A Change Of Tack

Skeptics need to stop being defensive.

A Mann-made shortage of fossil fuels would be an environmental catastrophe. Every tree in the forest would be chopped down for firewood, Every animal in the wild would be hunted to extinction for food. The air would be unbreathable from the smoke of burning wood.

Alarmists are lying about everything. They lie about the past climate. They lie about the current climate. They lie about the future climate. They lie about the potential for wind and solar. They lie about their fake climate deals with China. They lie about their motivations for blocking pipelines.

These people are the scum of the Earth, and they threaten our children’s future. Why are so called conservative politicians pandering to them?

About stevengoddard

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

42 Responses to A Change Of Tack

  1. thojak says:

    Spot-on, Steve ! Thanks plenty ! Shared on FB in Sweden. 😀

  2. Edmonton Al says:

    I totally agree.
    This goes to my Canadian Government Ministers.
    Although, with an election coming up they may waffle on global warming.

  3. Byron says:

    “Fossil fuels saved man from nature and saved nature from man”
    I can’t remember who said it but it’s certainly true . Due to Greenies having the attention span of gnats They forget that before there was “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” there was “Big rendered whale and penguin” and “Big Firewood” . Humanity has tried biofuels before , they basically suck at powering machinery and cities .

  4. _Jim says:

    Why are so called conservative politicians pandering to them?

    Veritable squishes; afraid of their own shadows given observation of their behavior.

    Afraid to call a ‘spade a spade’; due to exhibition of the ‘battered spouse syndrome’ brought on by repeated mindless, groundless attacks by the vacuous, leftist MSM ‘press’ corps spurred on by the well-funded CAGW/Alarmist Industry in academia, a variety of NGOs and the entrenched, employed-for-life government bureaucrats and pseudo-‘scientists’ working in government agencies like NASA GISS, NOAA’s NCDC and NSDIC.

    They (the conservative politicians) need to grow spines and ‘punch back TWICE as hard’. The chances of this happening, however, are (sadly) near zero.


  5. Gail Combs says:

    I could not believe this when I read it:

    Pope Francis says there must be limits to free speech when it comes to religion

    …he said: “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch in the nose.”

    Throwing a pretend punch, the Pope said: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

    His remarks came a week after Islamic extremists stormed into the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and shot dead 12 members of staff, including some of its best known cartoonists, who for years had poked fun at Islam as well as other religions, including Christianity….

    “There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,” he said.

    “They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.”

    Nice to know the Catholic Pope is an Apologist for the Islamists.

    It is also nice to know that turning the other cheek when insulted is now passé.

    Time to take the gloves off guys!

    • David A says:

      So the Pope has discarded the “new testament, “turn the other cheek”, and the old testament, “an eye for an eye”, and is now advocating murder for insults, even when the insulter’s, are appropriately insulting murderers.

      It’s a funny old world.

      • au1corsair says:

        Forgotten also is that “an eye for an eye” set limits on retribution. Prior to the Code of Hammurabi there was no limit to how much blood could be spilt over a minor insult.


        There is a limit for “provocateurs” but not for vengeance?

        Note that I didn’t say “do nothing when insulted.” Sure! Sue! But keep the response proportional. If calling the Pope’s mother something that the Pope finds insulting means that the Pope now can murder more than seven billion people (excluding the provocateur, of course) then we need to replace that world “leader” with an adult! Proportional response! Is a “punch in the nose” proportional to a word? Hammurabi addressed that issue based on the relative stations of the provocateur, the one insulted, and established a maximum penalty. Circumstances reduced this maximum.

        Today, however, the sky is no limit!

      • Andy DC says:

        I heard that Pope Francis recently met with a transgendered person. I have nothing against anyone, but for a leader of the Catholic church, that is a bit much.

    • _Jim says:

      Gail Combs says February 3, 2015 at 2:23 pm:

      Nice to know the Catholic Pope is an Apologist for the Islamists.

