Special report from UN climate conference in BaliCFACT, international scientists challenge U.N. consensusDecember 27, 2007 by CFACT
When the U.N. convened its 13th annual Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change in steamy Bali in December, it held high expectations that the international community would be united over what course of action should be taken to curb the buildup of greenhouse gases. The event was carefully orchestrated from beginning to end, with an eye toward presenting to the world that a consensus had been reached on the need for a second Kyoto Treaty to replace the current one set to expire in 2012. Whatever dissent might yet remain would be given scant voice at this exotic extravaganza set on the sandy shores of the Indian Ocean.
The newly elected president of Australia, Kevin Rudd, was initially given top billing at the event to announce to the world that his country was prepared to do penance for its weighty sin of being one of only two major nations failing to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. To the delight of those in attendance, he announced his government is now on board the Kyoto bandwagon, thus isolating the United States as the last remaining holdout. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Leonardo DiCaprio were invited to add celebrity power to the gathering, and Al Gore, fresh back from collecting his Nobel Prize in Oslo, was given a heros welcome as he trumpeted the call for a Bali mandate to press ahead for a new treaty. Into this festive setting dropped a small group of scientists and free-market advocates intent on expressing a different point of view regarding the science, economics and policy implications of a new global warming treaty. Arriving from New Zealand, Australia, England, India, and the U.S., these skeptics came to present facts and empirical data to anyone who would dare listen. They came with a mission: to make the case for a more reasoned, balanced approach on the climate change issue and challenge the clarion call for a second draconian Kyoto-style treaty based on new revelations in science. But their job, as they soon would discover, would not be easy. Right from the beginning, some found it difficult to even obtain entry into the conference site. Among them was the Third Viscount of Brenchley, Lord Monckton of England, who had applied as a journalist writing for Environment and Climate News but was immediately denied accreditation. While the U.N. was undoubtedly aware of Lord Moncktons writings in many distinguished journals and newspapers (and that his views were divergent from its own), the official reason presented for the royal snub was that the U.N. did not recognize the magazine, which boasts a circulation of in excess of 22,000, to be a legitimate publication. While U.N. officials may have felt comfortable in bouncing what they believed was a troublesome nuisance from their bash, the publisher of Environment and Climate News, the libertarian-leaning Heartland Institute, understandably did not take kindly to the insult. In a strongly worded press release, the respected think tank shot back and cried viewpoint discrimination and its complaint gained audience with newspapers, web blogs, television and talk radio programs across the nation. In fact, both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News ran with the story, and millions of Americans heard about how the U.N. was attempting to silence dissenting views. As for Lord Monckton, he fortunately had other cards to play and through his connection as a policy analyst for CFACT he eventually did make his way into the conference setting. He also took occasion early on to fire off an opinion piece to the Jakarta Post taking aim at the direction of the Bali gathering -- an article which earned him some notoriety just as he was beginning to delve into the U.N. climate summit process. Getting started Over the first couple of days the small group, soon referred to as Team Bali, went about setting up shop and preparing for action. Their headquarters was a small, two-room office space at the Inna Putri Hotel located only a short distance from the conference site (but still a 10,000 rupiah, or $1, cab ride to and from due to the oppressive Indonesia heat). Bryan Leyland of the International Science Coalition (ISCS) from New Zealand was appointed group leader, and they convened every day at 8:30 to strategize and set in motion the days activities. First order of business was to set up a press conference. The message would be to announce the arrival of skeptics and present information to the international media critical of the current state of climate science. A small room at the NGO forum was granted to CFACT during the first week to carry out this task, and after disseminating numerous press notices at the on-site media center, some forty members of the press did actually turn out to hear another side of the global warming story. The first event began and was proceeding quite smoothly, in fact perhaps too smoothly, when word got out and reached the ears of certain U.N. administrators that a robust dialogue between skeptics and the media was occurring. That was apparently more than could be stomached. Needless to say, it did not take long before an official from the Secretariats office promptly