Beyond wild speculation that there is a conspiracy about - what evidence do you have that "The result is clear: an absolute campaign of mind control is occurring,"

The fact a lot of people disagree with you doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong does it?

You may be wrong, have you thought of that?

So if a lot of people do not think the way you do, you come to the conclusion they are in the pay of whomever you don't like this week?

I know many skeptics of AGW, not one of them receives funding for their point of view.

How would this conspiracy work?

Is there advertising involved, the only advertising I have seen is Pro-AGW, in fact in the UK some has been banned for massive exaggeration.

Do the conspirators hold meetings?

How are they organised?

Have you conspiracy theories about other things?

More wild speculation and exaggeration with a fantasy topping from the AGW side of the house.

No tip of the at to the massive funding and world media sympathy for AGW at all mentioned.

Quoting the Guardian newspaper a declared pro AGW tome, as is the Age in Australia, try to get a balanced view, but I guess to true AGW believers, that is the balance you want.

Speaking of mind control, is that what you would like? So no differing opinions to the ones you subscribe to then?

The evidence of a 'conspiracy' by resources corporations to deny the evidence for climate change is documented in "Climate Cover-Up" by James Hoggan (Greystone, 2009).

The evidence that the climate is changing is here:
http://www.csiro.com.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf
and here
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20101803-20724.html

That leaves those who continue to deny the evidence and so place at risk all future human generations morally on a par with holocaust deniers - except that, unless we do something about it soon, the holocaust will be a small event in comparison.

After decades of baseless green propaganda, Chris James accuses those who didn't buy it of being part of a propaganda conspiracy. How does that work?

How stupid are people who believe scare stories starting with "if" and ending with predictions of disasters a century or more from now (but in the meantime we need to give billions more dollars for further research)? Well, Chris is there for them.

But she fails to deal with ANY of the recent documented developments, such as the unmasking of the gang who have corrupted the peer review process, the revelations of the IPCC's incompetence in manufacturing its four propaganda reports from tourist brochures and WWF and Greenpeace lies, the acceptance of unvalidated speculation, the "adjustment" of global temperature data ever-upwards, the deletion of all records of how and why those data were adjusted, the deletion of sites which failed to deliver the required warming record, and so on and on.

Despite this, she promotes scare stories and bemoans the fact that there are not enough true believers.

She slimes Sarah Palin and others and imputes "grave" results for Australia without actually explaining what they would be. She supports Byron Bay neurotics who want to build a sea wall (why not an ark, Chris?) She blindly believes the "modelling" of that renowned source of climate wisdom, the Gippsland Coastal Board (the qualifications of whose members are not stated) - and, as you'd expect, it's all underwritten by a monster international conspiracy theory.

Chris, you need to get a grip on reality.

As a mindbender, the author does not inspire confidence, as she has misdiagnosed the cause and the effect of socalled climate change mind controlling. If she had bothered to do some rigorous homework, she would have discovered that it was the environmentalists and the socalled scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming, who have waged a relentless mind-controlling campaign to con politicians, the media and ordinary voters into believing that climate change is human-induced. As many people now are coming to realise, there is no convincing scientific evidence to support the propaganda of those deceptive mind controllers. The whistleblower responsible for exposing the Climategate scandal deserves to be awarded a Noble Prize for services to humanity. If the author is serious about ascertaining the facts about climate change, she could consult the following website reference:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf)

Quite so - Australia is funneling billions into climate research and is set to spend billions more on alternative energy due to the government setting targets for renewable energy, and really a sinster energy industry conspiracy is stifling developments in the sector? After years of merciless abuse of opponents and overt political statements, global warming scientists are somehow hapless victims? This author is truely immune to all reason. At least the article could have made some acknowledgement of the very serious allegations made against global warming science - all the way from missing weather stations in China through to reprinting activist material in IPCC reports. There is a lot of it. I would be interested to see how the author would turn it all into a conspiracy.

A colleague sent me this quote recently Dr Chris James, found at http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/03.10/future.html. Perhaps you do not think it applies to you but I believe it is something you need to think long and hard about before you continue with your conspiratorial notions.

