Its so handy when RightThink regulars like Leigh, aqvarivs, Col Rouge, & Alzo go straight to insult and smear (socialistas, left-wing loony, eco-freaks..).

It makes their many time wasting and frankly ridiculous posts easier to spot & skip.

True, you miss their really hilarious lies (aqvarivs: "The reality is that there is no money in denial for the "right wingers" so in truth they are more on board starting new industries under the guise of "green" corporations." ha ha ha, that must be why Exxon spends tens of millions www.exxonsecrets.org). But then theres always the TV news

Cindy criticizes Frank Luntz for making lack of scientific certainty the main issue.

Lack of scientific proof that human activity causes global warming has to be the main issue.

Assertions of the IPCC give no weight to arguments about global warming. It is only the fraudulent Summary which asserts that global warming is caused by human activity. No scientist asserts that there is any proof that it is so caused.

So what science is being denied, as Cindy asserts? There is no science which affirms human activity as a cause.

There is science which says that the globe has warmed one half of a degree, in the last 106 years, no one is denying that, or the fact that warming ceased in 1998, and the temperature has decreased slightly since that year.

Most of the article is devoted to smearing reputable and competent people who put forward facts. None of it deals with the facts, which are that there has been no global warming for nine years, and all the alarmist nonsense is based on the predictions of the IPCC, and other frauds.

Kevin Trenberth, previously a lead author of the IPCC, and now head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in an article in the publication Nature, states that there are no climate predictions by IPCC, and never have been. He says there are only “what if” projections.

This is not true, of course, the IPCC constantly made definite predictions, but one understands Trenberth's attempt to cover himself, by making this assertion about the flawed predictions with which he was associated, in his time with the IPCC.

In view of the negligible effects of global warming, and the strong indication that it is beneficial, for instance the greening of the Sahara which is occurring, an article like this is of dubious assistance to anyone interested in facts about global warming. I could not find one fact about global warming in the whole article.

My comment is perhaps not directly addressed to “swindle”
But to ask why and how such occur.
Humans are not well educated. That is to say their range of informed knowledge is on average low. They are emotional and like belonging to the herd.
Those industrious enough to gain more knowledge, though by no means all embracing, may also acquire the ability to analyse. This means the skill at posing questions and then the ability to search for answers. This does imply a marked separation of emotional state and research needs, intellect.
This I think provides the how. Most of us like to seem informed. Ignorance implies laziness or the wrong religion or politics. So the majority and it is in a democracy the numbers which ultimately decide, tend to side with the seeming informed. An attitude perhaps a hang over from school days, yes sir no sir etc. plus any naturally occurring but juvenile replies, having been put down, our egos injured.

This I think is the answer to why such programmes exist. They are unanswerable without real study and if the proponents are wise a new item or version appears reasonably soon denying the time necessary for study. The media with a profit seeking motive finds profit in less demanding trivia. One is left with statements along the lines of I believe which for religious items, since no answer is provable, gets the seal of approval. Mind you I believe may infer that any opposition is supportive of , well used to be communism, but to day I guess is the undefined terrorism. Such gives the speaker a standing, a kinship with like minds nearby.

As in many things action is only undertaken if profit, money or status, is in mind. The profit from denial is placid continuance but includes the industries supporting the life style.

All so obvious?
Why then did we as a democracy with access to knowledge fall for the confidence trick of Iraq? Or indeed for that of Afghanistan a less obvious confidence trick if judged against the criteria of the U. N. Charter?

Who then benefited from the recent saga that began with the desire to involve Russia in its Vietnam, beginning 1978-9 and the long standing desire to invade Iraq?

Who gained from the new ‘B’ Team intelligence from Ford’s time on.? Intelligence purporting to consider motive as well as actuality, resurfacing in Bush junior’s time?

Why then were we told that Iraq, whom we focused on ignoring the developing elements latter to become the Terrorists of G W Bush, had strength, WMD, and aggressive intent?

Later in the Downing street memos we learnt that even by July 2002 this was not believed by the proponents who said the propaganda was being fixed to support the aim?

Who gains by the continued participation in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why do we accept the trashing of countries, the reduction of populations and the imposition of free trade? Who is the winner?

Why does a Christian country, our call, perpetrate deeds contrary to our professed beliefs?

Because we are frightened, too lazy to do the research or constrained by national law that regards disagreement as traitorous?

As H. Goering said:
“ of course the people don’t want war. But after all it’s the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is democracy, a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to tell them is they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the Country to greater danger.”

Is it oil, hegemony or both?
Is this Foreign policy, the executive call?
Within the nation what stops us doing similarly?

liam, anyone has the perfect right to spend their profits as they see fit and if that expenditure exposes the Leftist manufactured hysteria of "Global Warming", a temperature fluctuation (which means to shift back and forth uncertainly, just so you don't go off on a Star Trek tangent) of 0.7 degrees over the last 100 years. Which is just another money grab and method of bolstering the lefts grip on Government funding. As Bushbred says, the Left is the moral and ethical compass of the world and the rightful rulers of the proceeds of others hard work and money.
Between that Leftist decree and all your conspiracy theories your well set up to sponge off society I guess until your told what next conspiracy to dance to. And just so you know. Going off the grid and using alternative fuels is not a Leftist idea. It's a Libertarian ideal. Like putting your money where your mouth is. If you don't like what Exxon is doing boycott that businesses product. Live your life free of fossil fuels. Though I must tell you such an decision would require continuous effort on your part.

"Live your life free of fossil fuels. Though I must tell you such an decision would require continuous effort on your part."

An excellent suggestion, although past experience tells me that most are all talk, no action types.