Franny Armstrong Blows Reputation**

This is what happens when you get advertising people to do an environmental campaign I suppose. After all their first love is consumerism, they just can’t be trusted to work for the planet. The case for cutting carbon emissions is backed up by numerous logical reasons. 10:10 have made a video suggesting those reasons are desperate and tyrannical. Their apology is gruesome too. To say they missed the mark because some people didnt find it funny suggests they haven’t a clue as to what might be persuasive. Shame.

I see that the Guardian has stopped further comments being posted on its thread. Must have realised the damage that the article had done to its already dwindling credibility.

The Science and Public Policy Institute has a good article on this (Note 1) which also gives some background into eco-nutter Frannie Armstrong which suggests to me that perhaps she can be excused just a little. Her gullibility may be due to an unfortunate combination of genes that brought her into this world. On the other hand she may, like AL Gore and his buddies, be simply motivated by money. I suspect that she thought that the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen an opportunity to turn her second-rate film-making career around. With all of the political hype that preceded COP15, any gullible person would think it opportune to jump on the bandwagon. Frannie certainly jumped, founding 10:10 after chatting with another staunch supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, Ed Miliband.

Miliband is a career politician, not a scientist, and had his own reasons for pushing out his version of the propaganda (Note 2) ahead of COP15. He gave his full support to Gordon Brown’s nonsense that “This is perhaps the greatest challenge that we face as a world” (Note 3). This is evidenced by his comment in Africa in August 2009 when asking people to sign “Ed’s Pledge” (Note 4) with his “the world can’t afford to wait. The problem is urgent .. ”. Of course, after the COP15 extravaganza turned into a fiasco climate change was relegated from this exalted position and Number10.gov.uk The Official Site of the Prime Minister’s Office considers that “The greatest challenge Mr Brown faced in office was the worldwide financial crisis and the subsequent recession”.

Ed Miliband is sticking doggedly with his propaganda. In his effort to win leadership of the Labour Party he persisted with “climate change is the greatest challenge to our way of life” (Note 6) then in his presentation to the Labour Party Conference last month Note 7) he said “taking the difficult steps to protect our planet for future generations is the greatest challenge our generation faces”. What he is too dumb to accept is that it is the UN’s propaganda train that is heading for catastrophe, not global climates.

As for Frannie Armstrong and her Spanner Films, I’m afraid that they are heading for catastrophe too.

NOTES: I’ll submit these separately as they may have been picked up as spam.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

We can probaly agree on something here…

What were they thinking!!!!

How many hundred of people, intelligent (lots of trustafarians no doubt) older as well, were involved in this.

What were they Guardian thinking, there article launching it was excited, lauding it..

Again, did not one of the hundreds of people involved in it think, Hang on guys, is this really a good idea..

Of course, ‘no pressure’ – to go along with it…

Every environment group I have come across, is beyond furious at this…

People laugh at ‘groupthink’

Well it happened here…
How can no one involved have seen how this would play out..
Especially with the general public..

Immediate reaction, no pressure to conform, label peple as different, outsiders, lazy, scruffy, unintelligent , obtuse (ie the cahracters being blown up)..

Nearly everyon I showed this too, after a minute, has said, they did that to the jews in the 30’s.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fox News has it, no one would go up aginst Mark Morano to defend it..

He was quite restrained (for once) he didn’t realy need to say anything…

My child’s school has just BAILED on 10:10

Just when you think it couldn’t get worse..
The Fox newsreader, reads line for line the ‘initial apology’

Listen to her tone of voice, when she reads from their on screen apology..

‘Oh Well, we live and learn…. Onwards and upwards’

Sony, kyocera have bailed allready..

“So much for decades of trying to convince people that the green movement isn’t all about world domination through domestic fascism and mind control.”

Thank you for that admission. Expect it to be used against you out of context. Franny Armstrong is a menace, and hypocritical to boot. Her, and those like hers’, holier-than-thou attitudes will be judged eventually to have actively harmed sensible environmentalism..

Barry (Woods), can you provide a link confirming that Sony and Kyocera have baile (on 10:10 ojr just “No Pressure”?). I wrote to O2, another sponsor of 10:10 and here is their response ““Dear Mr Ridley Along with 100,000 members of the public, leading businesses, schools and universities, local authorities and NHS Trusts, O2 supports the aims of the 10:10 campaign. We acknowledge our responsibility to the environment and are committed to reducing our carbon emissions both as an organisation and in society as a whole. 10:10 is an independent organisation and we don’t ask for editorial control over the content of its campaigns. Kind regards Sarah”

Jack (Savage, you are spot on with your comment about Frannie Armstrong but I suggest that it applies also to Richard Curtis. I see both of them having concerns about their careers. Frannie has never made it to where she wanted to be – a top film producer. Richjard must be getting worried about his status. Both of them have achieved what they wanted – very low cost global advertising, under the pretext of being concerned about controlling global climates (natures job).

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Best regards, Pete Ridley

I was appalled by ‘Scattergate’ but interpret it as a cry for help – we’re losing the battle, time for shock tactics.

Best to keep a cool head. Peak oil and less wealth means that to maintain the cohesion of society, we need the activists onside and productive.

So, look at the big picture. The true eco-fascists go back to the 1870s – Blavatsky, and via Hitler created much green thinking plus eugenics. Our aristocrats want to farm the wind and force the population back to serfdom under the threat of CAGW.

So, I set out to establish exactly what went wrong in climate science, what’s being hidden, not because I’m working against the greens, but to avoid them being subverted.

