What readers think about “Thinking Wrong Thoughts”

Source:  Whattsupwiththat

SPPI Note:  The Wattsup website posted the link to the new SPPI paper:  We Are Thinking The Wrong Thoughts.   Follows some of the blog posts in response to the SPPI paper written by Dennis Ambler. (Not all in chronological order)


Charles Higley says:

September 16, 2010 at 10:45 am

To David Wells’ Comment:

David, you must realize that AGW has nothing to do with the science or saving the planet. It is a false crisis to create the case (by the IPCC) that we need worldwide emissions control. Then they can set up a carbon trading economy, a one world government, and carry out massive undeserved wealth redistribution, all under a totalitarian/socialist regime.

Crippling and de-developing the Western World and preventing the development of the undeveloped countries would serve them well, as a means of retaining power. The latter would become huge welfare states, crippled forever by government handouts from ever taking their own initiative.

By depressing the world, how could they not stay in power, particularly when they effectively disarm everybody and they have the only legitimate military (police/Gestapo/thugs) to force large scale compliance? Notice the International Small Arms Treaty (just agreed to by Clinton!) – why would the UN have any business knowing where all the guns are in the US, or any country, unless it is to eventually do something about them? They claim it is to better track illegal guns, but then why know where all the legal guns are? There is already perfectly good means of establishing the origin of a gun – starting at the manufacturer.

The psych part described here simply hallmarks the fact that the science and climate are not the issue, it’s getting the people to do what they want. They want compliance and acquiescence to their agenda – and they want it now! We are standing in their way with our delusional smugness!


Jeff L says:

September 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

Someone is crazy here for sure …. but I think it is the publishers of this nonsense.

It is breathtaking in it’s arrogance.

But I would agree there is a psychological component to the AGW debate.

It has been my personal observation that deep greens generally have a very predictable psychology :
They are almost all far left in the political spectrum.
They generally have some deep rooted sense of guilt.
They believe government can solve any problem.
They generally think people & corporations are inherently evil.
They are generally prone to emotional responses to problems.

Think about this list & think about the AGW hypothesis. It absolutely plays into everything their psyche believes. Is it any wonder there is a nearly religious fervor in their beliefs?

So, as a scientist, I am fundamentally skeptical of AGW based on data. BUT just because the AGW believers don’t think like I do, I WOULD NOT say they are mentally defective – just wired differently. I wish they could see that just because skeptical folks don’t see the world the way they do that they are not mentally defective & that by labeling skeptics as such only further hurts their cause & makes it that much harder to achieve their goals.


Kate says:

September 16, 2010 at 12:55 pm

The Anti-Denier Seminar Agenda



1.) Evidence -and why it isn’t necessary.
2.) Rubbishing and ignoring contrary evidence.
3.) How to get the most out of your adjusted temperature measurements.
4.) Taking advantage of natural disasters.
5.1) Taking advantage of hot weather.
5.2) Taking advantage of cold weather.
6.) Make your own hockey sticks: Hours of fun for all!
7.) Advanced use of buzz words such as: “consensus,” “robust,” “peer-reviewed,” “unprecedented,” and “denier”.
8.) Ad-hominem attacks -and how to make them really nasty.
8.1) Arguing your case: If the denier is a scientist, he is obviously in the pay of “Big-Oil”.
8.2) Arguing your case: If the denier is not a scientist, he isn’t qualified to give an opinion.

