream media and conversely rarely have the opportunity to read any critiques of alarmist research they can actually understand. They never even get to see that there’s an alternative dialogue. Ask a new acquaintance about climategate and nine times out ten, they’ll never have heard of it. Try it.

I’m not saying by this that the skeptic blogosphere’s work in this area is pointless. Far from it, it’s invaluable since it has for so long provided the only sceptical examination of the research, a vital component to produce good science which is almost totally missing in climate research. I’ve yet to see a mainstream climate paper which makes an honest attempt to debunk any of the outrageous claims made about global warming or the seemingly innumerable effects it will have on all creatures great and small.

In essence, we remove the gravitas, the imprimatur of authority and are les enfants terrible within the circle of scientifically literate people who are prepared to say exactly what most other people within that circle are thinking but know it’d not be politic to express. The vital function the skeptic blogosphere has always served is to be that last one per cent who could raise rational counter arguments to what was a degenerate branch of science tarting itself out as some sort of papal endeavour; it was the unique area which was infallible and therefore beyond any debate.

If you accept there is a problem in that the ordinary person doesn’t read far into any blog article once they perceive it as “sciency”, then the logical follow on thought is that such an article will never make an appearance in the mainstream media, which we should be aiming to be breaking into. If that isn’t where we want to be, then all the skeptic blogosphere is doing is intellectual incest.

What is the way forward?

We have to make a different case, one that the average person can readily understand and easily relate to. In other words, we have to present it as a human problem, which it is, rather than a scientific one that comes complete with screes of intricate graphs and squiggly equations very few people understand.

For instance, it’s all well and good to write a well researched and erudite article stuffed full of numbers about the huge tax and subsidy benefits renewable energy is receiving, but how does the average person get into such an article, how do you make it relevant to them?

If you write, or at least lead off with the real effect of such market manipulation on people’s lives, you’re accessing a much bigger audience in terms they can understand.

The biggest outcome of loading up fossil fuel based energy with surtaxes to finance renewables is to push the poor, low wage earners and elderly living on pittance pensions into fuel poverty. That is a case which is easily made and one the ordinary person can understand. Make it.

Increasingly as the evidence mounts up, a second effect is the health problems associated with living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Make that case.

How many bald eagles amongst the millions of birds are the damn things killing every year? Make that case.

There’s a moral if not religious case there. Is it right to glibly accept that the wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in our society has to be sacrificed in order to fill other people’s pockets under the guise of saving the Earth? Make that case.

What the hell, write two articles; one about the human cost of whatever environmental madness you wish to talk about and a second linked to it by a button labelled “tell me more”, containing all the underlying details. As you’ve now got their attention, they may even click on it. I spend my time here writing that first type of article.

Am I advocating a propaganda approach? Most certainly not. Propagandists deal in lies and dishonesty. They get caught out in the end, which is why the skeptic blogosphere has been dining out on the specious assertions made by alarmists for years. Am I advocating spin? Again, no and for the same basic reason.

We can make all the cases referred to above without resorting to distortion, deceit, lies and disingenuous spin because they are all real things, real effects and ones everyone can understand. Pick nearly any other area of policy being driven by environmentalism disconnected from the needs of ordinary people, and the equivalent cases can be made.

Let’s start making those cases.


Related articles by Pointman:

Tell me why.

Why would anyone believe a single word coming out of their mouth?

A climate of deception, deceit, lies and outright dishonesty.

Click for a list of other articles.



20 Responses to “Pick your targets carefully.”
  1. Jessica wood says:

    The science gets so bogged down in some tiny aspect of this or that, which is no doubt important to that one specific argument, but totally insignificant to what I consider the big picture, which is how much will this cost in actual lives lost. And what right does one person have to decide that a certain number of lives is acceptable? Not that their own life is on the table, or even their own comfort.
    Some big enviro group was losing donations when people learned that the fearless leader of said group spent most of his time on his private jet, so maybe there is hope.


  2. Graeme No.3 says:

    I think that a lot of people are getting fed up with the never ending stream of doom and gloom predictions, and have made up their minds that there isn’t much in the claims of climate change.