stormed into the meeting, broke up discussion, and ordered everyone out of the room. The official reason the U.N. offered for why the press conference had to be discontinued was that the room they had assigned the scientists was for use as a meeting room only, and unlike most every other room in that particular section of the NGO forum, this one did not allow for admittance of so-called outsiders (i.e., members of the press). This meant the U.N. had given the scientists, who had requested a venue to carry out a press conference, essentially a place where they were allowed only to talk to each other, but no one else. Hardly a shining moment for free speech. For their part though, Team Bali was content. Despite the U.N.s obvious attempt at stifling their voice, the scientists were able to interact with members of the media and the discourse was largely friendly. Writers from such publications as New Scientist and the Jakarta Post, among others, along with a local Balinese television station were in attendance, and their cards and contact information were garnered and kept for use in future press releases. It also prompted a subsequent interview the next business day by Marc Morano of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and that story found its way into the highly trafficked Drudge Report. As for the U.N., its retribution was swift. The room, which was initially granted use by CFACT for one hour each day for two weeks, was subsequently reduced to only one allocated slot, and done so without any notification. The ability to garner any other room would be contingent upon availability, and somehow that availability was proving more and more difficult to come by especially as it became apparent many rooms would be deemed unavailable whether they were in use or not. To get their message out, Team Bali would have to test new approaches. A change in tactics It was becoming clear as the conference was now into its second and final week that more significant, and direct action must be undertaken. Team members Owen McShane from New Zealand and Dave Evans from Australia, among others, began carrying copies of the Global Warming Swindle directly into the media center and handing them out to anyone with a press badge. New Zealanders Greg Batte and Bryan Leyland busied themselves on computers crafting and printing numerous fact sheets that would then be sent along for distribution to delegates or simply be placed on tables. And eventually, a plan was conceived to carry out a small demonstration right in front of the Conference center itself a high traffic area where it would be nearly impossible not to be spotted by media passing to and fro. The idea for what form this protest would take came from Joanne Nova of Australia, who suggested showcasing the seven scientists present in the team, along with Lord Monckton, all sporting lab coats and sunglasses and carrying a banner stating their opposition to formulation of a heavy-handed Kyoto 2. Of course, trying to get permission from U.N. officials to carry out such a demonstration would no doubt prove difficult, especially in lieu of the previous scruff, but it was an effort all believed to be well worth making. Fortunately, the front of the conference center was not a site lost to the Greens, and they frequently stage short demonstrations of their own in that exact location. Thus when CFACTs executive director, Craig Rucker, approached the Secretariats office seeking similar permission to stage an event there (and armed with photos revealing that others had done so) it proved difficult for the administrators to quickly brush it off without reason. In the end, after efforts to stonewall failed, permission was reluctantly granted for an event to take place on the second to the last day of the conference the very same day Al Gore was to make his grand entrance. Preparations for the event swung into motion as a local tailor was employed to craft the garments and a large sheet, stretching about 12 yards in length, was ordered as well. The exact wording for the banner was a group effort, and it was decided that the slogan No Kyoto 2 ... New Science Dispels Old Global Warming Fears would be displayed. The large task of painting the banner fell principally on the shoulders of Greg and JoAnne who stayed up late that evening to ensure it would be ready for action. When morning came, Team Bali set out for the conference site uncertain as to what might happen. Inside the compound people were bustling about, many in eager anticipation of the arrival of Al Gore that evening. The media presence was strong, much stronger than it had been previous to that point, so it appeared good fortune was in store. Also appearing that day was a small group of Green demonstrators who set the stage. By appearing shortly before Team Bali was in place, they had already drawn significant media attention to the area. Certainly there was a buzz was in the air. By the time lab coats were donned and the banner unfurled, camera crews and photographers had arrived and the show was ready to begin. Marching out into the center of the conference spotlight strode the seven scientists with their banner. The media, now alerted to a controversy ensuing, slowly started to pull away from the Greens and center their cameras on the new arrivals. What started slowly at first soon grew to become a frenzy, and before long there were so many media personnel swarming the scientists that the banner vanished from sight. Interviews started to be conducted with many of the scientists one on one. Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand was descended on by numerous reporters asking questions about his role as an IPCC scientist challenging climate science, while Lord Monckton conducted interview after interview by reporters clamoring to hear the point of view of a peer of Englands House of Lords. Others on the team were also poured over and given much attention, and few reporters could be seen paying much mind to the Greens who seemed to have dropped out of site. The commotion, as might be expected, did not go long unnoticed by U.N. officials. Within 10 minutes of the medias arrival, a representative from the Secretariats office was there on the scene doing her best to lighten the PR damage. Although clearly upset by the ruckus, the constraint of being filmed by the world media softened her demeanor, and she reluctantly allowed the event to proceed (although for not more than 10 minutes longer!) and moved the scientists some 25 yards back across the street. The event eventually unwound after about a half an hour. The heat was intense and everyone was wet with sweat. Various side interviews continued to take place for some time afterward, but the shot had been fired ... and the target had been hit. That evening, the small demonstration started making news on various television stations around the world. A Japanese news station carrying the story was viewed by the members themselves in their own hotel that night, and it was heard or seen by others on larger networks including NPR and BBC World as well. Although exhausted and tired, Team Bali had achieved its aim, and the message had reached the ears meant to hear it. Parting Shots As a follow up to this event, CFACT set up two more press gatherings one the afternoon following , and the next the morning afterward on the last day of the conference. Both became victim, however, of bad U.N. sportsmanship. The first one featured Bryan Leyland and Lord Monckton who intended to used the forum to explain some of the uncertainties in global warming science. The side event was to take place in the NGO forum, typical of where such activities occurred, and might have well drawn a sizable crowd but for the fact that it wasnt mentioned in the official U.N. program. The reason for the omission? No explanation was offered. The fact of the matter was that a detailed description of the event was delivered on time to the appropriate editors, but when it was printed all that was mentioned was the name of the group CFACT in the time slot with no explanation of what was to take place to entice reporters. Indeed, this proved to be the only side event on the program that day without such a byline and the omission was significant as it is known by all to be a critical element in drawing attendance to an event. Needless to say, few showed up to see the otherwise excellent presentations and it appeared the omission achieved its aim. The other event was to be a final, wrap up press conference to take place in the main conference center on the last day. Much effort went into arranging this event, and CFACT was initially approved to carry it out. But the night before it was to occur, word came back that the request had been reviewed by the Secretariats office and was subsequently denied. This marked the final and last snub handed to Team Bali which did use the occasion to send out one last press release detailing the slap in its face to the international media, and it was picked up domestically in the U.S. on Fox News. Conclusion The Bali conference ended much different, one expects, than U.N. officials anticipated. Their opening speaker, Mr. Rudd, who was brought in to set a new tone soon found himself backtracking from any specific commitments to timetables on deep cuts in emissions earning him some sneers and disfavor among global warming enthusiasts. China and India, whose emissions are now outpacing the rest of the worlds, still retained their unmovable opposition to crafting any treaty which would seek reductions on their part. Arnold Schwarzenegger never showed up because of budget issues back in California, and Leonardo DiCaprio was nowhere to be seen. Even the showcasing of Al Gore didnt seem to move matters along substantively, for while his appearance as a Nobel prize winner was supposed to enhance the prestige of the U.N. cause, it was somewhat trumped when the Pope issued a timely statement urging caution be taken in the pursuit of scaling back emissions, particularly because of its impact on the poor. Only the announcement by the U.S. delegation that it would like to participate in crafting a 2009 agreement seemed to add new energy to the process, but it remains to be seen if such involvement helps or complicates matters from the purists perspective. So Team Bali broke camp and left. It was a small shot in a big war, but seemed to have a greater impact than many would have anticipated. And for those who were part of this high profile event, it will undoubtedly carry with it many lessons for future campaigns, along with memories certain to be nurtured for years to come.
