The Gang Green Strikes Back

Timothy Birdnow

So the good folks at COP 30, the Gang Green pushing teh lies of human-caused climate change melting the world, are returning to an oldie but goodie - claiming oil companies are using tobacco tactics to make up lies about the science.

I thought we slew this dragon some time ago. It was proven that the science that contradicts AGW alarmist theory was NOT funded by Big OIl, but it WAS proven climate change science was funded by Russia and China ato trick the West into killing it's own energy production so the Russia could clean up and China would have the oil and gas for itself. We also exposed the fact governments (espeically via USAID and the like) were funding the Climate Change Alarmist movement through a series of grants to NGO's. We also had the Climategate e-mails to prove collusion among the so0-called "scientsists" who ran things like the Hadley Center in the U.K.

For a long time this was on the back burner because we had exposed them, but once again they are trotting out the old, time worn accusations of "misinformation" when in fact it's always been they who are misinforming. They are liars.

That's how the Left operates, and it goes back to Hegel and the dialectic. They launch some campaign and create a series of arguments that can be rebutted by their opposition. So they pull back and wait and trot the same arguments out again to a younger crowd, one that doesn't remember the argument and it's outcome. This crowd has been "prepared" through government schooling which repeated lies and softened the kids up. Now these arguments come across as new and fresh and rebutting them becomes harder because the media won't cover the detractors and it will take years to re-rebut them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And notice how they do this; they spoke in the article about wind turbines but said TRUMP attacked them, not scientists who actually did show they caused the problems mentioned, And they ignore the more obvious ones - like the fact these turbines chop up birds, or that they cause damage to people's eardrums, and headaches, and other proven things. Oh, and the worst is they simply refuse to admit they don't generate enough power, or reliably enough. They just SAY claims they are unaffordable are not true without providing solid data.

There is a reason why Germany, which had gone heavy into wind and solar, is now moving back to oil and gas and even coal; the "renewables" are unreliables.

I love this quote:

????? First, "Azerbaijan is a major oil and gas poducer and and a major route for oil and gas pipelines and OF COURSE a lot of pro-fossil fuel people will show up. So what? How does that impact the event itself? It doesn't. Second, who are these so-called "lobbyists" lobbying at these summits? Can anyone claim they have made any impact on the reports put out by the U.N.? The fact is the IPCC has always had scores of green activists writing large swaths of their reports all along. Why do they deserve a seat at the table and not the detractors?

And are these people actually working for oil companies or are they just in disagreement with the radical interpretation of climate change?

The article doubles down:


Oohhh....they bought ADVERTISING to get out facts they want the public to know! How DARE they! Funny; I seem to remember when the U.S. government was forcing pro-climate alarmist views on Facebook and Istagram, along with a host of other things (like Covid Vax promotion or suppression of disagreement with the lockdowns) and suppressed anything about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and other such things. In fact I was on Facebook and was banned all the time, and shadow banned when not officially banned, for discussing climate sience in an objective way.

How much advertising have proponenents of catastrophic climate change bought over the years? How much has been funded by the Tides Foundation, the Open Society, and a host of other leftist networks owned by billionaires?

How much in taxpayer dollars have gone to it? If you want to follow the money, bring it on! The Gang Green has benefitte far mroe from money and advertising than have the climate realists.

They lost the argument and now want to silence their opponents. I said it; they will never give this thing up; it means too much money and power to them. They dreamed of creating a world government and a socialist economy based on this lie, and when science didn't bear them out they just suppressed science - and the scientists who were disagreing with them. I have dialogued with a great many of them over the years and saw how they were purged, fired from jobs, attacked as shills for Big Oil, had their papers rejected and whatnot. One time Dr. Roy Spencer wrote a paper that passed peer review and was being published when the Gang Green attacked and forced the editor of the journal to resign, then pulled the paper. It wasn't because it was no good, it was because it was TOO good and damaged the movement. Yeah; that's science!

Who is guilty of misinformation? These are the same people who report more hurricanes when in fact we've been in one of the quietest hurricane periods in the holocene. They report Antarctica is melting when in fact most of Antactica is gaining ice mass - just the floating West Antarctic ice sheet is declining. They lie and say wildfires are caused by heating yet it's mostly caused by changes in land management practices. I could go on and on but the point is made. They have lied to use from the get-go.

And they dare to "ask media and big tech to screen harmfull and false content" when it is they pushing said content. Why don't they simply rebut the arguments?That would be easy enough for them to do if they had the TRUTH on their side; they have the media in their pockets, after all. And the universities.

So we are back to this and will have to fight again to make sure both sides of the argument are heard. And these leftists will accuse us of doing what they themselves are doing - suppressing free speach, ignring real science, pushing a political agenda,etc. (You will notice how many times they trotted out the name of Donald Trump, as if he's the only guy who disagrees with the theory; that's because they need to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, then polarize it" and Trump is all they have to do that. They have to go after him so as to offer a face, a face of "evil".)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:27 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1222 words, total size 7 kb.