"In a future without the New World Order, individualism should be prized above all things. Government, schools, business, and other
infrastructure would operate with the primary purpose of nurturing the individuation of every man, woman, and child. Unique thinking should be encouraged, not punished. New ideas should be welcomed and considered, not immediately ignored or ridiculed. Children should be taught the strength to be as they truly are long before they are thrust into arithmetic or science.

This, though, is not the way of our "modern" culture. In today’s system, we are punished for questioning the immediate standards. We are rewarded if we conform. Our lives are made difficult if we refuse to pander to those in authority, or if we choose to survive by honest means. Our lives are made extraordinarily easy if we bow to authority and use dishonorable means against others to "get ahead." If we strive to fit in, to dress, talk, think, and feel like others, we are adored and accepted by the collective. If we stray even a little from the mainstream, we are attacked viciously, or even feared, as if we are a time bomb on the doorstep of the establishment. Even some so called "counterculture" movements behave in this fashion, often, in a completely unconscious manner.

Every person is born with an inimitable and distinct "self" outside the influences of environment. We might call it genetic imperative, or we might call it the soul, but in either case it is a precious gift. Until the defense of this gift is given social precedence, until we become champions of its cause, our cultures will continue to devolve and our nations will continue to crumble, with or without the help of the Globalists."

I'm a sceptic who is paid by the Government.
I receive an Age Pension of around $200 every fortnight. It is a huge amount compared with the income of someone in Africa who doesn't have electricity and lives in low class, primitive conditions.
Why do you not object to keeping such primitive people in such squalor?
No, don't tell me that we should give to those poor people. Who do you think will benefit from that cash?
Yes the mongrel at the top with his Swiss bank account.

oh dear oh dear

When people were told smoking caused cancer, many didn't want to believe it becasue they liked smoking. It didn't change the facts that had been rigourously tested. People still smoke...and still get lung cancer. The science is good and stands up to scrutiny.

Now people are told the climate is changing and the human race is at least partially responsible. To do something about this means changing comfortable lifestyles. There are those who don't want to believe because they don't want to change. This has nothing to do with the science, which is good, but more to do with some personal preference not to accept the science. There are few, if any, sceptics who can deconstruct the science and provide an alternative view that stands up to scrutiny. A few people jumping up and down about emails or latching on to a half-baked theory doesn't change that.

The bad news is, that you are going to have to change because climate change is causing the price of water to go up signficantly, the same with the cost of power, and the cost of a lot of food and transport. This will flow on into many other areas. There are other consequences of scare resource too.

Personally I don't care if people change because of a belief in climate change or just pure economics; but they will have to change if they want to maintain a balanced lifestyle as water and power become more expensive.

JulianC, so who is denying that the climate changes?

I am skeptical of mankind's involvement, but do go on with your little delusion that "deniers" don't believe the climate changes at all, really that is one of the most stupid things I have ever encountered and it's a reflection on the AGW believers that they continue to sprout this misinformation and rubbish, then expect to be taken seriously.

"The evidence of a 'conspiracy' by resources corporations to deny the evidence for climate change is documented in "Climate Cover-Up" by James Hoggan (Greystone, 2009).

Really? If there was any "evidence" you could surely prosecute, but you don't do you because the book is loose "Opinion", that's all.

Even Climate Audit disowns this sort of conspiracy theory rubbish.

"That leaves those who continue to deny the evidence and so place at risk all future human generations morally on a par with holocaust deniers - except that, unless we do something about it soon, the holocaust will be a small event in comparison."

What evidence is that, that the climate changes, of course it does, hardly relevant. See above.

Holocaust deniers, for what being skeptical? People who resort to arguments based on insults are idiots, self proclaimed - so face it, you don't want to convince anyone, you just want harangue with a crowd of like believers, don't you?

"Risk all future generations", jeez you got a big dose of panic and hysteria at the group think brigade center didn't you?

"unless we do something soon", like when this year, next year, 20 years 50 years - come on when? When is soon?

What evidence do you have for a timeframe to avert the "risk to all future generations"? Another book is it? A website? Or is it a personal theory?

This is baseless "scare the children" type hysteria and claptrap, of the religious "you'll go to hell if you don't change your ways" type.

Grow a brain son - you deserve to be ridiculed for reciting this eco hysteria mantra, next it will be "the world is ending!"