Read More
National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and scienceAdapting to climate change through technology'Scientific consensus' should be put on the standSaving trees with keroseneLeader of noneClimate Depot is impacting Obama's climate initiativeNo, You Can Not!Climate change moralityRockies Wilderness Bill resurfaces in CongressIn praise of cages for egg laying hens |
Get updates by email
![]() CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace shipsIn daring land and sea raids, activists tag Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior with “Propaganda Warrior” banner; Arctic Sunrise hit with “Ship of Lies” banner earlier in the day... All pain, no gainThe reality behind the mythology of Cap and Trade... The rainforest issue: Myths and factsCFACT briefing paper compares two very differing views about people and nature in the tropics... The clear-cutting facts about the rainforestAre we really losing one football field every minute?... Melting the facts about Greenland's ice sheetViking history, ice core samples, and observations of solar cycle cast doubt on human responsibility for climate change... Addressing the root causes of illegal immigrationFocusing on property rights and economic opportunity back home could help solve growing border issue... ![]() CFACT arrives in CopenhagenCFACT's delegation arived in Copenhagen, Denmark to educate delegates and media from around the world that the climate change treaty is All Pain No Gain.... Climate Depot is impacting Obama's climate initiativeColumnist notes that President Obama must speak out or there will be an increase in climate change skepticism.... Are organic foods really better?Facts challenge organic's benefits over modern agriculture... ![]() Disclosing the real risks of climate changeSEC says companies must disclose risks due to climate change. Seize the opportunity.... ![]() A chill hits wind powerHow likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very.... EPA set to Impose Strict New Ozone Standard on U.S.Welcome to Washington.... ![]() Greenpeace Opts for Millions of Blind KidsWe can't prevent earthquakes, but we can prevent blindness.... ![]() Not Exactly Mother TeresaIn fact, unethical Greenpeace actions threaten the livelihoods and lives of millions ... ![]() rgonz71"Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science" ![]() rgonz71"You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll." ![]() BobDevineI have no problem with anyone using wind power but they should do so at their own convenience not with government subsidies. The same goes for solar power. You like it you buy it the operative word being "you".... { from A chill hits wind power } ![]() ibykusNot Bad. They should take things from a slightly higher standpoint and expose this swindle as part of the policy of empire.... { from Laughs for Greenpeace "Climate Caper" turning into international roar } ![]() mcharrishttp://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html { from Taxpayer Robbery Gate } ![]() mcharrishttp://just-me-in-t.site40.net/1_3_AGW-Climate-Change.html ![]() cindym03CFACT is mainly funded by private citizens. A smaller proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in various industries, as well as foundations. Its financial backers have included The Exxon Mobil Corporation (although Exxon no longer donates to CFACT),[6] The Chevron Corporation,[7] The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund,[7] The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness,[8] The Carthage Foundation, and The Sarah Scaife Foundation.[9] { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() TheViewMaster
mkwrk2Is any possible link between the Rosenfeld Effect (a "flat" per capita energy consumption)http://www.mercurynews.com/green-energy/ci_14059885?nclick_check=1 and this topic, in California especially? ![]() RationalKeithIsn't Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard the same confrontational person who was one of the founders of Greenpeace, the organization that Patrick Moore dumped because their whole focus is negative, anti-life? ![]() ExxonShareholderSmoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science ![]() MichaelGOPCFACT receives no funds from Exxon. CFACT and its allies are winning the climate debate with sound science, despite being outspent by far.... { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() MichaelGOPCFACT'S Bills are paid by average people who care about free markets, sound science and open minds. { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ![]() MichaelGOPCFACT receives no funding from Exxon. Time to think up fresh propaganda. Or maybe actually engage in the science & policy debate and stop looking for a reason not to? Sorry, left wingers, you're losing the debate on every level.... { from Knute suit } ![]() HarmenWell the first one on this site is denying global warming. { from Is global warming from man? } ![]() ClaudeebGood to see the neo eco-fascists getting a little hot under the