    Here in Australia the then leader of the opposition claimed that “climate change was all crap”. It generated a wave of outrage and abuse from the believers, but he is now the Prime Minister. The recent announcement that the cost of living had been lessened by the abolition of the carbon tax won’t lessen his popularity. When further changes are made and the skies don’t fall, then support for climate change will wither away to its base of hysterical lefties.

    The Australian Newspaper has run a series of articles questioning renewable energy and the adjustments to the temperature figures. This is slowly corroding away support, at least among those who get their information from the written word. The general populace is more likely to get it from talk back radio, TV and their mates at the pub. TV is still a bastion for the hysterics, but there are cracks starting to appear. Talk back radio, outside of the ABC, is definitely against global warming or whatever is the current name, and those opinions carry through to the pub talk. The ship of fools trip to the Antarctic earlier this year was a real bonus for us, and I hope that talk of another trip in January is true as it will bring back memories to many.

    Which points to the obvious target. Always refer to it as Global Warming, never climate change/disruption etc.


    • hoppers says:

      Eh what…Ship of fools Mk 2?

      Has Prof Turkey even paid the rescue bill for SOF Mk1?


    • Blackswan says:

      It’s worth taking 15 minutes of your time to listen to this radio interview …..


      The host is Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones, denigrated by the Marxist Left as a radical Rightwing “shock jock”, not to EVER be taken seriously. Jones’ program, syndicated around the country, is the highest-rating talkback radio show anywhere in Australia.

      Interviewing Prof Ian Plimer, they completely shred the farce of CAGW Fraud.

      The points they make are what a huge listening audience knows – it’s what politicians ignore … at their peril.


  3. Just me ... says:

    I think a major case to be made, and which is missing from the above, is the case of third world development. If you could link money spent on climate change prevention with the outbreak of starvation or a deadly disease then you might get traction with people. People became invested in preventing climate change because they want to ‘feel good’, and want to be thought of as ‘caring for the planet’. A simple but effective enrollment technique wel used by WWF, greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc.. We need to show that they are caring for the planet by supplying electricity to the rural poor so they don’t need to chop down forests for fuel to survive. So they can build communications to markets so they don’t need to hunt for wild meat etc.


  4. Just me ... says:

    In short, we need to show that development and the eradication of poverty = conservation and caring for ‘Gaia’ . Only with education, especially of women, that the problems of poverty. can be eradicated


  5. spew.normal says:

    I find that many aspects about climate doom escapes objective consideration because it’s an abstract problem that will happen in the future. Sure one can argue the science but getting people to even considering checking the basic data seems like an bigger impossibility than encouraging a fanaticly religious person to include basic physics into their world view calculations. So what to do? Find what all people care about the most, namely money and reproduction, and you have the last stand hope that you ‘opponent’ get’s curious enough to actually check the facts you propose. And don’t leave you with the burden of presenting proof they willfully ignore while calling you anti-scientific.

    Money: Ask how much the proposed policies will cost each citizen or family. If they don’t know you ask how come they don’t know the answer to what seems to be an logical and crucial question to ask. If they dream on about windmills and solar then don’t argue the facts on how they are between subprime and useless, instead argue how big the gasoline rations are going to be for each individual, how much meat a family can eat per week, and how the electricity schedule can be solved now that electricity will not be on all the time. Because that would be the reality of cutting the economy by 20-30%, a number they surely have picked up in even the doomiest publications.

    Reproduction: Simply get them to understand that Chinas one child policy would necessarely come to the west. And ask them if they agree with Obamas science advisor John Holdrens policy suggestions about selectively: forced abortions, force sterilazations and forces marriages of single mothers. All suggested in his book ecoscience. (I haven’t read the book, but verified that it was written.). With ebooks and pdf’s and whatnot, all searchable, their curiousity would leave them to easily check the facts and probably admit to gritted teeth that your not the liar they thought you where and was in fact right.