Extraordinary article! We have nightly melting glaciers and steam puffing power station (implied pollution) almost nightly on TV, repetitive media announcements of proof of climate change (implied to be man-made) as well as the man-made announcements and this writer expresses concern about the 'mind control' abilities of the opposing team. We have a 'so called' scientific organisation, the UN IPCC, feeding the world's media with headline disaster scenarios generated by computers with lots of assumption inputs or lifted from non-scientific WWF and Greenpeace campaign propaganda material. We've got alarmist scientists trying to prevent sceptical material from being published in science journals and this writer is crying foul for the alarmist team.
The writer is concerned about how future sea levels will affect the poor, but is blind to how a carbon economic regime will immediately affect the cost of food and fuel for the world's poorest. How do the world's poorest lift themselves out of poverty when the price of everything shoots up and the government converts their backyard into a carbon sink to appease the Green movement.
The article touches on many other related issues which are worthy discussions in their own right, but the author seems to be blaming all the world's ills on whoever disagrees with her climate alarmist belief.

Matthew 7:16

That article by Dr Chris James is nonsense. It may be her opinion and she is certainly entitled to express it but that doesn't change what it is.For years the "sky is falling " aka AGW/climate change zealots have been getting the media coverage. When ever some one disagreed or argued against the AGW proposition they were vilified and ridiculed but now the papers ,always after circulation have moved to a more neutral position. Certainly East Anglia has focused their and their readers thinking on the substance rather than the hype and thank God for that.
For me I have always been skeptical because the hype never matched what I had read over many years on the planets history. It always seemed to me that Climate Change was a constant and will continue to be until the planet is engulfed by the Sun.
For me the key question which few seem interested in is what "drives" the climate.Once you have that worked out then its possible to accurately forecast climate change and work towards learning to live with it.
As for Rudds carbon tax that just makes no sense at all. To great a cost for too little return even if CO2 was a problem which I seriously doubt.No politicion having the welfare of his citizens at stake would ever impose that burdon on them unless there was some sort of hidden agenda. Does Rudd want to be the next Sec Gen of the UN as a for instance. There has to be some reason for this madness.

The author says, “Such a fast turn around [in public acceptance of climate change] could only come from organised propaganda.” This is wrong. It’s come about because of own goals by the IPCC, University of East Anglia and others who have forgotten the importance of the boundary between science and advocacy.

The author assumes that her own worldview is so self-evident that anyone who professes a different view must be stupid, malevolent or self-serving. She cannot countenance that business executives might be happy to sleep at night because they might genuinely believe that anthropomorphic climate change is not happening, or its extent is exaggerated, or that the cost of reducing emissions is greater than the cost of adapting to climate change.

And, they're victims of “false consciousness” – Marxist-speak for “you’re too stupid to understand why you believe what you believe, but I’m not”.

She says, “The result is clear: an absolute campaign of mind control is occurring”. This is absurd.

Articles like this do not advance the cause of good climate change policy. They retard it by confirming all the worse suspicions of climate change sceptics about true believers – their zealotry, intolerance, conspiracy theories and selective or non-existent use of evidence.

And no, I am not a sceptic, but someone who wants to see these issues thrashed out based on reason and evidence.

Mind Control- Well, around Christmas time I noticed that Google suddenly eliminated an alarming number of anti-AGW sites. Others found this too. Now who is trying to control the minds of the people?

http://dailyreferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/google-climategate-sensorship.html

Al Gore is an advisor...say no more.

The amount of money spent worldwide on AGW research and 'prevention' is estimated at $US79 billion. The amount spent by fossil fuel companies is estimated at about $5 million. If anyone has figures which are widely divergent from that I would be delighted to see them.

Any practicing scientist will be happy to explain that the decision on what research gets done is the result of a back-and-forth process between the researcher and the party paying the bills. The researcher wants to study butterflies; the funding body wants research on global warming; what we end up with is research into the effects of global warming on butterflies. The researcher gets to play with butterflies and the funding body gets to publish statistics about the terrible effects of global warming. If the scientist fails to find any terrible effects, that's OK; there are lots of other scientists doing projects, and by the law of averages SOMEONE is bound to find out something terrible; all they have to do is publicise this and conveniently forget about all the rest. In the long term, of course, science usually comes up with the goods, but in the short term scientists have families to feed and mortgages to pay like everyone else, and global warming research is a comfortable sinecure....