collar. { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() mistamillionsWell cfact get 10 out of 10 for that greenpeace stunt, It winds me up that greeenpeace are perpetuating the global warming myth... peeps need to open there eyes and get wise. { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ![]() ExxonShareholdershill [shil] Show IPA Slang –noun ![]() KenshinAwesome work CFact! ![]() Curative_ProcessTHE REAL FACE OF COPENHAGEN is an Aussie Farmer named PETER SPENCER. { from Climate skeptics gain steam } ![]() Michael_H_AndersonI can post mainstream media links too if you like. Try these on - a little more recent than yours: ![]() Michael_H_AndersonLook whopays, let's be reasonable: you are here to disrupt this website. That's pathetic. You could try getting a life, you know. You're not going to change anyone's mind here, your information is outdated and no longer relevant, which makes your entire presence here irrelevant and frankly I'm embarrassed for you and I'm sure I'm not alone. ![]() Michael_H_Anderson'Scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years'? That's brilliant. What part of this did you miss, fool? ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Regarding the former links I sent regarding the overwhelming evidence that there is scientific consensus around climate change, scientific data doesn't go bad after a few years. ![]() Michael_H_AndersonI just wrote the admins here suggesting IP blacklisting this site is being systematically spammed, with the obvious intention of quashing genuine debate and wasting the time of genuinely interested users. Free speech is one thing spambots attacking a site another.... ![]() Michael_H_AndersonNice job reading those sites I mentioned, you useless braindead spamming halfwit sophomoric loser pathetic troll. Last time I bother addressing you - hell, you're probably just a spambot anyway. Much rather deal with actual human beings.... ![]() ExxonShareholderFellow Cimate Change Skeptics! ![]() Michael_H_AndersonI just checked those links...December 2004 for crying out loud! You IDIOT, are you living in a CAVE? Have your handlers not notified you of the huge global crisis assaulting the entire edifice of AGW theory? How cruel of them, and how pathetic of you to let them use you that way! Dumbass!!!... ![]() Michael_H_AndersonI just wanted to state that nobody here except you gives a damn, whopaysyourbills1984.... { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ![]() Michael_H_AndersonOnly complete nitwits get their science news from Greenpeace or mainstream media. Try these links, and READ them, don't use juvenile tactics like logical fallacies and misdirection to "support" your outdated True Believer viewpoint: ![]() whopaysyourbills1984For my fans out there I'd like to offer a few more links, these are for those who think there isn't a scientific consensus that global warming is real and that man contributes to global warming. Of course, it's hard to find scientific consensus that cigarettes cause cancer. ![]() Michael_H_Andersonwhopaysyourbills1984's brain-dead spam is paid for by the taxpayers of whatever country he's from, since he's almost certainly on welfare.... ![]() Michael_H_AndersonI wonder who pays YOUR bills, whopaysyourbills1984. Living in Canada, I am grateful every day for oil companies as they have kept me and my family and friends and millions of others from freezing to death to say nothing of the other life-saving tecnologies the wealth oil produces have made possible. Maybe you live on a tropical island in a grass hut with solar-powered computer and Net connection, and have never used internal-combustion transport in your life. Unfortunately for the other 6.5 billion of us, we don't always have that luxury. { from Knute suit } ![]() Michael_H_AndersonI don't know if it's true, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the time of day, and don't care at least it isn't funded by liemongers like Greenpeace, the WWF, or the IPCC, you stupid troll.... { from Is global warming from man? } Michael_H_AndersonIf anyone is curious to know what I might mean by socially undeveloped, how about these pointers: ![]() Michael_H_AndersonYou're not an activist if you're whopaysyourbills1984, either - you're a puppet. Worse: a parrot of a puppet.... Michael_H_AndersonGreenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore writes: Michael_H_AndersonThis is an excellent essay. As a former Green NGO information officer and nature educator, I have been particularity interested in the extinction issue. In spite of the high-flown claims of environmental groups seeking power, funding and career relevance, it is impossible to know not only the rate of extinctions, but the number of species on earth. ![]() DesertManwhopaysyourbills1984 wrote: "Why is Lord Monckton being interviewed on the subject of climate change? He's not a scientist. " ![]() Michael_H_Andersonwhopaysyourbills1984 - you're missing the point. The POINT is that nobody in their right wits cares what a lobotomized cretin like you thinks about