    Take their stupid slogan: Think globaly, act locally, and use it against them. Think very locally, because they will make the decitions for you globally.

    If they don’t chech facts after you telling them that, they never will untill the policies are in effect and it’s to late.

    Happy Day of the Covnant tomorrow 🙂



  6. Hans Erren says:

    A global warming catastrophe will only happen if the poor countries get richer than the present rich countries. We are also the poorest people of this century and we are told we should pay for a potential problem of the richest people of this century.

    Therefore taxing CO2 is stealing from the poor for the benefit of the rich. Ask the liberals if that is fair.


  7. hillbilly33 says:

    The groupthink mentality and apathy of the general public is hard to counter and I believe the approach you suggest is an excellent way to try and ‘get through’. The TLNDR syndrome (too long did not read), also kicks in.

    It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. An excellent example is the graphic in the article linked below, accompanied by a relatively simple explanation from ‘Chiefio”.

    All those bright young disciples of the Church of CAGW, busily saving the planet from an alleged green-house effect of an apparently impenetrable envelope of increasing CO2, having been brainwashed by their high priests and priestesses riding the gravy train of massive grants from compliant governments and vested interests, should take a look.

    Perhaps they might then start thinking for themselves by pondering on the effect of some of the many vast, powerful, planetary and universal forces that figure in the equation of chaotic weather systems and global temperatures in an ever-changing climate.

    Gonzo Gonzalo and Cyclone Up, Vortex Down


  8. Blackswan says:

    In Australia, when ex-Prime Minister Gillard announced the introduction of the Carbon Tax, she said the point of the exercise was to “cause pain” to electricity consumers to force reduced demand for energy, thereby saving the planet from “carbonpollution” (she made it all-one-word).

    Those Marxist bastards knew what they were doing – there were no ‘unintended consequences’.

    Australians have now seen the closure of our entire car manufacturing industry, steel and aluminium smelters, oil refineries, frozen food plants – all heading offshore for less “Green” pastures.

    Thousands of Australian workers now understand what Climate Fraud has cost them.

    And still the Socialist Media hammers the Climate Scam line, as power usage plummets and charges still keep rising to subsidise all that “free power” from the sun and wind. People know it, but our legislators remain in the thrall of Big Money who are heavily invested in the Renewables Industry.

    It’s one thing for the current Prime Minister to repeal the Carbon Tax, but it’s entirely another matter to dismantle the massive Green infrasctructure that has grown inexorably to govern every facet of our lives. The people despise it, but bureaucrats love it and politicians just “follow the money” … to any lucrative source of campaign funding.

    The Climate Carpetbaggers are happy to oblige, and the ‘will of the people’ will continue to be ignored.


    • Graeme No.3 says:

      A classic case is the announcement by the EU that they will cut emissions by 40% by 2030. They also agreed to boost the use of renewable energy to 27% in the total energy mix (i.e. biofuels) and increase energy efficiency to at least 27%. Announced by Mr. Van Rompuy via Twitter. It is left to individual countries to plan what they do.

      Such a cut in emissions in that time is hardly possible, without destroying their economies.
      It would be very expensive and virtually no country in the EU is i a position to pay for it.
      Boosting the amount of renewable energy would not help. There would be NO REDUCTION in emissions going from 10% to that level.
      The amount of biofuels needed would involve lots of third world countries having no agriculture but biofuels. (Tens of millions would starve to death). Unsurprisingly the environmentalists were less happy about the latest proposals; they want more.

      The 6 countries that initially refused to sign (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) have been placated. Poland supposedly with emission permits which allow its black coal fired electricity stations to continue. That means other countries have to do a bit more.

      No other country, let alone the big emitters, is going to sign up for this at the Paris Conference at the end of 2015. There is a “let out” clause saying it is null and void if other big emitters don’t agree to this.

      Assuming Van Rompuy is not a raving maniac, it sounds like the preparations for a retreat. When the Paris Conference fails, then the EU politicians can claim it is all some other countries fault.