...So I am totally unsurprised that after spending $79 billion dollars looking for evidence of AGW they have found some; I'd be bloody well astounded if they hadn't. What IS surprising, though, is how little there is, and how much of it collapses when exposed to relatively simple scrutiny by unpaid volunteers who aren't funded by anybody. This is happening often enough to cast serious doubts on the probity of the leading figures of the IPCC and their close associates in the scientific community.

That doesn't mean that AGW isn't happening, but it does mean that anyone who asserts that 'the debate is over' or 'the science is settled' exposes themselves as a fool, a knave, or an associate of fools and knaves. AGW enthusiasts, please direct your righteous anger towards the people who really deserve it; the conniving, self-serving and incompetent researchers and politicians who are bringing your cause further into disrepute every day.

Jon J. "Little evidence?" Actually mate, it is pretty overwhelming now!
Air temperatures, sea temperatures, CO2 and Methane emissions, Sea acidity, Ice loss and finally biological markers: migrations, flowering times, range shifts, etc.
Remember the "overwhelming" evidence of WMD's in Iraq?
Remember the "all is OK" just before the financial crash?
All examples of the "mind control" the author is writing about.
Our media is all but controlled by the same freaks who are now pushing the Global Warming denial movement.
If you believe hundreds of scientists from competing countries world wide can get together for a swindle whilst still publishing data, while the business as usual crowd is *not* trying to undermine it then you are simply naive. There is no credible "alternate view" from a scientific point of view, however the politics is murky indeed.

Ozandy,
Puh-leeeze!

Air temperatures? You mean the corruption of surface temperature data by the gang from UEA/Met/NASA/PennState? That's a matter of record.

Sea temperatures? Trending down, though the record is short.

Sea acidity? Nothing but speculation.

Ice loss? Ice mass is increasing. From memory every northern winter for the past decade has seen massive snow and ice cover.

Migrations, flowering times, range shifts? How do you attribute that to the miniscule change in atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activity? It's just recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Overwhelming evidence for WMD? You mean the evidence accepted and promoted by the UN? The same mob who are now pushing AGW?

Mind control via the media? Like the ABC, The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and other left wing creeps who won't tolerate the slightest dissent from their pathetic, predictable agenda?

Ozandy, thank you. You provide a wonderful example of exactly what I am talking about. You can rattle off all the evidence that has been put forward to support AGW, but nowhere in your post is there the slightest indication that you have ever read anything from a single opposing viewpoint. What is your take on the Urban Heat Island effect, for instance? How do you explain the absence of stratospheric warming? Why did the removal of 80% of weather stations from the statistics after 1970 not affect the reliability of the measurements that they were supposed to be providing? Can you name which oceanic regions have actually been tested for increasing acidity? Do you know the normal range of pH measurements in aquatic environments? Your pro-AGW blogs are unlikely to tell you much about these uncomfortable issues; which is why you need to broaden your reading.

Here we go again !

YOU ARE ALL WORRYING ABOUT THE WRONG PROBLEM !

Sorry for shouting, but I need to attract your attention.
Long before the higher suburbs of Sydney become water front properties
we are up against an energy drought.

The amount of oil is depleting and the effects on industry, food, and
employment will be really something to worry about.
Forget all this nonsense about resource industries plotting to undermine
the AGW campaigns, they are too worried about how they are going to cope
in an era of energy depletion.

By the time our industries start slowing down the amount of coal and
oil being consumed will decrease faster than any CO2 program could
achieve anyway. There is nothing that Australia could do to affect
the CO2 levels in world atmosphere.
The ETS schemes are finished as the European ETS scheme has collapsed
from E12 to E1 due the rorts in the system. The same would happen here.
The numbers you need to worry about are when the cost of oil to the
United States exceeds 4% of their GDP.
It is around US$90 to US$100 a barrel.
From now on we are all in the same boat and it is now time to start
the biggest changes any of us have ever seen.

Good on you Bazz, but this article is not about that, so your concern is off topic.

it's a good topic, though - why not write a paper and send it to OLO for publication and we'll all consider it.

please do write such an article

Well Amicus, I know what you mean but it is not quite off topic as
I was saying that the subject is invalid.

I will have a think about it and try to gather better information.