      Be sure you understand the Pope speaking as himself versus teaching on matters of faith; this was the former and not the latter …

      BTW, this part: “Pope Francis says there must be limits to free speech when it comes to religion…” is more an interpretation by some press agent or agency rather than his actual intent or words. The ‘press’, as you will recall, is not your friend nor the ‘friend’ of religion …


      • Gail Combs says:

        Well someone sure is singing from the same hymnal!


        and http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith

        Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that “one cannot make fun of faith” and that anyone who throws insults can expect a “punch.”…

        MSNBC has a video so you can see if that is what he actually said (I do not have sound on this old mammoth of a computer)
        Also has a video

        The Pope says people ‘cannot insult the faith of others’, adding that he would punch someone if they offended his mother, as he debated freedom of speech in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack.

        The Pontiff said there were limits to freedom of expression and that ‘provocateurs’ should not purposely anger religious people…


        The Western World Is Not Really Dedicated to Free Speech
        It’s always wise to allow for the possibility that Pope Francis’ pronouncements have been edited or mistranslated, which might distort his meaning. With this in mind, his comments on the Charlie Hebdo massacre, as reported by the Associated Press, would seem to establish a certain comfort level with the Heckler’s Veto of free speech.

        The AP reports:

        Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one’s mind for the sake of the common good.

        But he said there were limits.

        By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.

        “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

        The problem with this line of thinking is that, to borrow the Pope’s analogy, the limits of speech tend to be defined by whoever punches Dr. Gasparri the hardest. In the case at hand, Charlie Hebdo got away with mocking Christians, Jews, the French, and a variety of other targets. If they hadn’t made fun of Islam, the murdered journalists would still be alive. But they did, so they aren’t.

        If the Pope wishes to speak along these lines, it would be welcome for him to acknowledge that all these concerns about “insulting the faith of others” are voiced by secular Western politicians and media exclusively after Islamist bloodbaths. No one seems even slightly worried about insulting the faith of Catholics. The reasons are obvious.

        To put things even more frankly, there is very little concern in the Muslim-controlled world about giving offense to other faiths. Governments dominated by Islam tend to explicitly demote other religions to second-class status–if they’re lucky. Advocating other religions is a swift route to imprisonment or execution, as Pastor Saeed Abedini can attest, if you can reach him in the Iranian dungeon where he’s rotting away. Can anyone name an Islamic government that fully respects and protects the exercise of other religions within its borders? Respect must be reciprocated, or it becomes a matter of dominance and submission, no matter how much high-minded language surrounds the act of surrender….

  6. Rob says:

    This is something that I have often wondered. How do alarmists know how much CO2 was produced in the pre-Industrial Age due to wood or coal or whale oil or whatever that was used for cooking, lighting, heating, etc? I would think a hell of a lot of fires were burning around the clock around the globe back then.

    I don’t agree that CO2 emissions are a problem, but how is that aspect never discussed as though CO2 production only began with the Industrial Age?

    • gator69 says:

      They don’t know historic levels of CO2. They have cherry picked data that conforms to their faith, and published it as fact.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      The answer may lie in the first map released in January from the OCO-2 satellite project. It shows giant areas of concentration over South America and southern Africa, where burning wood is still the chief method for cooking and clearing land for agriculture.

    • Don says:

      Wood burning puts out particles far more dangerous than CO2.


      “The EPA site below, and other sites, list many greenhouse gas products of burning wood in a wood stove, including nitrous oxide and other oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, methanol, and formaldehyde. Most of these gases have a greenhouse effect impact of 20 to thousands of times that of carbon dioxide, per gram.”

      Click to access victor.pdf

    • DD More says:

      According to Greenland Ice core data for soot levels, it was worse back then.

      Soot ‘influences Arctic climate’

      Human activities have left a visible mark on the Arctic. Measurements from ice cores suggest that soot released by industrial activities has influenced climate change in the Arctic. The researchers looked at ice cores covering the period 1788 to 2002. The natural record shows that concentrations of black carbon, or soot, were particularly bad from 1851 to 1951, Science journal reports.


  7. pyromandcer76 says:

    A little attention to language might be helpful. Too many people cower under the appellation “conservative” while the marxists claim everything “liberal” and “progressive”. (Remember “progressive” became important when private, corporate powers began their “totalitarian” run at America — buying up every city and state government, federal offices, too. They were called Robber Barons at the time) The “moneyed powers” are still here — now it is the bangsters, and the InformationTyranists, and the elitist scions of those Robber Barons who never earned a dime in their lives, all using government largesse to steal.

    There is too little attention to what is being conserved and what makes life livable. The positions today that favor the average person, the working man and woman who want to raise their children to be hardworking, caring individuals, and “social” beings, also belongs to “classical liberal”. Together classical liberal and conservative have provided the American debate — until, until, until. Well, in my book it was some time in the 1970s when “liberals” gave up their rights to equality of opportunity for “war on poverty” and “social justice” all defined by the government. And “conservatives” turned away from “classical liberalism” as political partner and turned to moral/religious domination and approval of crony corporatism as goodness of “business”. I hope we can turn this around, too, with A CHANGE OF TACK.

    • au1corsair says:

      Marxist claims to “everything liberal and progressive” so soiled those terms that most “mainstream liberals” refuse to confess being liberal. For a while, being “progressive” meant being “socialist” which was just like being “communist” (except of course for those damned fascists and Nazis who were just as progressive and socialist as Stalin and Mao)…

      If Marxists want to rid the world of conservatives, they can do that by claiming to be “conservative.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      The little guy is no longer represented at all. We just have two different puppets controlled by the same Masters.

      For example a republican, Senator Aldrich tried to get the Federal Reserve Act passed. When he could not the bill was slightly modified and passed by the Democrats. Bush Senior tried to get the World Trade Organization ratified, when he could not Clinton got it ratified. Bush Jr gave us the Patriot Act and Obummer renewed it… and so it goes. The elite come up with an idea and it gets pushed and pushed and pushed until it passes into law and more of our freedom is lost.

      The Socialist-Capitalist Alliance: the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, and Big Business: Part One

      An example of a long term plan started just after WWII that is still being pushed.
      History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con-Job

      The newest continuation of the destruction of the American Independent farmer is also from the Committee for Economic Development.

      In my state, North Carolina, the CED at the local university was trying to convince the state to raise the minimum standard for the tax classification of a farm from $1,000 gross farm sales to $10,000 gross farm sales. This would knock over 1/2 of US farmers out of a tax sheltered category. Of the 2,128,982 US farms, 1,263,052 (more than half) make less than the $10,000 per year threshold. That means small farmers property taxes would be raised to the tax rate for house lots!

      Much of this comes from Professor Richard England who says “So-called poor farmers are wealthy people compared to the average American. Why should they get a serious tax break and shift part of the tax burden to fellow citizens? Really what they are doing is parking the land and waiting for a good time for development, and enjoying the tax break.” Then how come the farmers I know are janitors, welders, electricians, landscapers….
      (SEE: wwwDOT)wsoctv.com/news/news/special-reports/9-investigates-landowners-avoid-property-taxes-500/nWKSr/

      Of interest is where Professor Richard England is coming from: Property Tax Reform and Smart Growth His idea is to tax LAND very heavily but not buildings or corporations to drive people into cities and the smallest foot print possible.

      This is from the University of North Carolina.
      Property Tax Breaks for Farms in NC: A Development Tool in Need of Reform?
      Notice how this article starts out:

      $200 million. That’s the estimated property tax revenue North Carolina’s 100 counties defer each year under the state’s present-use value (“PUV”) property tax exclusion program for farms and other favored properties. And by “defer,” I really mean “lose,” because most of those deferred PUV taxes will never be collected.…

      The above article originally had the suggestion to raise the tax classification of a farm from $1,000 to $10,000 in NC but that has since been removed (along with my comment.)

      • ”The little guy is no longer represented at all. We just have two different puppets controlled by the same Masters.

        For example a republican, Senator Aldrich tried to get the Federal Reserve Act passed.”

        Gail, I know we share many views and I also noticed that while I was writing this response you commented under my Barry Goldwater analogy below. I will still leave the following reaction largely unchanged.

        Jumping from the present to a time century ago certainly shows the permanency and continuity of Progressive thought—and the political forces exploiting it—but not necessarily of the political parties.

        You are right that Senator Aldrich believed in many of the solutions popular in the Progressive Era. So did our “little guy”.

        Today, some Republicans are just as open to the appeal of Progressive thought. They were elected by the little guy.

        In-between, the little guy elected the same Progressive Democrat so many times that he died in office and the country reacted with the 22nd amendment.

        In 1964, the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater, in an open rebellion against the elites and their Progressive ideology. The little guy gave his opponent one of the most lopsided victories in election history.

        Now, as a card-carrying little guy I know that many of my fellow little guys are hurt badly by Progressivism. I know that enough little guys agree with me but I also know plenty of other little guys who can only be defined by quoting H.L. Mencken:

        Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

        I hate to get it with them and I wish I could watch it unfolding from some safe place with beer and bratwurst, but then I also wish that I was tall, dark and handsome.

        I do not propose—and I am not aware of—any universal alternative to democracy but let’s not kid ourselves. Our constitutional Republic was and is an audacious experiment in self-government. Some Americans still understand this today as the Founders did at the very beginning.

        An unnamed lady: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

        Benjamin Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” *)

        So what do we do about the little guy? Is it time that he takes some responsibility for this fucking mess?

        *) The response is attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as he was leaving Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation.

        Dr. James McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

        • Gail Combs says:

          I was one of the blind, deaf and dumb voters for years. I did not understand why the country was going to he!! and though it was just due to the accumulation of laws.

          From the research I have done since then, I see a guiding purpose that has lasted since the founding of this country. That purpose is to get rid of the Bourgeoisie, the middle class and re-establish an Aristocracy although it will not be called that.

          The USA was not the only rebellion during the 1770s to 1850s. Not only was there the French Revolution but there were others, The Revolutions of 1848 in the German states. Chartism, a working-class movement for political reform in Britain which existed from 1838 to 1858.

          The Holy Roman Empire and it’s satellite aristocracy had been in place for a thousand years. In December of 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor. Emperor Francis II dissolved the Empire on 6 August 1806.

          Karl Marx was ‘courted’ and ‘directed’ by a German baron who was the son of the de facto “chief of staff” to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick ( brother-in-law of king Friedrich II) during the Seven Years’ War. Ludwig von Westphalen’s mother was the descendant of many Scottish and European noble families yet he married his daughter Jenny to Karl Marx.
          (There was talk of offering Duke Ferdinand command of the British troops against the American Upstarts.)

          Marx himself was born into the business class. His father was a lawyer, for businesses, and he owned vineyards. His maternal grandfather was a textile merchant and banker. His grandmother’s first cousin married Nathan Rothschild, founder of the British branch of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Lion Philips’ brother Benjamin was a “banker and industrialist”. Lion’s son Frederick was a banker.

          It was Phillips who bankrolled Marx and 50 years later it was Nathan Rothschild who was executor of Cecil Rhodes will directing the establish of a World Government. This lead directly to the formation of the Milner’s Round Tables like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Economic Development that direct US policy to this day.

          Remember it was the bourgeoisie that ended the hayday of the trade guilds too. With that as background this passage from The Communist Manifesto makes a bit more sense:

          “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

          The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

          The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”
          ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

        • Tony, can you give a nudge to my response to Gail if you find a moment? I think it got tripped up on a word that is part of history but shunned today. Thanks.

        • Gail Combs says:

          That is the group we have in opposition to us. The bankers, the corporate elite (we have ours so we don’t want you challenging us) and the remnants of the old Aristocracy.

          Their weapon is socialism, marxism, communism, environmentalism…. ALL of which are about embracing poverty now for a Utopia later. ALL of which are about giving up our rights to our property.

          Their other weapon is control of our money, economy, newspapers, entertainment, schooling and politics. It is amazing we have any dregs of Classical Liberalism left!

  8. Owen says:

    Hard hitting editorial Mr. Goddard. But right on the money. Until people start calling a spade a spade, the Climate Lying Scum will continue to get away with murder. The murder of civilization, democracy and freedom.

  9. cheshirered says:

    I think a lot of online sceptical commentators have held this view for years – it’s obvious that cheap, abundant energy has driven the greatest beneficial advances in human civilization, and that the bulk of that energy has come from fossil fuels. Factually it’s a fait accompli.
    But influential public politico’s have offered no such conviction, instead pandering to an ever-more assertive green blob. That lack of conviction at decision-maker level is the problem.
    PS: Right now in the UK wind is providing all of 5.8% of our energy needs. try living without the other 94% and see where that renewables miracle gets us. 😦

  10. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    The Green Dream. Before Fossil Fuel There Was “Big rendered whale and penguin” and “Big Firewood”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Don’t forget slavery and serfdom. It was James Watt (steam engine) who actually freed the slaves. That is why slavery is still alive and well in third world countries.

  11. Ernest Bush says:

    Maybe they are pandering because they aren’t conservatives at all? Once you get past that then there is a ton of money to be had for going along with the green blob. The green blob is flush with cash they have received from oil and gas companies, unlike conservative organizations.

  12. Good Lord, Tony Heller sounds like Barry Goldwater!*)

    He’s an extremist! Quick, let’s rerun that Daisy ad and put him away:

    Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets.

    Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government.

    Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.

    I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

    Barry Goldwater
    Presidential nomination acceptance speech, July 16, 1964
    Republican National Convention

    *) Theodore White recorded the shock of a fellow reporter:

    “My God, he’s going to run as Barry Goldwater!”


    • Gail Combs says:

      Now if only we had a presidential candidate who sounded like Barry Goldwater, I would be happy to vote for him since I was too young to vote for him the first time. {:>D

  13. Don says:

    Tony, we could use an edit feature to edit our posts.

    • Gail Combs says:

      WordPress is a canned program Tony is using. Tony is also working a full time job so we put up with WordUnimpressed.

      The missing edit feature doesn’t bother me half as much as the *&^%$ censorship which seems to be getting worse.

  14. waterside4 says:

    As usual Steven, great article and great comments on here, special hat tip to the effervescent Gail Combes.
    It would be extremely useful if someone more talented than I could peruse and comment upon the following.
    It demonstrates the complete corruption of not only my lifetime faith – the Catholic Church – but also the Evangelical, Jewish, Protestant and Presbyterian churches who succumbed to the great satan ethos of global warming many years ago.
    it really is an eye popper and great credit is due to Willi Paul its complier.
    Some of the stuff is really scary, like Jacque Cousteau advocating the execution of 35000 humans to save the planet, Gore and Clintons genocidal policies which are now being enacted by Sean O’Bama, the advent of the Club of Rome and the involvement of people like Carl Sagan, not to mention Lovelock and his Gaia agenda.
    When one sees the involvement of various Popes Princes and heads of state in the scam, it is plain to see we are far from being out of the woods, and I cannot see any hope for the future.
    I would encourage all contributors on this site to have a look at what we are up against..

  15. OrganicFool says:

    Which Is the Bigger Threat to People in Developing Countries: Climate Change or Energy Poverty?

    “For the 1.3 billion people who have no electricity, energy poverty is indeed an existential threat. For the additional 2.3 billion people facing chronic electricity shortages, frequent blackouts, and limited hours of service, energy poverty is a decisive obstacle to development.

    Those 3.6 billion people need access to plentiful, reliable, affordable energy as soon as possible, and for the foreseeable future, that means carbon-based energy. Yet the pampered elites at the UN, the EU, and the White House want all countries, including India and China, where hundreds of millions still have no electricity, to make ‘politically-binding’ commitments to limit their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the inescapable byproduct of carbon-energy use.”


    The Eco-worshippers have no regard for people in poverty, nor do they have much compassion for others. They should show us all the way to salvation by setting an example by vowing to live like the energy-impoverished for just 1 day and see how they like it. They are allowed 1 goat and a solar oven, otherwise they must go find their own water somewhere and carry it on their heads.

    • Gail Combs says:

      But first they should have to knap the flint to make the hand axes to cut down the trees and shape the ALL wood plow. They should have to twist vines into rope to make the harness.

  16. David, UK says:

    Conservatives are just the other side of the same coin. Both Conservatives and Liberals desire to impose their will on the rest of society and will use propaganda and manipulation to achieve this end. Only libertarians truly respect individual rights, including the most important right: to be left the fuck alone.

  17. omanuel says:


    Because conservatives and liberals, communists and capitalists all chose “Better Red Than Dead in 1945!”

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