Orwell Explains Why This Blog Generates So Much Controversy

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

– George Orwell

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Orwell Explains Why This Blog Generates So Much Controversy

  1. philjourdan says:

    Kind of strange that Orwell is now seen as on the right. IN his time, he was solidly left.

  2. Chuck says:

    Keep it coming Mr. Goddard!

  3. Morgan says:

    Too much truth is bad for mankind. What about the Cause™

  4. Shazaam says:

    Didn’t the laughingstock-in-chief issue an “executive order” outlawing truth?

    Based on his administration’s track record, they appear to be following that “order” slavishly.

  5. JN says:

    Timely reminder of Orwell. This blog documents some of the most famous NEWSPEAK of our time: http://1984newspeak.blogspot.com/

  6. Part of the controversy generated on the ‘skeptical’ side is that many of your posts come off as paranoid, arrogant, or aggressively accusatory. Sometimes making a point in a calm voice is more devastating that using words such as scam, con, fraud. Even if those words are accurate, a little bit of understatement is extremely powerful. Take the video of your presentation. You came across understated and it was highly effective.

    • Morgan says:

      Yes, because the alarmists are so understated.

      My favorite quote from Richard Lindzen, “…having two miles of ice over your head, can be….well, it can be problematic”

    • That explains the quarter of a million page views in the last 72 hours.


      • Luke of the D says:

        So Will… are you saying that warmists are not “paranoid, arrogant, or aggressively accusatory?” Please elaborate on that point. I find the idea of warmists being reasonable and listing to skeptics fascinating! Please list examples!

    • Will, you are right that Tony Heller was understated but why on earth should Steven Goddard copy him? It would look and sound phony.

      How is this for understated:

    • rishrac says:

      Excuse me? The CAGW people right from the start has been anything but arrogant paranoid and aggressively accusatory before most of the people on here started posting. At best CAWG is flawed, at worst it is fraud. And very calmly, I think it is fraud, a scam, a con. If you are fixing data, that’s fraud. If you don’t release information as to how you got the results you did, you’re hiding something. If the original records are in a landfill in Denmark, there is something wrong. If every model is incorrect, the AGW theory is wrong in part or whole. If you are pushing a political agenda that will cause economic devastation on such flimsy science, then I see it as a connection between certain groups of people and organizations. If I see the UN praising petty despots and communists, then I wonder about the agenda you are pushing via the ‘science’.

      I’m not a real scientist am I? I’m also delusional, sick, have a complex towards authority. A denier, what’s the meaning of that? As in the holocaust, who is saying that, skeptics? Who has advocated that we are criminals for the future death of millions? Now you are offended? You want to have a civilized conversation? How about starting with the admission that CAWG is wrong?

      The climate is not supporting your agenda or your science.

      • Will Nitschke is not a catastrophic warmist.

        I understand he—like some other skeptics—doesn’t share or appreciate “Steven Goddard’s” style and political views. And like so many others he would like a common front against the alarmists. Will believes that the Goddard approach is not as effective as it could be if things were done Will’s way and he says so. That’s his good right but when proposing how to increase the reach, he seems to disregard that Goddard built his audience not just on his data but also on his unique style rather than despite of it.

        I wish some of my fellow skeptics did not push discredited socialist ideas or ridiculous conspiracy theories but I’m too old to believe I can do anything about it. People will do what they want, right or wrong.

        Demography is destiny.

  7. Steve Case says:

    Heller & Goddard aren’t exactly a Jekyll & Hyde but there is a difference, and I was pleased with the video presentation. The layout of the progression starting with that IPCC AR One graph showing the Medieval Warm period and the changes over the next two decades was a real eye opener.

    What this country needs is another series of ads from Harry & Louise focusing on Global Warming. Such a campaign besides containing a good dollop of stuff from this blog would unfortunately run many millions of dollars.


  8. _Jim says:

    re: Steve Case says on July 30, 2014 at 2:23 am
    What this country needs is another series of ads from Harry & Louise focusing on Global Warming.

    They would probably do it too; they have ‘worked both sides of the street’ on ‘government’ healthcare (hired to speak against Hillarycare in 1994, but for Obamacare in 2009) according to the wiki link in your post.

    They appear to be simply ‘mouthpieces for hire’. Have-payola, will-travel (and speak on behalf of any ‘paying’ cause.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s