Suggested Seminar Agenda:

1.) Stop calling so-called “man-made global warming” critics “deniers.”
2.) Freeing the data and the code, so that MMGW skeptics will have less to complain about.
3.) Learning how to be nice to people who disagree with you.
4.) Stop calling our critics “deniers.” This is really important, and so hard to do.
5.) Responding to FOI requests openly and honestly.
6.) Conflict of interest: cleaning up the way we do business.
7.) Stop calling our critics “deniers.” Yeah, it’s hard, but it makes us look really stupid.
8.) Psychological projection – the unwitting act of ascribing your own faults to others.
9.) Confirmation bias: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
10.) Circling the tribal wagons: a guest lecture by Judith Curry.


pwl says:

September 16, 2010 at 10:57 am

“Professor Paul Hoggett is helping to organise the conference, he said, “We will examine denial from a variety of different perspectives – as the product of addiction to consumption, as the outcome of diffusion of responsibility and the idea that someone else will sort it out and as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”

What? I’m not highly skeptical of the alleged “man caused climate change” because I buy things! Nor because I think someone else should deal with it! Nor out of any complacency or irresponsibility!

They forget the primary reason for “denying” the claims of alarmist “man caused climate change” and that is that the alarmists have NOT provided actual verifiable hard evidence that CO2 does in fact raise temperatures. If they actually provided such evidence and a means to verify it and opened all their data, raw data, methods, source codes, programs, sensor designs, notes, emails, and all other relevant materials for public auditing then maybe I could go about verifying their claims. As it sits they want me to, ahem, “trust” them on their “word”. Not going to happen as I’m a scientist who demands that those claiming science actually use the scientific method and that those claiming doomsday and taking money from the public purse actually have ALL of their alleged science and it’s claims open for public auditing.


David Mayhew says:

September 16, 2010 at 9:31 am

Many thanks Anthony for drawing attention,
This is excellent news. It is so much over the top that the only predictable result must be public derision. The spectacle of those who know, scientifically speaking, nothing about the subject they propose to arrange “communications” for is quite laughable. Let us make sure all of this nonsense is exposed as much and as publicly as possible, and that the incompetents involved are given as much chance as possible to put their foot in it……..
The harder they shout, the clearer it is that its no longer about science (or maybe never was).
Lance Wallace says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:57 am

Just to show that climate craziness is not limited to the other side of the pond, this morning I received the following announcement from AAAS announcing a panel (to include our friend Gavin from NASA/GISS) on “Overcoming Skepticism after Climategate”:
We should encourage as many as possible of such occasions, because they will flush out the (not so hidden) agendas behind the “science”, and indicate out who is serious about enquiring into nature, and who is more concerned about self justification or, worse, interfering with other peoples lives.

DFM (scientist)


Alexander Feht says:

September 16, 2010 at 1:29 pm

I agree with many who observed that this government-funded program exudes strong and unmistakable aroma of Dr. Joseph Goebbels. In combination with the growing open, aggressive, deeply ingrained antisemitism among European bureaucrats and leftists, this gives you a good picture of who are our puppet masters.

This “Goebbels phenomenon” is a direct consequence of the failure of a welfare state in general. Post-WWII British society is remarkably spineless and marasmic; an unprepared visitor, steeped in English culture and literature, full of respect for this country that invented and planted a good half of all things that we call “civilization,” once he finds himself in modern England, has a striking impression that most of the people there (not to mention the media) are decidedly insane.

I suspect it has something to do with Winston Churchill: with how they all treated him and his ideas after the war, how they all are aware that they forgot their petty follies and called in for duty some real people of common sense only when they were in mortal danger, and how they betrayed them immediately as soon as that mortal danger faded away.

Socialists, political prostitutes and promiscuous losers of all kinds and sorts are grasping environmentalist propaganda as their last straw, their last hope of imposing their guilt-ridden, destructive will on talented, hard-working benefactors of humanity they hate so passionately.

What do people hate most? Somebody or something they know they betrayed, sold out, perverted, let down. Welcome to the Brave New World!


Charles Higley says:

September 16, 2010 at 10:27 am

“Professor Paul Hoggett . . . said, “We will examine denial from a variety of different perspectives – as the product of addiction to consumption, as the outcome of diffusion of responsibility and the idea that someone else will sort it out and as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”

Notice that they patently accept the junk science of manmade global warming themselves and then assume everybody else is delusional. There is no mention that we may have a better grip on reality than they. THEY have been told the game rules and then they have to pretend that there is a valid game afoot.

The descriptions of our “problems” above are downright insulting and denigrating. They are obviously arrogant and condescending, assuming, like all good liberals, that they they know better than we do.

Notice that the goal is to create behavioral changes (do what we say, is their mantra) and create compliance for their money and power grab based on a false crisis. Hmmm, I haven’t seen “Gaslight” in a long time.

The head of psychology at BU years ago was a winner. He did not believe that laughing is mature – definitely not a party animal! His wife, who was not allowed to emote for over 10 years, finally divorced him and has been laughing ever since. As far as I can tell, most psychologists are nut cases themselves – been there, are that.


RockyRoad says:

September 16, 2010 at 10:19 am

Hunter, it is already dangerous. So many $billions wasted on nonsensical research; so much food diverted to making biofuel where fossil fuels are the better choice; so much misdirected capital going into “green” technologies that are premature or subsidized because they’re not currently competitive; and so much human capital constrained by marxist/fascist policies (like the approach exposed from the CCDAG). This is indeed the crime of the modern industrial age; climategate merely hastened its exposure. The criminality includes foisting a pseudo-science-based Cap and Trade bill on the US, while Europe is being crushed by a similar policy. The EPA is the worst offender with their stance on CO2.


Mr Lynn says:

September 16, 2010 at 8:41 am

“This short advisory paper collates a set of recommendations about how best to shape mass public communications aimed at increasing concern about climate change and motivating commensurate behavioural changes. . . ”

Science? What science? If anything can make it clear to people how far from science this ‘climate change’ industry has gone, this ought to do it.

Now if we had mainstream reporters worth their salt, they’d be all over this affront to the integrity of science and the intelligence of the public. But we don’t.

How long are real scientists going to put up with this wholesale perversion of their enterprise before they speak up and confront the ideologues who have seized upon a speculation about climate and turned it into a quasi-religious crusade?

Or are they all going to hunker down in fear until free scientific inquiry is completely stifled by the Ministry of Climate Truth?


ZT says:

September 16, 2010 at 8:47 am

This is simple cause and effect – if you only award funding to people who have worked CAGW into there agendas, then eventually even the psycho-babble crowd will catch on.


Robert says:

Orwell was only a few decades off and way ahead of his time, therefore a small adaptation in some of his 1984 quotes:

“the consciousness of climate change, and therefore being in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.”

“How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? The records have been adjusted.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”


hunter says:

September 16, 2010 at 9:15 am

Another example of how CO2 obosession lowers the intellignece and increases the gullibility of those obsessed.
It is long past time to reign in this popular mania, before it deteriorates from merely silly to actually dangerous.


Cassandra King says:

September 16, 2010 at 9:22 am


To trick the populace into accepting and believing in the fabricated AGW consensus by means of a mass media barrage of scare mongering stories of imminent doom and disaster, the scarier the better in fact.
Centralise and control state funding of science where political control of resources can encourage science to pursue AGW ‘science’ while denying sceptical scientists of vital funding.
Launch a campaign of smears and abuse and hatred against sceptical scientists and encourage the tame media to engage in a concerted censoring campaign to squeeze out any opposition to the AGW consensus.

In case of the failure of PLAN A see:


Repeat plan A and add more tricks and more smears and more fabricated mumbo jumbo pseudo scientific jargon. The key is to understand that if the propaganda campaign has failed the AGW establishment remedy is to increase the intensity of the propaganda.


David Wells says:

September 16, 2010 at 8:27 am

Global warming, what global warming, climate what climate change? Over the past 200 years temperature has risen by 0.6 of 1 degree C per century, over the last 10,000 years there as been no change, from 1700 to 1735 temperature rose by 2.2C and if my memory serves me correctly coal fired powerstations, hundreds of millions of cars and industry as we know it today did not exist.

James Hansen said that by 1980 the road alongside his office in Lower Manhattan would be submerged under 20 feet of water and by now New York would be 246 feet under the Atlantic.