      If he is a raving maniac, then the EU will break up very soon. UK PM Cameron is facing a bye election in a fortnight which he was supposed to win, but now UKIP is odds on to win. On top of that the UK could have blackouts this winter because of the deficiencies of renewables. Cameron could be dumped by his party, which would swing very much towards a “get out of Europe” policy. Expect some fireworks if that happens.


      • hoppers says:

        Van Rompuy is a fanatic and a raving maniac, expect nothing from that quarter.

        Interestingly the Climate Scientists have now all but disappeared from the media here in Oz.

        What we have now night after night on Sky News are a production line of middle aged professional men in smart looking suits who represent various pressure groups/quangos etc who drone on about the importance of clean energy targets etc (The RET is big in the news at the mo over here)

        You need a mighty crowbar to part these swine from the trough.

        I would suggest that sweeping away the Climate Scientists was the easy part. The hardcore money men are now the front line, an altogether tougher nut to crack..


  9. NoFixedAddress says:

    Death Cults use emotive “precautionary principle” as an excuse for creating modern Dark Ages.

    An April 17, 2012 Greenpeace press release made some outrageous claims about growing Bt eggplant ( http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/press/releases/Bt-talong-unsafe-and-dangerous-to-environmental-health-report/ ) and bypassing the Philippines Bureau of Plant Industry framework for raising objections to field trials proceeded directly to the Court of Appeal (CA) and obtained a writ of Kalikasan and a Temporary Environmental Protection Order on May 17, 2013 effectively stopping all GM agricultural production in the Philippines.

    However, in early September 2014 the Philippines Supreme Court has allowed the Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines ( http://bcp.org.ph/ ) to become a party to the Bt eggplant case.

    In its motion for leave to appear as petitioner the BCP stated, “the entire biotechnology community ( http://bcp.org.ph/partners-and-linkages/ ) simply cannot afford to allow the CA decision to stand as this will pave the way for future attacks against other GM products such as Golden Rice, Bt cotton, GM papaya and GM abaca”.

    The Filipino people “deserve to reap the benefits and take full advantage of modern biotechnology” it added.

    “Greenpeace does not have assets or properties affected by the Bt talong field trials. Greenpeace has no actual, direct and immediate stake in the subject of the litigation,” the BCP petition stated.

    Like Greenpeace, another anti-GM group MASIPAG “failed to show in the Kalikasan petition how it or any of its members suffered concrete prejudice as a result of the Bt talong field trials.”

    “They merely alleged in the Kalikasan petition that they were ‘citizens’ suing in the exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights,” stated BCP.

    Read more at BusinessDiary.com.ph: http://businessdiary.com.ph/10280/sc-allows-biotechnology-group-intervene-bt-eggplant-case-ban-threatens-food-security-crops/#ixzz3HGTQIwMo


  10. Walt Allensworth says:

    Pointman said “The biggest outcome of loading up fossil fuel based energy with surtaxes to finance renewables is to push the poor, low wage earners and elderly living on pittance pensions into fuel poverty.”

    I have used this argument, and the ecoloons quickly come to the conclusion that we’ll simply increase taxes on the middle-class to help the poor pay for their energy – ahhhh how quickly the greens show their real colors – tax and spend socialists. Redistribute the wealth!


  11. stan says:


    Your point, as I see it, is that we need to demonstrate the weaknesses in the case that the jury will understand. So — show the economic problems that result.

    As for the science itself, simply undermine the credibility of the expert witnesses. This isn’t done effectively by getting into a wonky battle of science details. Instead, just like a trial lawyer, find the weakness in the expert and expose it. In the case of climate science (as with all academic research these days only more so), there is no quality control. No one checks anyone else’s work.

    Jurors understand the problem of expertise which never gets checked. Especially when they get evidence of how often the “settled” science is based on studies which are complete garbage. The beauty of Mann’s hockey stick, Rahmstorf’s imaginery data, Briffa’s magic tree, and Monnet’s speculative dead polar bears, is that they all show the absence of any accountability or quality.

    Even stupid people know that a system that produces crap and hasn’t been fixed will likely produce more crap.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: