Climate Conversation Group

Well, this is complete vindication.

Yesterday, I sent “Carbon Dave” Hampton a private email in which I complained about his plagiarism of comments I had posted on his web site. I sent it because he was ignoring my first complaint. I admonished him to admit he had stolen my writing and presented it as his own. Quite unexpectedly, Mr Hampton has just replied and even publicly posted my email on his site. In that post, Mr Hampton admits with much bluster that “it was wrong to do it”. He’s certainly referring to my email but one cannot decipher exactly what “it” is (his writing is not at all lucid). However he does surrender with a “HANDS UP!” and talks about posting my comment so he admits he’s guilty of something and it’s related to my writing.

There’s more tedious detail following, but first I’d like to draw attention to the most important feature of Hampton’s reply to me. When I accused him of stealing my comments, there was no concrete evidence of it. That was because I could not show that my comments were created earlier than his. I hadn’t anticipated the need.

Poirot, we need a confession

What evidence did I have? There was only the date-time stamp on the file containing a copy of my comment and, of course, my clear knowledge of what had transpired. Thin evidence, though, in anybody’s book, because those stamps can be changed and my recollection proves nothing to others. I needed a confession. Perhaps I could shame him into apologising. Read more… »

Situation ‘worse than we thought’?

Only weeks to go before Copenhagen is due to reshape the political world as we know it, and now more signals that it will fail.

Although heads of government met in New York recently, we have been getting mixed signals on the likelihood of them reaching a meaningful agreement. As early as June this year, the UN’s top climate official, Mr Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said global emissions reduction targets are unlikely to be reached in Copenhagen. That was quite a pessimistic outlook from the man who’s supposed to be organising it.

In early September UN Development Chief, Miss Helen Clark (remember her?), was toning down expectations for Copenhagen, even suggesting there might be no deal at all. “I think the conference will be positive but it won’t dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’.”

Less than six weeks ago, the UK Foreign Secretary, Mr David Miliband, said that the Copenhagen conference would fail to produce an effective treaty on cutting greenhouse gases. We were daring to hope we could forget about Copenhagen committing us to any serious reduction in our energy use. Read more… »

This is wild. The story is still developing, because the draft treaty seems to have been discovered by sceptics only a few weeks ago. The draft is difficult to read, as it contains alternative clauses and long sentences and is even ungrammatical in places. Clearly, it’s a work in progress. But it harbours such concepts as offend any freedom-loving thinker, so let’s get the word out and demand explanations of our government. I hope to have more analyses available over the next few days. Janet has kindly allowed us to re-post her article.

Guest post by Janet Albrechtsen (bio here)

SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?

With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come. Read more… »

Marc Morano, well-known scourge of global warming alarmists at Climate Depot, in his latest roundup of news items, has kindly listed our nasty little plagiarism stoush with the ill-behaved Dave Hampton, a.k.a. Carbon Dave, British engineer and “social change advocate”. You can see it in the left-hand column—page down about three times and look for Claim: ‘Climate Alarmist plagiarises comments from skeptic’.

The link goes here to our original story. It’s good publicity for the CCG and the sceptical, realistic position on global warming that we represent here in New Zealand. Let’s hope it attracts more visitors to the site with an interest in reading about the climate news that we should be seeing in our national media.

Published in 1958 by Leonard E. Read, this famous essay continues to delight young and old. It describes the natural system of collaboration, in which the mere insubstantial vapour of human desire recruits people, products and processes in a sublime, perfectly co-ordinated, yet undirected, dance of duty and productive effort leading to universal satisfaction.

“I, Pencil” [Milton Friedman says] illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information that “will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.”

Clearly, Leonard Read wrote this modern morality tale to teach economics, yet it succeeds on many levels and today provides useful instruction about the foolishness of calculating an item’s so-called “carbon footprint”. For who could possibly know everything done in every capacity contributing to the item’s eventual production? Such knowledge is literally impossible.

Yet such extensive knowledge is required, if we are to determine all of the “carbon” used in an item’s design, production and distribution.

Here is that story; it is a cautionary tale against the hubris that tempts us all with: “We know everything”. When it drifts away from production, read it simply as a guide to economic principle. Read more… »

A couple of days ago, a headline appeared over at Climate Depot, illustrated with a bunch of hypodermic syringes: Don’t call them Climate Deniers, Label them ‘Pushers’ of a Drug called ‘Doubt’. I could see where that was going, so I shot over there to have a look.

He said

It is Carbon Dave’s Diary, which I’ve not seen before. Dave Hampton’s an engineer and social change advocate (whatever that means). The article that Marc Morano had picked up on was a polemic against climate realists who doubt humanity’s responsibility for global warming. Oddly, there’s a spelling error in the very headline, which is also in the html link. Morano was observant enough to correct it when he posted it, but at this moment it’s still there on Carbon Dave’s site.

His article is funny enough, creatively picturing doubt as a drug to be fed to the gullible. But you can read it for yourself; I have an odd complaint to make about Carbon Dave’s honesty. You see, he’s used my comments as though he wrote them himself — he’s plagiarised them. Maybe I ought to be flattered, but it’s annoyed me. Read more… »

Well, enough, already! We finally got our dander up with all the fuss over the approaching Copenhagen conference and the New Zealand ETS. It’s all Sick, Sick, Sick.

Lots of people, including thousands of scientists, question whether global warming is occurring at all and, if it is, whether mankind is responsible. There is good evidence for their questions. The alarmists are doing their best to marginalise and exclude such people from participation in debating their future. The sceptics are accused of obstruction and even crimes against humanity. They have been bulldozed out of their jobs—a monstrous injustice. It is time to protest.

Vote here

Vote in our online poll and we’ll make sure your message gets through to New Zealand’s decision-makers. Tell lots of people.

So much nonsense is being bruited abroad without adequate coverage in the regular news media that it cries out for intervention. Even my coverage is better than nothing.

But more than that, there’s now a campaign backed by environmental organisations that emphasises time ticking down on the climate crisis. It’s aimed, of course, at Copenhagen and the world leaders who carry the responsibility for reaching an agreement to “save” the planet.

So here’s a counter-campaign and I’ll do my best to bring regular news as well.

Help us, spread our name around

Our campaign is called “sckscksck” and it’s a protest against the “tcktcktck” campaign that seeks restrictions on our freedom and would withhold improvements from developing countries.

We strongly object to labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We object to preventing people from using energy just because the process emits carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a plant food.