We have ARGO buoys measuring the oceans and sea temperature is going lower ensuring that the zero level of sea rise as measured for the last 6000 years remains on a plateau.

Nancy Palosi speak for the house of representatives said “thank heaven for natural gas because if the USA didnt have so much we would need to rely on fossil fuels” if this statement is representative of the average American politicians intellect then we are in for serious trouble this side of the Atlantic because I doubt very much if Chris Huhne and his cross dressing partner are any more suited for high office.

The final nail in the coffin though for the warmist advocacy is that to get a 1 degree C reduction in temperature by a reduction in Co2 would mean the USA removing 2 trillion tons of Co2 equal to 67 years of emissions at 30 billion tons a year meaning that most everything in America would need to shut down, including – a benefit – all of the hot air given out by numerous feckless idiot politicians.

The cost of the Wax/Key leglisalation would be $250 Trillion, in the UK our climate change legislation is targeted to cost £18 billion a year over the 40 years to 2050 just to remove the 80% of the 2% we actually contribute in the UK, a total of £780 billion and saying that this is not a representative situation because we import stuff from China is irrelevant, the £780 billion is just for the 80% of 2% is some twerp suggesting we spend more and if so from where when most of the population received tax credits just so they can pay tax?

Add to this the fact that the IPCC actually predict that emissions will peak in 2075 in anycase when population peaks and energy also and will then fall back so why should we commit ourselves to spending billions that can never produce the desired result when emissions first are undershooting predictions, temperatures are undershooting predictions and climate change because of a radical rise in temperature hasnt happened because temperature has not risen to the desperate levels predicted so come we have to pay a debt to the third world for climate change that didnt happen?

Science should be about observation, experiment and measurement but with climate “science” it definitely is not its about hoax, sham and emotive rhetoric now completely shot through by the passage of time, measurement and fact.

When will those involved look at the current data instead of speculation, denigration and personal vilification of anyone who cares to disagree and the fact that a body now wishes to indoctrinate us because we refuse to take them at their word is a worrying escalation, even more worrying is why, what is the objective of this new religion is it as was included in the back pages of the UN Copenhagen treaty the first steps towards a world government? I do not believe in conspiracy theories but apparently someone in HMRC had the bizarre idea that they should collect our salaries and pensions, deduct what they felt was required and let us have the rest seems like George Orwell might have been on the right track all along so where precisely does George Monbiot fit in right along side Chairman Ed Balls I suppose, if the name fits!


Lance Wallace says:

September 16, 2010 at 7:57 am

Just to show that climate craziness is not limited to the other side of the pond, this morning I received the following announcement from AAAS announcing a panel (to include our friend Gavin from NASA/GISS) on “Overcoming Skepticism after Climategate”:

“Dear Member,

This fall, AAAS is launching MemberCentral, an exclusive website for AAAS members. MemberCentral is dedicated to highlighting AAAS activities and fostering community among our members. To support these goals, the site will feature original content presented as webinars, videos, podcasts, blogs, and more.

On September 27, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. ET, AAAS MemberCentral is conducting its first webinar: “Climate Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After Climategate.”

Featuring panelists Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); Edward Maibach, M.P.H., Ph.D., of George Mason University ; Brenda Ekwurzel, Ph.D., from the Union of Concerned Scientists; and author and science journalist Chris Mooney, this discussion will explore ways the scientific community can combat negative public attitudes toward climate change. Panelists will share their best practices for public and media engagement, debate how to respond to critiques, and explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue. ”

Love the part about “reframing climate change as a public health issue”–we have gone from global warming to climate change to toxic climate.


Craig Loehle says:

There are 2 scary things here:
1) The gov funds a private entity to produce propaganda (so it won’t get caught doing it).
2) Stalin and his ilk also used “psychologists” to label dissidents as mentally ill.

Never occurs to these chaps that the ordinary citizen is not so stupid.