anything.... { from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science } ![]() DaveJGreat to see Greenpeace suffer and great to see so many comedy posts by "whopaysyourbills1984" Keep them coming old chap! ![]() philwynkA correction: it was 489 scientists surveyed, not 97. Ninety-seven was the percentage of those who agree that the earth warmed in the 20th century.... ![]() philwynkHard leftists generally assign individuals to counter sites like this one. Yours seems to have been inflicted with a fellow who calls himself "whopaysyourbills1984." ![]() sylvainrActivists told you that polar bear population is shrinking and you think it is sound science ? { from Knute suit } ![]() ExxonShareholderCraig, ![]() Curative_Processps People who know the truth and want the truth to be outted should not be called 'skeptics', they should be called GLOBAL WARMING REALISTS or CLIMATE TRUTHERS or CLIMATE REALISTS. { from Climate skeptics gain steam } ![]() Curative_ProcessWhat the mainstream propaganda media failed to tell you was the truth of the FALL OUT of events that started with LORD MONCKTONS Radio Interview with Alan Jones of 2GB, exposing the Treason of The Copenhagen Treaty. And what followed was the biggest People Power Ground Swell in virtual history as 11 Liberal MPs QUIT their portfolio's on the bench under Goldman Sachs Turnbull in disgust, as MANY THOUSANDS of Australians lobbied ALL of the Liberal MPs and National MPs to FIRE Malcolm Goldman Sachs Turnbull (at that time the leader of the Liberals who as a former CEO of Goldman Sachs in Australia, multi-millionaire and best buddies with PM Kevin Rude, who was bizarrely wanting to follow Kevin Rude up the ETS path). And for Tony Abbott to take over as the leader. { from Climate skeptics gain steam } ![]() Curative_ProcessWhilst Greenpeace are expanding their carbon foot print at COP15 ... ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Who should you believe regarding global warming, 97% of atmospheric scientists or Lord Monckton? ![]() robins111Is it just me, or does whopaysyourbills1984, troll here, as much as at SDA? ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Here's a small sampling of scientists and institutions who disagree with Lord Monckton on climate change. Since we're not scientists, how trusting some of these organizations? { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Chris, next time you guys are interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton, could you ask him if he still supports Internment Camps for those with AIDS? He seems like a really progressive thinker. Also, could you ask him if there is anyone else who he would like to start rounding up? { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() PopsWell, whopaysyourbills1984 seems to have fallen out of the wrong side of his/her/its cot. Greenpiss have been doing this sort of thing for years, much to his/her/its delight no doubt, but I just bet he/she/it nearly swallowed his/her/its dummy (pacifier) when he/she/it saw this. ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Chris, next time you guys are interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton, could you ask him if he still supports Internment Camps for those with AIDS? He seems like a really progressive thinker. Also, could you ask him if there is anyone else who he would like to start rounding up? ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Craig, I has a suggestion. While you're fighting on behalf of Shell Oil, why don't you head down to Nigeria where can really crack some skulls: ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Your journalism is misleading crap. ![]() Curative_ProcessBRILLIANT! ![]() whopaysyourbills1984"Alaska’s climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization...." ![]() Curative_Process@whopays .. you do know it Exxon donates to both Democrats and Republican, they back both horses. But don't be fooled, they are 100% behind the Global Warming Scam as they will benefit in kickbacks and subsidies, a little fact your country's leader (Obaahma) has not told you about. So the front needs to be kept up for the the propogated dialectic for numbnuts like you 'who believe' to believe in the smoke screen. { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Donna, your web site is worse than this one. If you're writing your book discussing how there isn't a consensus on climate change, I would suggest that you interview some of the climatologists who disagree with you, and it shouldn't be difficult because 97% of climatologists disagree with you. ![]() whopaysyourbills1984This a great piece of 'journalism' considering the fact that two of the people who are interviewed, Craig Rucker 'College Graduate' Christina Wilson work for CFACT. I can see how it would be tiring to interview Lord Christopher Monckton over and over again considering the fact that he's the only one in Copenhagen who agrees with you. I should set up a website and interview myself to impress people and get some Exxon money. You're not excluded from the