And yes, there’s a mistake dating from 1980. Because it falsely predicts polluted thick clouds cool the earth it has allowed the modellers to claim far higher CO2-AGW than is possible. But if polluted clouds heat the earth, it’s another form of AGW. The pro CO2 people are now resorting to secondary issues.

It looks like AR5 will not have CAGW, maybe very low CO2-AGW, more from clouds. Good because it’ll remove power from people who abused science. So, Scattergate might have done a lot of good by forcing the nasties into the shadows where they belong.

“world domination through domestic fascism and mind control”

Also, Peter Ridley might care to look at:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/climate-group-regrets-shock-film-tactic/

Keep up there!
The New York Times!
Beloved of the Watermelons.

Well, this “event” has certainly illustrated why we have guns.

Jo : “We’re all different”

Well said**, Jo ! So why on Earth do you want to coerce people to be chicken-littles about AGW like you ???

**irony, of course.

Here is some background into the eco-fascists of the past and how history seems to be repeating itself.
——–
See here

The sick video isn’t the problem.
The real problem is the mindset that refuses to acknowledge that alternate viewpoints are validly held (and may even be correct). We keep comparing the “my opinion is the only right one and everyone else must comply” crowd to A Hitler. Hitler didn’t do it on his own; he had an whole cohort of likeminded criminals. Neither did/do Stalin, Pol Pot, the gang of four, bin Laden, Mugabe, et al. Groupthink, brainwashing, bandwagons and the like never achieve anythink worthwhile because they overpower rational thought. To bring it back to AGW; when was scientific concensus every right in the past?

First we had Climategate, then all of those IPCC-gates, next NZtemperature-gate, then that disgusting “No Pressure” film, now the resignation of scientist Harol Lewis from the APS. The supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis are getting very worried and rightly so. Even Chris Colose, a staunch supporter and WANABE scientist who used to be prepared to allow comments from sceptics like me on his blog (chriscolose.wordpress.com/) refused to post the following yesterday.

**********

It looks as though Harold Lewis (Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California) hasn’t read your blog yet. He said on 6th October in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society (Note 1) “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it”.

Of course, Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University) and his climate change “Hockey team” keep supporting the UN’s propaganda using dubious statistical manipulations. On 8th October in the Washington Post article “Get the anti-science bent out of politics” (Note 2) Mann declared “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity”.

Here are two highly qualified scientists having totally opposing views about the processes and drivers of global climates. If scientists disagree so vigorously over the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is there any wonder that sceptics like me insist that the debate is not over.

The Climategate and subsequent IPCC-gate revelations have resulted in intensified and justified criticism of scientists who support The Hypothesis, along with a questioning of their motives. This should not be a surprise to anyone. In the 1970’s we had many scientists telling us that we were heading into a new ice-age. In 1988 we had the contamination of scientific objectivity by political dishonesty when scentist James Hansen (fully supported by producers Tim Wirth and friend Al Gore) offered his scare-mongering prediction of catastrophic global warming at a carefully orchestrated testimony to the US Senate (Note 3) on the carefully selected historically hottest day of the year. In 1989, we had scientist Professor Stephen Schneider (highly respected by staunch supporters of The Hypothesis) saying (Note 4) “ .. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”. indicating that in his opinion scientists were not obliged to tell the truth but that he only hoped that they would. Then in 2009 we had the revelations of Climategate (Note 5) indicating that some significant scientists closely connected with the UN’s IPCC had chosen for 19 years to be what they considered to be effective rather than truthful.

As Paul Jump says in his article “Don’t let views cloud scientific integrity” (Note 6) QUOTE: Global ethics guidelines set out researchers’ duties to be clear and above board, .. Researchers should make it clear that they are going beyond their professional expertise when they make recommendations about the policy implications of their research, .. The “Singapore Statement” was drawn up before the Second World Conference on Research Integrity, which took place .. in July .. Its 14 universal research “responsibilities” include an injunction to “clearly distinguish professional comments from opinions based on personal views” when taking part in public discussions.” .. UNQUOTE.

The latest example of this distortion of the truth by scientists is presented by John O’Sullivan in his Suite101 article “Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal (Note 7). He says “In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud. New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction”.

John refers to the New Zealand branch of the International Climate Science Coalition when saying “According to the August official statement of the claim from NZCSC climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American doomsaying scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted. The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that it’s climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone. Indeed, the original Kiwi records shows no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared”. (Please read not only the article but also the comments.)

Even hitherto staunch lay supporters of The Hypothesis seem to be waking up to the possibility that this is all an UN-inspired scam. I was delighted to see Graham Land say in his article Last Talks Before Cancun .. (note 8) “If we believe the scientists, that is”.

I know Chris, in your “expert” opinion this is “blabbering nonsense” but then, you claim to be one of those knowledgeable scientists that support The Hypothesis, don’t you! Maybe you should have a word with Professor Harold Lewis and show him where he has gone wrong.

NOTES:
This blog thinks they are a sign of spam so you can find them on http://www.suite101.com/content/top-american-scientist-quits-aps-over–global-warming-scam-a295057 in my comment on Oct 11th @ 12:19 AM

************
Many who support The Hypothesis have been knocking Harold Lewis but he does have quite some pedigree. “ .. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)” (http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/peak-oil-economics-environment/97064-global-warming-greatest-most.html)

Those who knock him are mainly people who hide behind a false identity. Now I wonder who I should believe?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Steve, I’m noy going to bother verifying anything Pete says. But I’m not going to critise or accuse him of lying without refuting his post line by line! Has he misquoted Lewis or Mann? Has the NIWA confirmed the NZ temperature record as their work and accurate?
‘Just sayin’ is the weakest of arguments, used only by those without facts and a provable argument.