Fred says:

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh this is so channeling Joseph Geobbels


Robert of Ottawa says:

It sounds like something from Mao’s cultural revolution; especially when you consider

“greater public engagement with the policy process “

I expect they don’t mean that I should get up and start lobbying AGAINST global warming measures; I’m sure they mean “toeing and regurdgitating the party line”


Bryan says:

It reminds me of the days of the Soviet Union where people were sent to insane asylums because they did not accept Scientific Socialism.
After all why would anyone reject a socialist paradise?
They clearly must be mad and in need of psychiatric help.


Roger Longstaff says:

The Ministry of Truth

(re. George Orwell, “1984?)

What did we ever do to deserve these clowns?


Pamela Gray says:

Propaganda that promotes group-think is an egregious affront to freedom. Not far behind such an endeavor are the laws that will impose this on you. This pamphlet should be snapped up by any and all independent minded citizenry and burned in the town square.


rc says:

Even though he’s rated very highly, after reading this I’m thinking George Orwell is not rated highly enough.


mosomoso says:

“…motivate the ambitious and systemic behavioural change…”

What they seek to do to people, they first do to language. When you read such words, you know you are dealing with misanthropes.


biddyb says:

“tallbloke says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:00 am
“the UK does have a Minister for Climate Change, however, in 1976, there was actually a Minister for Drought, who was one of the most effective politicians in history, because within three days of his appointment, it had started raining”

Ah yes, John Selwyn Gummer. For an encore, he force fed burgers to his children on national TV to prove beef was safe to eat during the BSE scare.” Yup, he did, but have any of his children died of CJD? I don’t think so. Not sure what your point was?

Anyway, as one of those “decision-makers” I am inundated by invitations to seminars, training and any other kind of brain-washing you could imagine to make sure I start thinking the “right” way. The bombardment is pretty relentless and it worries me that I see other decision makers falling for it all which makes it harder and harder to resist unless you are a committed Climate Audit, WUWT, Bishop Hill et al reader.

Flooding is the worry word down my way – it doesn’t seem to be so much about extreme heat in this part of the south-west of the UK – and there all sorts of training courses on how to help avoid flooding in the future. There don’t seem to be many comments about not building on floodplains, probably because they’ve already covered them with buildings, and now any flooding that does occur is obviously because of climate change. Seems like a big scam to me to stop those poor souls in house on floodplains from pointing the finger at government and councils and holding them liable for permitting development there. Is that they mean by “the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility”?

Perhaps I’ve got that the wrong way round………………………..


noaaprogrammer says:

Hi. My name is Jim, and I am a recovering denialaholic. Gaia helps me feel the global warmth when it is cold. My brain is washed clean of common sense. I am now psychologically fit to recruit others to my way of life. Amen.


Stacey says:

“This conference aims to strengthen our awareness of the challenge facing us and to enhance our capacity for effective decision-making and action. It will do this by bringing together a group of people – climate change activists, eco-psychologists, psychotherapists and social researchers – who are uniquely qualified to assess the human dimensions of this human-made problem.”

Thank goodness normal people are not being forced to attend.
Guess who pays for this garbage?


tallbloke says:

“the UK does have a Minister for Climate Change, however, in 1976, there was actually a Minister for Drought, who was one of the most effective politicians in history, because within three days of his appointment, it had started raining”

Ah yes, John Selwyn Gummer. For an encore, he force fed burgers to his children on national TV to prove beef was safe to eat during the BSE scare.


Stefan says:

Maybe we are “thinking the wrong thoughts”, but we are feeling the right feelings; instead of pessimism, depression, doom, and despair, we seek creativity, joy, abundance, and freedom.

The West spent a thousand years practicing repentance for imagined sins, until the Enlightenment made real earthy optimism and progress.

Whatever the climate does, optimism and change are to be welcomed. They are our only hope.

Feeling despair? Feeling lack? Feeling like you need to conserve your weak energies?