global warming debate if you've received over 585k from Exxon, however don't call yourself an activist for pulling these stunts, you're a corporate thug on the payroll.... ![]() Donna_LaframboiseInteresting to see Greenpeace get a taste of its own medicine. I disagree strongly, though, with Carbonlover's comment (Dec. 16, 8:54 am) that Greenpeace should be banned. To quote Noam Chomsky, "If you don't believe in free speech for those you despise, you don't believe in it all." I have made this point in several pro-green contexts and I'm repeating it loudly here. ![]() carbonloverWell done CFACT! Greenpeace should be banned, as should most do-good green zealots. They understand nought about the role of carbon dioxide. Despite what anyone thinks, there is not one single piece of actual observed evidence that links carbon dioxide with global warming or climate change. Such evidence can never be found because it does not exist. ![]() JenniferMarohasyCongratulations to Craig Rucker and crew! ![]() whopaysyourbills1984You're not an 'activist' if you're being paid by Exxon. You're just a thug on the payroll.... ![]() TheViewMaster
{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ![]() whocareswhopaysbillsand other "greeny" websites are not funded by-sierra club, greenpeace, the UN, Al Gore and other activitist. Yea why don't you go out and gut down some more trees for a tree ring count you bafoon.... { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() TheViewMaster
{ from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Why is Lord Monckton being interviewed on the subject of climate change? He's not a scientist. Lord Monckton nice job here: ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... { from Knute suit } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... { from CFACT's Morano debates UN climate treaty on Britain's Sky News } whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker and David Rothbard are basically paid Exxon lobbyists. 97% of active climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. There is a link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php... { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Nice job with the graffiti Craig. Did Exxon pay for the spray cans too, or just your ticket to Copenhagen.... ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Craig Rucker is funded by Exxon. { from Knute suit } whopaysyourbills1984This organization is funded by Exxon: ![]() whopaysyourbills1984This website is funded by Exxon. whopaysyourbills1984This article has been brought to you by the Exxon corporation. It's the best junk science money can buy. { from All pain, no gain } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984If you're reading this site. I hope Exxon is paying you, because they're certainly paying the authors. { from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science } whopaysyourbills1984This website is an example of Exxon funding junk science. Exxon has paid CFACT over 500k so far. { from New York Times carries CFACT's 'Climate Sense' Conference } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984CFACT is Exxon propaganda. They should stop trying to hide this: { from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984Congratulations to Exxon for a organizing successful protest rally: { from CFACT Collegians organize protest against appearance by Al Gore } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984This website is funded by Exxon. Why doesn't CFACT state this in their about page?... { from Monckton names names on Climategate } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984This organization and web page are funded by Exxon. CFACT.org does a good job of hiding this.... { from Is global warming from man? } ![]() whopaysyourbills1984I just wanted to state that this website is paid for by Exxon. { from Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda } aimewI am having a hard time with the statement above where it states that only young, growing trees absorb CO2 it is my understanding that all green leaves take in CO2 and release O2 as long as they are alive. It is part of how plants opperate and has nothing to do with age or growth rate. What have I been missing?... ![]() sdlawrenceThat was a truly amazing exchange. I heard nothing but climate change mantras flying out of the good professor's mouth. Through all the rhetoric he truly sounded like a third-rate politician activist, and not an academician. It wasn't clear to me that he was a scientist until I heard him addressed as "Professor". { from CFACT's Morano debates UN climate treaty on Britain's Sky News } ![]() JohnOSullivanCFACT is providing an essential service to those who wish to read and understand all facets of this often misrepresented and globally important issue. For context, we need to understands that in the 1970’s the world’s scientists were convinced the planet was enduring global cooling. The CIA even wrote a 30-page report on this subject despite the warmists claiming this is all an ‘urban legend.’ { from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen } JohnOSullivanIt’s important that all world leaders take on board what sceptic scientists have to say. The examination of where the allocation of funds by governments to scientific and technological issues tells us most about the true priorities of politicians. { from CFACT sponsors climate science conference: The debate is not over } EuropeanAmericanI was on board with this organization until I came across this article with it's absolutely insane statement: { from Are organic foods really better? } ![]() john0sullivanAlarmists who plug the dodgy theory of man made global warming are not applying the scientific method. Scientists all know that the science must stand on its own. { from National Journal: Clash between the Guardian and science } ![]() HipnosisTo everyone at CFACT. Good luck with your mission. The service you are providing may very well be one of the most important ever attempted. Trillions of dollars, the prosperity of my country (Canada), the prosperity of the world and the truth are all in jeopardy. Thank you for doing this job.... { from CFACT arrives in Copenhagen } ![]() mkwrk2M. Kerjman 's "Of Planetary Change Short Story" http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Of+Planetary+Change+Short+Story-a01074017802 says much of a real way planetary change is going.... { from Is global warming from man? } ![]() MacAaronIt would be interesting to find out who funds NRDC and to find out why they haven't been attacking the number one most-used herbicide in the U.S.: Roundup (Monsanto)...... { from Is government standing in the way of lower food costs? } ![]() MichaelGOPThe Chesapeake has always been a special place for us. We saw (and tasted) a bumper crab harvest not too long ago. What a pleasure when common sense solutions improve life for both man and nature.... { from Science to save the Chesapeake Bay } ![]() ProLibertatePeople do not need to eat eggs. ProLibertateTo megaskeptic- { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } ProLibertatePoint One: Not true- considering 95% of the 10 Billion livestock animals consumed a year in America are chicken. Millions of hectares of crop land and ever diminishing reserves of precious water is predominantly used to produce livestock feed. If those croplands were instead used for produce for humans instead of livestock, we could end world hunger. We don’t need the grasslands, in which the wild mustangs and prairie dogs are currently killed as pests, for cattleman lease our public lands for cattle. In America alone, 70% of the corn, 80% of the soy and 90% of the oats are fed to LIVESTOCK! And this is GMO corn and soy! Monsonto doesn't care how safe their product is "That's the FDA's job" to ensure. { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } ![]() BobDevineSomeone else more than likely asked this before buy why do we never hear of these things through the regular news sources? Some of it is a continuation of what I learned in school in the 1950s. Do they not teach the same basic science we used to get? { from Science to save the Chesapeake Bay } MegaSkepticThis is not a belief. Meat is the only product that humans can consume that can give them vitamin B12. There is NO other natural source for B12. Meat is a requirement of the human diet. If one does not eat meat in some form (eggs, fish, beef)then they WILL NOT get the proper amount of B12 unless they take supplements. If supplements are not taken or not available, an individual WILL be deficient in B12. Fact. { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } marklmYour belief that meat consumption is important to maintaining our health is wrong. There is no amino acid, vitamin, or mineral that can’t be obtained from plants, and plants are 100% cholesterol free. The ADA’s position paper on plant based diets states that vegetarian or vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and can help in the prevention of certain diseases.... { from Giving up meat to Save the Planet? } ![]() BobArmstrongDennis , Since moving out here next to Pike National Forest above Colorado Springs in 2005 from Manhattan , largely thanks to my sister who is an animal nut , I've experienced the cycle of life and death on a retail level uncomprehended in NYC . When I first came out she had chickens and roosters , a turkey , a pair of pea fowl , and ducks . And horses , and parrots and dogs and cats . Creatures coming up from out of the woods , and occasionally a new dog , reduced the fowl down to 3 ducks . The remaining female and her sons inbred back to about 10 ducks which declined back down to about 5 at which point my sister saw a deal on Craigslist for 10 free ducks from Denver's parks . We're now back down 10 total and haven't had any ducklings survive more than a few days this year . I think these duck tales sufficiently illustrate that I know where you're coming from , and don't need to get into the lives and deaths of various dogs and cats and horses - and a parrot . |





