Choose creativity. Choose excitement. Choose hope.


theduke says:

I found a similar study years ago that I quoted over at ClimateAudit. I think the link has disappeared, but the study had been commissioned by the UK government and was conducted by public relations people. One of their recommendations was that the government and proponents of AGW never admit doubts about the science and speak as if it was completely settled. In other words, act as if the debate was over and merely speak about solutions, whether their were valid reasons for skepticism or not.


This is not crazy or even evil, it is simply the politics of: fear, power and wealth in action, as is normal in all societies. That does not mean we should not be offended or simply accept unchallenged. Perhaps it means we to must put our ethics on hold and join the conversation or perhaps not.

I have spent a goodly number of hours reviewing all the books and writings on philosophy that exist in my library. I could not find any reasonable justification for the end, however noble, justifying the means. I was reminded, this is a world view well articulated by Machiavelli in The Prince, although he never quite states it as such and it is a much older concept. His work is less philosophical then political. To paraphrase: if the Prince is to maintain his position or strengthen it then… what ever it takes to do so is justified, since the Prince’s desired outcome is defined as the greater good. While he may have addressed his work to a Prince of Florence, he could just as easily addressed it to the Prince of the Roman Church or any other leader of the day.

This kind of thinking has no place in science, regardless of the name give to the study of the political. No model can produce results so important to humanity that unscientific or immoral behavior can ever be justified. It does have a prominent place in the public discourse of the day as propaganda, ideology and sophistry have always had.


Gary says:

“We will examine denial … as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”

This *is* referring to that insularl community of Climate Scientists, isn’t it? You know, the ones denying that they have to do science the right way, the way it’s been done for 400 years, open to scrutiny, debate, and so on?

Oh…. it means everybody else not getting with the Program??

Hmm. I see.



old engineer says:

I know readers of WUWT like to keep their facts straight. George Orwell’s most famous book was Animal Farm, a parody of the rise of communism in Russia. What is being decribed in this post is more like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. With Big Brother watching everyone. It has been a long, long, time since I read Brave New World, but as I recall the protaganist was in charge of shoe production statistics. His job was to show that shoe production always increased. But, as he admitted to himself, he had no idea whether shoe production was rising, or indeed, if any shoes were produced. At least that’s the way I remember it.

The book was supposed to take place in the 25th century C.E. Looks like we are getting there a lot quicker


Charles Higley says:

To David Parks Comment: I jst posted a comment but it appears to have disappeared (and it was the first ime in a long time that I did not copy it first!). So here is another version. If the first is posted, Mr Moderator, please ignore this one.

David, you have to realize that the AGW movement has nothing to do with saving the planet or the climate. It is all about creating a false crisis and a case for world wide emissions control. The goal is to create a carbon economy, a one world government, and force widespread wealth redistribution. This is a political agenda and it is not for the good of the people in any way.

Crippling the world’s economies and wealth redistribution would de-develop the developed world and, through continuous welfare handouts, permanently cripple the undeveloped countries from ever developing, as they would have no initiative to develop, becoming huge nanny states. This crippled state would ensure that they would retain power.

Notice the International Small Arms Treaty (just agreed to be Clinton!). Why would the UN have any business knowing where all the guns are in the US, or in any country, unless it is something they eventually will take care of? A world government would have to have the only legitimate military/police/Gestapo and would perforce need to disarm the people.

They claim the Treaty makes it easier to trace illegal weapons, but there are already perfectly effective means of doing to – starting with the manufacturer.

The psychology initiative described above points clearly to the fact that it is all about the agenda. They want compliance and acquiescence by the people and they aren’t getting it. They want what they want now! And we are standing in their way with our delusion thoughts based, to their dismay, on reality. It that an oxymoron?


PaulH says:

Facing Climate Change is the first national conference to specifically explore ‘climate change denial’.

The first, but definitely not the last. No doubt one of the top agenda items will be to establish the date and location of the next conference, preferably in a suitably exotic/sophisticated location where they will be able to stage numerous working breakfasts, working lunches and working dinners followed by catered receptions to discuss how tough it is to reeducate the little people (who pay the bills).

Nice work if you can get it.


Vince Causey says:

I thought it was a joke – until I googled it.


MA in Transpersonal Psychology

The Ecopsychology degree concentration integrates psychology and ecology in the study of human-nature relationships. At Naropa University, contemplative practice and transpersonal psychology provide a foundation for this integration.”

Now I know we live in a mad, mad, mad, mad world. Phil Silvers would have been proud.


KPO says:

The greatest influence in my being skeptical and thereby, by their label a skeptic, alias a denier, flat-earther, etc has not been that I have been overwhelmed by irrefutable scientific logic one way or the other, but by the magnitude of their propaganda, the desperation of their agenda and the stench of their BS. No wonder there is a call to reorganize, to recruit the latest fad “professionals” (an eco-psychologist? WTF is that? ) . If the science was so right, there would be little need of population thought control, it would stand on its own as self evident.


simpleseekeraftertruth says:

Enneagram says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:50 am

“What the heck is an eco-psychologist?”

Eco-psycosis is the manifestation of the condition of enviro-mentalism. Eco-psycologists have found that this malaise can be treated by electro-shock therapy from the output of wind generators but is a process not without its risks due to the phenomena of tele-connect which can transfer the condition, during treatment, to the therapist. One safeguard under development has been called the ‘tinfoilhat’ which is currently with the UK Health & Safety Executive for approval of its efficacy.
The use of wind generators as the source for the therapy has found to be particularly beneficial due to their intermittent and unexpected output which adds an apparently extra dimension of surprise to the treatment which helps those afflicted to come to terms with similar situations in the real world such as rejection of unfounded opinions, hostility to proselytising and receiving an offer of a job not advertised in the Guardian newspaper.
(Whickedpedia. To add comments for incusion to this article, please complete the ‘fellow-traveller’ questionaire first.)


this is silly says:

“George Orwell would be proud.”

George Orwell would be terrified, because lets face it, traditional us-them right-wrong hoorah propaganda isn’t easy even when you have massive state organs and a willingly complicit media to help you implement it. Even in 1984, demonizing the opposing ideologies relied on simple accusations revolving around hazy moral degeneracy and vague ‘they’re out to get us’ sorts of stuff.

But now… hey look, cuddly polar bears! You do like polar bears, right? Anyone who doesn’t is obviously evil. This whole “we know the answer, we don’t care what you say, and we’re going to save you if it kills you” stuff is a whole different level when it comes to promoting crazy statism.


hunter says:

To underscore how stupid CO2 is making people, think about how the promoters are once again rebranding AGW as ‘global climate disruption’:
and of course the University presidents are ready willing and able- if properly funded- to provide the vital leadership required to save the planet!
“Higher Education is necessary to successfully eliminate this threat – a challenge of massive proportion which will require transforming our economy, our institutions, our daily lives within a generation, and hence requires the active leadership of higher education to overcome. No other institution in society has the influence, the critical mass and the diversity of skills needed to be successful.”
And yes, I checked: this is not part of the ‘Daily Onion’.


Lance Wallace says:

I sent in my resignation from AAAS just now.

Today I received my invitation to the first Webinar of
your new website Member Central. This is titled Climate
Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After
ClimateGate. I and I believe many other AAAS members
am personally affronted by your choosing to present
this panel, containing only apologists for the
“consensus” view on climate change. The revelations of
Climategate are a stain on science, and your attempt to
treat it by an intensified PR campaign is distasteful
and self-defeating. How much better it would have been
had you chosen to present a proper debate, with AAAS
scientists (e.g., Lindzen of MIT or Freeman Dyson) on
both sides of the issue.

For the first time, I am ashamed of my membership in
AAAS and request that you terminate my membership


Robert A says:

Who among us, from time to time, has not had the impulse to build a wall around some group or place, declare it a mental institution and send in the shrinks?

Only this time the shrinks are already inside the wall.

Who will shrink the shrinks?